If a police car is following you with its siren blaring or emergency lights flashing, pull over to the right quickly (but safely) and come to a complete stop in a safe place.
Pulling over right away isn't an admission of guilt. It just means that you were alert to everything that was happening around you. Also, by stopping as soon as you can, you’ll have a better chance of figuring out exactly where and how the officer says you violated any traffic laws. This information can be useful should you and a lawyer later need to prepare a defense.
Pull over in a way that will be most likely to calm down an angry or annoyed traffic officer. Use your turn signal to indicate any lane changes from left to right, and slow down fairly quickly, but not so quickly that the officer will have to brake to avoid hitting you. Pull over as far to the right as possible, so that the officer won’t have to worry about being clipped by vehicles in the right lane when coming up to your window.
After you’ve pulled over to a safe spot, you should normally turn off your engine. At this point, you might want to show the officer a few other token courtesies. You have little to lose and perhaps something to gain.
Roll down your window all the way. Put out a cigarette if you have one and discard any chewing gum (within the car). You might also want to place your hands on the steering wheel, and, if it’s dark, turn on your interior light. These actions will tend to allay any fears the officer might have. After all, police officers have been killed in traffic-stop situations, and the officer’s approach to the vehicle is potentially the most dangerous moment.
Your dignity might be offended a little at this point, but remember that you’re just doing a few simple things to put the officer in an optimal frame of mind.
Also, stay in the car until and unless the officer directs you to get out. Finally, don’t start rummaging through your back pocket for your wallet and license, or in your glove compartment for your registration, until the officer asks you for them. For all the officer knows, you could be reaching for a weapon.
As previously noted, you don't want to get out of your car during a traffic stop unless you're told to do so by an officer. But if the officer requests you get out, do you have to comply?
An officer who stops you for an alleged traffic violation has the right to insist that you and your passengers get out of your car. (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997).) Clearly, you should get out if asked or instructed to do so. Simply put: You should follow the officer’s directives but begin with the assumption that you should remain in the car. And you should also assume that the officer is on alert, ready to interpret a failure to follow instructions as a threat of danger or an attempt to flee.
In general, a police officer who stops you for a traffic violation is not allowed to search your vehicle. There are several exceptions to this general rule. However, it's important to note that the applicability of these exceptions might depend on the laws of your state.
After pulling you over, an officer will watch for any sort of "furtive movement." A sudden lowering of one or both shoulders, for example, will tip the officer off that you’re attempting to hide something under the seat.
An officer enforcing a traffic stop isn’t looking just for furtive movements. Officers will look for anything incriminating that’s in “plain view” (like open beer or wine bottles, joints, or roach clips). Discovery of one item in plain view often leads to a thorough search that reveals more incriminating or illegal objects.
An officer who has any reason to suspect that you might be dangerous has a right to conduct a quick “pat-down” search of your outer clothing. (Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).) Upon feeling any weapon-like object during the pat-down, the officer can reach in and get it. The officer can also seize anything during a proper frisk for weapons that obviously feels like contraband.
Also, if the police officer reasonably believes you’re dangerous and might gain control of weapons, the officer can search areas within the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. (Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).)
If you’re arrested and your car is towed, the police may generally make an “inventory search" afterward, even if they have no reason to suspect there's anything illegal inside.
What if the officer asks to search your cellphone? May you politely decline? The rule is that officers generally may not search cellphones without warrants—or your consent.
Drivers being hostile has led to many a problem with police officers. So too has saying more than necessary.
You should generally let the officer do the talking, responding where appropriate. For example, when asked to hand over your license, registration, and proof of insurance, you should say something like, “Okay,” or, “Sure,” and fork over the documents.
Some lawyers caution that an officer who pulls you over for a traffic violation has decided whether to give you a ticket before approaching your car. (They also acknowledge that rude behavior will sometimes be rewarded with a ticket, though you would have otherwise received a warning.) These lawyers warn that officers will sometimes act as though they might change their minds if you cooperate so that they can get information or an admission out of you.
It can be tough to know exactly what to say to an officer’s queries, but whatever you do, you shouldn’t argue. And you should know that you have a right to remain silent, although you might have to actually say something to invoke that right.
Simple traffic violations often don’t require the assistance of an attorney. More serious accusations—like a charge of driving under the influence or possession of drugs—often do. If you want to know how the law in your state applies to your situation, consult an experienced criminal defense attorney. A knowledgeable lawyer can determine whether there might be a basis for a motion to suppress evidence and otherwise guide you through the process.
]]>Where a typical traffic detention is concerned, officers generally must have reasonable suspicion that the driver or someone in the vehicle is committing or has committed a crime. (Though exceptions, such as sobriety checkpoints, do exist.)
In other words, police generally can't just make a traffic stop because they have a hunch something is amiss. For a traffic stop to be legal, police normally need an objective reason to believe someone has broken the law, though a minor traffic violation is usually enough.
In Delaware v. Prouse, the Supreme Court considered the case of a man prosecuted for marijuana possession. (440 U.S. 648 (1979).) In the course of a traffic stop, the police officer had seen marijuana on the defendant's car floor.
The officer testified that he hadn’t seen the defendant’s vehicle violate any traffic laws before he conducted the detention. He hadn't observed any equipment violations, nor had he witnessed any suspicious activity. He enforced the stop only so that he could check the driver’s license and the vehicle’s registration. He wasn’t acting in accordance with any established guidelines or procedures. The Court held that his kind of “spot check,” left entirely to the police officer’s discretion, is unconstitutional.
Every situation is a little different. In some scenarios, it might be obvious that the police had a reason to pull you over. For instance, if you ran a stop sign or were speeding, you've broken a law and the police are certainly justified in making a traffic stop.
However, in other cases, the reason for a traffic stop might not be so clear and the legalities might be debatable. But, whatever you might think about why an officer pulled you over, there isn't much you can do about it at that moment. Arguing with an officer is typically a bad idea. Anytime you get pulled over, being courteous and compliant with law enforcement is the way to go.
The time and place to dispute the legality of a traffic stop are in court. If you believe you were unlawfully detained by police, get in contact with an attorney who can help you. A qualified attorney can review the police report, assess your case, and let you know if you have any viable argument that the traffic stop was illegal. If a judge agrees that the stop was unlawful, you might be able to get the case thrown out with a motion to suppress evidence or through some other legal avenue.
In terms of a DUI arrest, the original stop might or might not be based on an officer's suspicion of drunk driving. For instance, officers normally pull drivers over when they observe indications of impairment such as swerving or ridiculously slow driving. But in other cases, an officer might stop a motorist for a minor traffic violation (like a stop sign or speeding violation) and notice signs of intoxication (like the odor of alcohol) during the traffic stop. In both situations, the stop is valid, and the officer is allowed to conduct a reasonable DUI investigation.
The legality of the traffic stop is just the first part of the analysis. For a DUI prosecution to be lawful, the driver's arrest must be supported by probable cause. In other words, police need a reasonable basis to believe the motorist was driving under the influence.
In most states, a DUI is defined as being in actual physical control of a vehicle while:
In some cases, the motorist's driving pattern will provide some of an officer's probable cause. And during the stop, the officer might note other symptoms of drug or alcohol use such as:
It's also common for officers to ask drivers to complete field sobriety tests (FSTs) or a roadside breath test. FSTs and prearrest breath tests are typically optional. But if a driver consents, the results are fairly considered in the probable cause determination.
If, on balance, the facts could lead a reasonable person to believe the driver is under the influence, the officer is legally justified in making a DUI arrest.
So, what happens if there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop or probable cause for the arrest? Generally, any evidence obtained subsequent to the illegal police action will be inadmissible in court.
To exclude illegally obtained evidence from consideration at trial, a defendant would normally need to file a motion to suppress evidence in court. A successful motion to suppress can ultimately lead to the dismissal of a DUI charge. (Of course, a motion to suppress is just one of the many ways to fight a DUI charge.)
If you've been arrested or have questions about the legalities of a traffic stop, get in contact with a qualified attorney. An experienced attorney can tell you how the law applies to the facts of your case and help you decide on the best course of action.
]]>In some instances, an officer who has stopped a vehicle has a legal justification for searching it. Other times, that justification doesn't exist. For example, if an officer doesn't witness any apparent traffic violation or have any other objective basis for pulling a car over in the first place, any evidence that turns up from a car search will probably be inadmissible in court.
Even when there's a lawful basis for a traffic stop, an officer who issues you a citation can't search you or your car without a basis to suspect that you are armed and dangerous or involved in criminal activity (other than the minor traffic violation).
A 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case—about unauthorized rental car drivers—illustrates the principle that the police can't search a car just because they've stopped it. The practical rule from that case is that police may not search a rental car after a traffic stop based only on the fact that the person driving isn't on the rental agreement. Someone who has permission to use a car from the person who rented the car doesn't lose all Fourth Amendment rights merely by not being on the rental agreement. (Byrd v. U.S., 138 S.Ct. 1518 (2018).)
Despite the rule above, there are plenty of circumstances where officers can search cars they've stopped. Laws in many states authorize police officers to arrest drivers for minor traffic offenses, such as speeding or failure to wear a seatbelt. In these and other arrest situations, the validity of a subsequent search depends on the circumstances.
After arresting an occupant, the police typically may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle if it reasonably appears that the arrestee might access the vehicle during the arrest or that the vehicle contains:
The ensuing search must be limited to areas that might contain the items the searching officer reasonably expects to find.
If, for example, officers have arrested a motorist for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed him, and placed him in a locked patrol car, they don't have a lawful basis to search the car. The driver isn't able to access the car at the time of the search, nor can the officers reasonably expect to find evidence of the crime for which they arrested him: driving on a suspended license. (Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).)
Even without an arrest, an officer who sees, hears, or smells something suspicious during a traffic stop can search the car—without a warrant. For instance, if the officer sees a baggie containing white powder in the back seat, the officer would likely have probable cause that illegal drugs are in the vehicle.
Even where no other justification exists, police can search a car if the driver gives permission. An officer doesn’t have to tell the driver that giving consent is optional, but it's perhaps easier in theory than in practice to say "no" to a police officer.
The trick with consent is that it must have been "freely and voluntarily given" to be legit. Consent that is coerced is invalid, and so is the search that follows. To determine whether consent was voluntary, courts look at all the circumstances of the encounter. (Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968).)
When police lawfully impound a vehicle, they're allowed to open it and take inventory of the loose contents. It doesn't matter if police don't have probable cause, because an inventory search—at least in theory—isn't designed to gather evidence. Instead, the theory of inventory searches is that when police tow and store a car, they should be able to make a record of what's inside. An inventory search allows them to protect the car's contents. It also allows them to safeguard themselves—against any dangerous items in the car and claims that they stole or mishandled items.
If police run across incriminating evidence during an inventory search, the evidence can typically be used against the defendant.
If you face criminal charges, regardless of whether they stem from a car search, consult an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney who knows the law in your jurisdiction will be able to explain the relevant rules, including any exceptions to the general principles discussed in this article.
]]>An officer pulls you over for a minor traffic violation, eventually hands you a ticket, and then has you wait—for a trained dog to sniff your car. Is that legal?
In Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, the police can’t extend a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. Otherwise, though, officers are generally entitled to use dogs to sniff cars during traffic stops.
On March 27, 2012, at just around midnight (when else?), a Nebraska police officer saw a Mercury Mountaineer “veer slowly onto the shoulder” of a highway “for one or two seconds and then jerk back onto the road.” (Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348 (2015).) Knowing shoulder-driving to be illegal, Officer Struble of the Valley Police Department pulled over the SUV.
Officer Struble happened to be a K-9 officer and have his pooch Floyd riding along. Struble approached the driver and had the usual license/registration/proof-of-insurance exchange with driver Dennys Rodriguez. The officer gathered the paperwork and asked Rodriguez to come with him to the patrol car. Rodriguez asked if he had to, was told he didn’t, and decided to stay in his car with his passenger, a man by the name of Pollman.
Struble ran a records check on Rodriguez and then returned to the SUV and talked to Pollman. He requested the passenger’s driver’s license and questioned him about what the two men were up to. (Pollman explained that they were returning to Norfolk after traveling to look at a for-sale Mustang.)
Struble ran another records check, this one on Pollman. The officer called for a second officer and began writing Rodriguez a warning ticket for the driving violation. He approached the Mountaineer for the third time; he issued and explained the warning to Rodriguez and returned each man’s documents. About 20 minutes had passed from the time of the pull-over.
Here’s where it got interesting—and why the case made it to the highest court. Officer Struble:
During the second trip around, Floyd indicated that the car held drugs. At this point, seven or eight minutes had passed from the point Struble issued the warning ticket. The police then searched and found a big bag of methamphetamine in the vehicle.
The question for the Supreme Court was whether the dog sniff was legal. If not, the methamphetamine—and the drug case against Rodriguez—would have to be tossed.
Here’s what the Court said, by a six-to-three vote.
Police dog sniffs during lawful traffic stops are legal under the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution (though state constitutions might provide otherwise). (Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005).)
But an officer who doesn’t have reasonable suspicion may not extend a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The officer who pulls a driver over may not prolong the detention “beyond the time reasonably required to complete” the stop’s “mission.”
An officer’s traffic-stop mission reasonably includes tasks like checking the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance and running a warrant check. But a dog sniff isn’t part of it. Once tasks related to the traffic infraction are or should be complete, the detention must end. The central issue actually isn’t whether the dog sniff happens before or after the ticket had been issued—it’s whether the sniff makes the stop take any longer than it otherwise would.
The Supreme Court sent Rodriguez’s case back down to a lower court to determine whether Officer Struble reasonably suspected criminal activity that would justify the extended detention. But the facts as recited by the Court suggested that he didn’t. In that case, the sniff would have been illegal, and the methamphetamine would be inadmissible in court. Likewise, in any case where the police unnecessarily drag out a roadside detention in order to fetch the K-9, any turned-up evidence will normally be no good. (For exceptions and background on the Fourth Amendment, see Understanding Search-and-Seizure Law.)
]]>The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizure. But the U.S. Supreme Court has said that in certain circumstances it’s reasonable—and therefore legal—for police to search passengers and their things.
As a general rule, police are supposed to have a warrant before they conduct any search. But there are lots of exceptions to this warrant rule.
A search of a vehicle is one such exception—often called the “automobile exception.” To inspect the interior of a car, the police usually need probable cause to believe they’ll find incriminating evidence inside—not a warrant.
("Inventory searches" are another exception to the warrant rule that could apply to passenger searches.)
Once the police have probable cause, everything inside the car that could conceal the item they’re looking for is fair game. For example, imagine police have probable cause to look for drugs and find a backpack in a car. It doesn’t matter whom the backpack belongs to (passenger or driver)—the officers may look inside the bag because it could contain drugs.
Example: Officer Colombo pulls a car over for making an illegal left turn. Inside the car are four teenagers. Colombo notices a hypodermic syringe—that, upon further inspection, he observes contains traces of drugs—in the driver’s shirt pocket. Colombo orders everyone out of the car, frisks them, and begins to search the car for drugs. The officer picks up a purse from the back seat; one of the passengers identifies it as hers. Officer Colombo opens the purse, finds drugs inside, and places the purse’s owner under arrest. The arrest and drug seizure were valid. Because Officer Colombo had the right to search the car for drugs, he also had the right to search items belonging to passengers that could reasonably contain drugs. (Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999).)
Example: Officer Colombo pulls a car over for making an illegal left turn. Inside the car are four teenagers. The officer notices an illegal automatic weapon sticking out under the front passenger seat. Colombo orders all the occupants out of the car, frisks them, and begins to search the car for other weapons. He picks up a wallet from the back seat; one of the passengers identifies it as his. Officer Colombo carefully searches the wallet and finds drugs inside. He places the wallet’s owner under arrest. This seizure and arrest for drug possession are probably not valid. Because Officer Colombo had the right to search the car for weapons-related evidence, he also had the right to search property belonging to passengers that could reasonably contain weapons. Because no weapon could be concealed in the wallet, the search of the wallet was arguably illegal and the arrest based on it invalid.
Having probable cause to search a vehicle doesn’t automatically give police the right to search a passenger’s person or clothing. But some circumstances do allow police to search passengers. For instance, an officer who legally arrests a passenger can then search the person “incident to arrest.” Police are also allowed to pat down (or frisk) a passenger they reasonably suspect is armed and dangerous. (U.S. v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948); U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973); Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).)
Search-and-seizure law is complicated and frequently changes. It’s also possible that your state’s law provides greater protection than the federal law discussed in this article. So, if you’ve been arrested, get in touch with an experienced criminal defense attorney.
]]>Police officers are allowed to search an impounded vehicle to conduct an “inventory search.” An inventory search doesn’t require a warrant or probable cause, because it isn’t supposed to be a search for evidence of a crime. Courts have upheld inventory searches on the theory that the police should be able to search the car to protect the owner from theft of any items in it, and to protect themselves from any claims of theft. (Officers can prove what was and was not in the vehicle when they took control of it by creating an inventory.) Another reason courts have allowed inventory searches is police protection: Officers should be free to search for anything in the car that could endanger them, such as weapons or explosives.
How thoroughly can the police search an impounded car? It depends on the jurisdiction. In some states police officers can search every nook and cranny of the car, while in others a brief sweep for items is all that’s permitted. In almost all states officers can take inventory of any object in plain view—that is, any object readily apparent to the naked eye.
If the police impound your car and find evidence of a crime in it, you may want to contest the search; if you win, the evidence won’t be admissible in court. But, winning this argument can be tough. You will have to prove that the officers acted unreasonably or in bad faith, such as by purposely breaking the law to impound or search your vehicle. Honest mistakes by officers aren’t enough to win an illegal inventory search argument.
The following are situations in which courts have found inventory searches illegal:
Broad Definition of "Border"
Customs or immigration officials may conduct warrantless searches without probable cause not only at borders, but at their "functional equivalents," such as international airports. Essentially, neither citizens nor noncitizens have Fourth Amendment rights in these situations.
Permanent Checkpoints
Border officials may stop motorists at fixed checkpoints that are reasonably located relative to the border, to question motorists even in the absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime, let alone probable cause. (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).)
Roving Patrols
Officials on roving patrol generally need reasonable suspicion before they can stop a car.
Getting Professional Help
Whether the stop and search in your case was valid will depend on the facts and this complex, evolving body of law. You'll need the help of an experienced criminal defense attorney to know where you case falls within the "valid-not-valid" spectrum of cases.