LA UNREASONABLE CAR SEARCH LAWYER
Unlike a search of someone's home, vehicle searches do not require a warrant.  When a police officer gets a warrant, a judge has already determined that the evidence the officer has is sufficient to justify the search.  This decision can still be challenged, but there is often more litigation surrounding car searches - more litigation that can lead to evidence being thrown out and a case being dismissed.

There is a diminished expectation of privacy in cars and the courts have given police substantial authority to search vehicles.  They have rights to search based on probable cause to search, based on arresting a recent occupant or based on officer safety.

Upon arresting a driver, law enforcement may conduct a search incident to arrest.  The US Supreme Court, in Colorado v. Bertine, held that police could conduct an inventory search of a vehicle, even after a DUI arrest.  DUI did not provide the officers with probable cause to search, but the Court commented that the officer has a right to conduct a search for officer safety and for inventory reasons.

In Thornton v. United States, the US Supreme Court further expanded officer rights.  In Bertine, officers arrested suspect directly from his car before conducting an inventory search.  In Thornton, the suspect, realizing he was being followed, pulled over and parked his car.  He exited the vehicle and began to walk on foot.  He admitted to officers that he had drugs on him, and he was arrested.  Officers later searched his vehicle.  The Court held that even though Thornton was in custody, the officers had a right to search the vehicle for their safety.  This argument is ridiculous, but is also law. 

A vehicle search incident to arrest may also include bags and other containers in the car.  In Wyoming v. Houghton, the suspect was arrested for drugs in plain sight and the Court upheld a subsequent search of a backpack located in the car.  The Court has placed at least one limit on the search incident to arrest probable cause exception.  In Knowles v. Iowa, the driver could have been arrested for a traffic violation, but police opted not to arrest him.  Instead, the officers attempted to use the fact that they could arrest Knowles to justify a search.  The Court disagreed and invalidated the search.

RVs or motor homes are a bit of a grey area in between car searches and those needing a warrant.  The US Supreme Court addressed this issue in the landmark case California v. Carney.  In that case, Carney lived in the motor home, but the Court held that a search still only needed probable cause (and not a search warrant).  The Court reasoned that the ability to move the motor home quickly.  Additionally, the motor home was parked in a downtown San Diego parking lot, not a location ordinarily used for residential purposes.  Accordingly, a trailer in a trailer park, hooked up to plumbing and electricity, without the ability to be driven away easily would likely require a warrant.

Other Articles in this Series: 
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  Stop and Frisk and Search of Persons
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  What constitutes a search?
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  Consent Searches
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  How to Suppress Evidence

If you, or someone you know, has been arrested or charged with a crime on the basis of an alleged consent search, you need a California Criminal Defense Attorney who can assert your rights by filing and arguing a motion to suppress the evidence against you.  Contact our office for a free consultation at (323) 803-4352.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
LA Sheriff's Inmate Locator 
Los Angeles Superior Court  
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles Felony Bail Schedule
Los Angeles Misdemeanor Bail Schedule

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
[email protected]
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar