Zuckerberg Tells Angela Merkel Facebook Is On The Hate Speech Censorship Case

New Jersey Supreme Court OKs Warrantless Searches Of Vehicles

from the more-exception,-less-rule dept

Tue, Sep 29th 2015 11:13pm — Tim Cushing

We've written before about how limited the Fourth Amendment is when applied to drivers and their vehicles. A number of court decisions -- along with continually-reinforced exceptions -- have allowed police to pull over motorists for any reason imaginable. Once they have someone pulled over, it's just a matter of obtaining consent from the driver or, failing that, coming up with a reasonable approximation of probable cause. (Drug dogs are a favorite.) After that, no warrant is needed to search the vehicle, along with the contents of any container found within it.

The "automobile exception" is the federal standard. Not every state has adopted it but a majority of them have. Until recently, New Jersey hadn't. Under its former standard, the motor vehicle exception did not exist. Police officers looking to search a vehicle without a warrant needed to make use of the "exigent circumstances" exception.

To no one's surprise, obtaining warrants was the least popular option. When "exigent circumstances" failed to present themselves, cops would instead try to obtain consent. It sounds like New Jersey's stricter reading of constitutional rights meant officers were less inclined to perform warrantless searches, but this is only an illusion. In striking down this requirement, the New Jersey high court presented a clearer picture of what was actually happening in the absence of a motor vehicle exception.

The New Jersey high court concluded that imposing the added condition of an emergency was impractically strict and led to an unintended surge of highway stops in which police induced drivers to allow them to look through their cars.

Inducement was the primary tactic. The state also offered an expedited warrant request system, but it failed to speed up the process.

[Justice Barry T. Albin] said the state experimented with “telephonic” search warrants in which officers connected with the court remotely through phone conferencing. But the system, he said, failed to live up to its promises and resulted in “unacceptably prolonged roadway stops.”

The state court system tested out the technology in 2012 with a pilot program. In one county where it was tried out, it took an average of 59 minutes for police to get a roadside warrant approved. In another part of the state, it often took as long as two hours.

So, this didn't work. A footnote from the dissenting opinion indicates why. It's not that the system wasn't fast enough. It's that it was only used when other options had failed.

According to the State, the pilot program “by its very design, reveals why telephonic warrants are not likely to emerge as a viable replacement for the automobile exception.” The State contends that “[a]ll of the participants in the pilot program understood that police officers would continue their post-Pena-Flores practice of requesting motorists to consent to a search” prior to trying to obtain a telephonic warrant.

This "consent first" approach to vehicle searches is what stretched out these stops to nearly an hour, not the telephonic warrant system. But with the Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision making prolonged traffic stops Constitutionally-unfeasible, this two-step process for effecting a search of a vehicle is no longer an option.

Not that the consent route was any better. The court's decision notes that induced-consent searches have been problematic in the past:

Not long ago, the State Police subjected minority motorists to consent searches on a grossly disproportionate basis because of racial profiling. As a result of the abuse of consent searches, the State Police were placed under the supervision of federal monitors pursuant to a consent decree.

[...]

Given the widespread abuse of consent searches, this Court in Carty forbade police officers from making consent-search requests unless they had reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe a vehicle contained contraband or evidence of an offense. Still, that standard does not remove the coercive effect of a search request made to a motorist stopped on the side of a road. We recognized in Carty “the inherently coercive predicament of the driver who is stopped on the highway and faced with the perceived choice of either refusing consent to search and therefore increasing the likelihood of receiving a traffic summons, or giving consent to search in the hope of escaping with only a warning.” Under those and other like circumstances, “it is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that the individual feels compelled to consent.”

Despite these concerns, the court finds the requirement of a warrant to search a stopped motorist's vehicle is too constrictive. It weighs law enforcement's interests against the Fourth Amendment and -- surprise -- finds in favor of law enforcement.

The current approach to roadside searches premised on probable cause -- “get a warrant” -- places significant burdens on law enforcement. On the other side of the ledger, we do not perceive any real benefit to our citizenry by the warrant requirement in such cases -- no discernible advancement of their liberty or privacy interests. When a police officer has probable cause to search a car, is a motorist better off being detained on the side of the road for an hour (with all the accompanying dangers) or having his car towed and impounded at headquarters while the police secure a warrant? Is not the seizure of the car and the motorist’s detention “more intrusive than the actual search itself”?

It's always disheartening to hear a court conclude that, after weighing all factors, there's not enough of a net gain to civil liberties to prevent further diminishment of Fourth Amendment protections. The court apparently feels motorists would be happier having their rights violated than their car impounded or their traffic stop extended. If this is true, there's no reason for this ruling. Citizens are perfectly capable of weighing these factors and making these decisions themselves. That's exactly what consent is.

Rather than stay ahead of the curve in terms of Constitutional protections, New Jersey's court has opted to let law enforcement needs take priority over the privacy of its residents.

A914StatevWilliam (PDF)A914StatevWilliam (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, fourth amendment, new jersey, vehicles, warrantless search

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 29 Sep 2015 @ 9:29pm

Must have missed that bit
I think I need to go re-read the constitution, apparently I missed the footnote saying that any of the 'rights' listed can be ignored if complying would be just too much of a hassle.

'Getting a warrant is difficult' is a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to be difficult to be allowed to search through someone's possessions, I just wish more courts stopped bending over backwards for anyone with a badge and recognized this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 30 Sep 2015 @ 12:12am

Well, hello?
The current approach to roadside searches premised on probable cause -- “get a warrant” -- places significant burdens on law enforcement.

Why would one spell something out in the Bill of Rights if there was no incentive for the government to do otherwise? Of course the Bill of Rights places significant burdens on law enforcement. That's its whole point.

When are U.S. marathon runners going to declare that they should not need to run more than 5km for their races since it would place a significant burden on them to run a multiple of that distance?

The rules for the government are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. If you don't want to go the distance, get a job elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 12:33am

Another leap forward to a police state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 1:25am

Just another rogue court, and being that it is New Jersey...
Do they give said motorists a reach around? I doubt it. All I can add is that they drew first blood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 3:23am

No search warrant for you
This from a state who's Governor said "‘Go get a search warrant.’ Well, that’s not the way it works.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 3:26am

Re:
To a *complete police state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 4:37am

Re: Must have missed that bit
I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson, on announcing the adoption of the 4th amendment, said "this measure will ensure the rights and liberties of our citizens are not unduly impinged; you know, unless it's like hard and stuff. Totally just ignore this if it seems like a burden. Oh, and we specifically didn't mention buggies or ships here, so it doesn't apply to personal transport. Don't bother getting a warrant if someone's going to be waiting around for like two hours. That's ridiculous."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NoahVail (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 4:37am

Drivers face a choice of either refusing consent to search and therefore increasing the likelihood of receiving a traffic summons, or giving consent to search in the hope of escaping with only a warning. Under those and other like circumstances, it is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that the individual feels compelled to consent.

The court apparently feels motorists would be happier having their rights violated than their car impounded or their traffic stop extended.

In short, the court finds itself compelled by law enforcement to craft a ruling to LEO's liking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 4:39am

Re:
You're confusing your life with Rambo again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 4:46am

Citizens are perfectly capable of weighing these factors and making these decisions themselves. That's exactly what consent is.
This is precisely what happened. The court weighed all future traffic stops and unilaterally decided that everyone wanted to give their consent, even the cases where said "probable cause" is B.S. and wouldn't result in a warrant. The only convenience provided is not having to decide if you want your rights, because you're preemptively denied them.

Can I assume this ruling will get escalated to a higher court where they've got a clue why there are "rules for government" at all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 4:48am

What I read they say: The Police Officer get's a search warrant anyway so there is no point in wasting everyones time. Do they not admit that a warrant is a joke in the first place and serves no real purpose like looking at the facts and see if a search is justified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 5:43am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 30th, 2015 @ 1:25am
I wonder where are the cries for they are a bunch of unelected lawyers or the bench is filled with activist judges?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 5:47am

Coming soon from NJ
Is this far away? (My changes in bold)
The current approach to criminal prosecutions premised on evidentiary requirements -- “finding evidence of a crime” -- places significant burdens on law enforcement. On the other side of the ledger, we do not perceive any real benefit to our citizenry by the evidence of an actual crime requirement in such cases -- no discernible advancement of their liberty or privacy interests.

After all, citizens would just be inconvenienced by a lengthy trial, guilty or not, surely they would prefer to avoid that and just be quickly whisked off to a nice corporate prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:02am

let's face it, any way that can be used to ramp up what the security forces can do without being 'held up' by the law, which at the same time can remove not just citizens rights but part of the Constitution as well, will be implemented. the Constitution itself is being eroded steadily in favour of not just the security forces but in favor of businesses as well! all part of the aim to have the Planet run as a giant business with the most powerful at the helm and next to no rights for the ordinary person! and the courts are all doing whatever they can to help achieve this!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:24am

Re: Coming soon from NJ
At this rate, no, not that far away at all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:32am

Re:
The Constitution is not "eroded" in favor of businesses but bypassed. That's the purpose of Investor/State tribunals. For example, Harris Corporation should be able to sue the U.S. for any restrictions of law enforcement to eavesdropping since that impedes the marketing possibilities of Stingray devices in the U.S. when compared to, say, North Korea.

Now of course this is currently a bit hypothetical since FBI and NSA and DEA and DHS and DoJ and whoever else does not give a rat's ass about the Constitution anyway and so it currently would be hard for Harris Corp to prove any actual damage resulting from the U.S. Constitution as compared to North Korean standards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:43am

Can this be appealed , or is this the last and final say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:44am

Re:
Can I assume this ruling will get escalated to a higher court where they've got a clue why there are "rules for government" at all?

Unfortunately no, since the federal rule is the same way, and this was the state's supreme court.

New Jersey could pass a law, I guess, but what are the odds of that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wraparound, 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:50am

Only in the minds of East Coast Establishment hyper-creative Ivy League Judges could they somehow justify the blatant disregard of the 4th Amendment. I mean COME ON MAN! It reminds me of Citizens United when the SCOTUS exercised mental gymnastics in making bribery legal.

WHERE's THE COMMON SENSE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 7:29am

And they wonder why the people don't trust them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 7:36am

Re:
nonsense... this is just 'retroactively' updating their policy. Police have been shitting all over the 4th for a long long time now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 7:37am

Re: Re:
say that to all of the people the police have killed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 9:01am

When a police officer has probable cause to search a car, is a motorist better off being detained on the side of the road for an hour (with all the accompanying dangers) or having his car towed and impounded at headquarters while the police secure a warrant? Is not the seizure of the car and the motorist’s detention “more intrusive than the actual search itself”?

Actually, I thought the fourth amendment required a warrant (supported by probable cause) for search AND seizure. Oh wait, it does...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 10:30am

Re:
Yes it can be appealed in a federal court and additionally by the Supreme Court itself if it makes it that far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2015 @ 10:50am

Deep Packet Inspection comes to NJ roads
Get ready for NJ's warrantless body cavity searches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Must have missed that bit
I think this is supposed to be one of those tyranny lights to indicate it's time to resist.

Search or Seizure without judicial oversight or probable cause (because protocol is inconvenient) = Tyranny!

No search protections + Civil Forfeiture should make for some interesting New Jersey incidents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 30 Sep 2015 @ 11:21am

The current approach to roadside searches premised on probable cause -- “get a warrant” -- places significant burdens on law enforcement.
Don't care, that isn't our problem. That is a explicit right that government cannot violate without also forfeiting the powers granted unto them under the Constitution by the will of the people. The Fourth Amendment reads clearly: "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."
On the other side of the ledger, we do not perceive any real benefit to our citizenry by the warrant requirement in such cases -- no discernible advancement of their liberty or privacy interests.
Bullshit. The benefit is precisely to preserve our liberty and privacy interests. I do not wan't any dick in a uniform to be able to search or steal my property or person without my consent or a court order. This *is* my liberty and my privacy which New Jersey would take from me. Again: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
When a police officer has probable cause to search a car, is a motorist better off being detained on the side of the road for an hour (with all the accompanying dangers) or having his car towed and impounded at headquarters while the police secure a warrant?
No, the motorist is better off being allowed to continue on their way unmolested by the government with their vehicle and other property intact unless: "...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."
Is not the seizure of the car and the motorist’s detention “more intrusive than the actual search itself”?
Of course it is. That is why it is expressly unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which again explicitly and unequivicably states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Goddamn, is the fucking New Jersey supreme court illiterate? Or just corrupt as hell? /rage
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 30 Sep 2015 @ 12:19pm

Re:
I must have missed the state of New Jersey's copy of the US Constitution, as amended by the New Jersey supreme court:
The right of government to search and seize their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable protest and denial, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be necessary if it should be too much of a burden on law enforcement to obtain.
Surely this is what our founding fathers intended all along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 2:05pm

Re:
Only in the minds of East Coast Establishment hyper-creative Ivy League Judges could they somehow justify the blatant disregard of the 4th Amendment.

Yeah, that crap doesn't happen on the west coast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 2:08pm

Re:
I guess they decided there is no such thing as an unreasonable search of a car.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Sep 2015 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re:
Well of course, because it's the police doing the searching, and as every good citizen knows, the police are never wrong. /poe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Devo (profile), 7 Nov 2015 @ 4:31pm

Re:
Very well written and expressed. THANK YOU
[ link to this | view in thread ]