Search and Seizure

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not scribe those words with the automobile in mind. The issues involving the seizure and search of automobiles and their occupants were, thus, addressed by the Supreme Court in their constitutional interpretations recorded in case law. With the advent of the automobile in 1914 through the turn of the new millennium, the easy mobility of the automobile and its operation on public roads has influenced the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution. The issue of privacy in an automobile is, therefore, considered to be dramatically diminished. These factors have played an important role in the eyes of the court.
Police officers do not need a warrant to search a vehicle as long as the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle may contain contraband or evidence of a crime. Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. This can be almost anything depending on that individual officer’s beliefs, bias, preferences or tendency to racially profile individuals. It is my opinion that officers do indeed “find” probable cause if they decide that they need to investigate further for whatever reason. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. The issue here lies in what some officers may or may not label as probable cause.
Search and seizure is not a bad thing as long as it is handled properly by the arresting officer. When officers fail to go by the book and exercise good judgment not only are they leaving their department open for liability they are also violating the rights of individuals. Another repercussion of bad policing is in the form of negative publicity. When officers make bad choices and decide to search a vehicle and they have no legitimate reason it creates negative publicity for the department and affects public opinions of police in general.