Originally posted by: Mr Jimmy Pop
Friend of mine's kid was hanging around in a new hampshire store parking lot. They asked to search his car, he said he would not consent to a search. So they impounded it until they can get a warrant to search it.
That doesn't sound very constitutional to me. I don't know if it makes a difference or not, but he passed the field sobriety test before they had the car impounded. He was not pulled over. Car was parked in a grocery store parking lot.
Yes, they can. Cars (and their owner/occupants) have a lessened expectation of privacy so a cop needs only probable cause. Courts have held an officer doesn't need to obtain a warrant at the time of seizure for cars.
Regarding impoundment, theoretically cops don't even need a warrant to search the car (but maybe they are covering their asses). Cops can perform an inventory search when impounded without warrant. Rationale is that they need to do that to ensure they catalog any of the owner's belongings for safekeeping. Obviously cops also use it as the opportunity to search for contraband.
edit: Here are the exceptions to the 4th Amend.'s warrant requirement:
Exigent circumstances (ex: searching for an armed suspect and looking for a discarded weapon)
Search incident to arrest (pat downs after a lawful arrest)
Consent (obvious)
Automobile (as discussed above)
Plain view (ex: cops lawfully in someone's house and they see a bong sitting out)
Inventory (discussed above)
Special needs (ex: drug testing rail engineers; school locker searches)
Terry Stop and Frisk (the whole NYC thing, this standard is even less than probable cause, called "reasonable suspicion")
edit 2: The 4th Amend. talks about "unreasonable search and seizure." The courts have spent years defining and coming up with tests to determine whether a person has that reasonable expectation of privacy or not. Without it, the government can perform a search and seizure without going to a judge for a warrant.
Post edited by CaptPlanet at 4/12/2014 9:23:34 AM