Search and Seizure in the Vehicular Context: Fourth Amendment Issues (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Sept. 15, 1999 |
| Report Number |
RL30316 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
T.J. Halstead, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that "The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized." The Supreme Court has interpreted this language as imposing a presumptive warrant
requirement on all searches and seizures predicated upon governmental authority, and has ruled that
any violations of this standard will result in the suppression of any material or information derived
therefrom.
However, the Court has also recognized that certain circumstances render the obtainment of a
warrant impractical or unnecessary, and, accordingly, has crafted exceptions to an otherwise
inflexible constitutional standard. Among the various exceptions established by the Court are
warrantless searches based on exigent circumstances, plain view seizures, searches incident to a valid
arrest, and searches where law enforcement needs surpass the warrant requirement. Some of the most
pervasive and controversial exceptions recognized by the Court have centered on law enforcement
authority to conduct warrantless searches and investigatory detentions in the vehicular context.
Recent Court decisions in this area have imbued law enforcement officers with greater authority to
act without a warrant during traffic stops, based upon the previously established automobile
exception and the need for adequate protective measures to ensure police safety. This apparent
expansion of police power has led many commentators to assert that Fourth Amendment protections
have been essentially eviscerated in the automobile and traffic stop setting. Upon examining the
scope of law enforcement authority subsequent to these decisions, however, it appears that basic
Fourth Amendment privacy strictures still pertain to traffic detentions, with the recent Court rulings
simply applying previously established rationales to new factual scenarios.
