By Anthony Bandiero, attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training.
A question from an officer in California. A LoJack hit put them on a stolen car in a park, a hostile crowd formed, so an officer drove the car back to the station and searched it there. Was that search still good without a warrant, and would the answer change if the car had belonged to the suspect?
Can police move a car and finish the search at the station?
Hey guys, attorney Anthony Bandiero here, bringing another roadside chat, from an officer from California.
All right, so the basic question is, can police continue their warrantless search of a vehicle at the police station? So basically bringing the vehicle to the police station and continuing the warrantless search of the vehicle.
Here’s what the officer said. He says, Anthony, I recently attended your class and thought it was fantastic. Well, you already had me at hello, you know what I’m saying? You started your email off like that, you’re going to get my attention. All right, so thank you.
All right, so we had a question regarding an incident that recently occurred and want your opinion. I received a LoJack alert on a stolen vehicle at a park known for heavy gang activity. We located the stolen vehicle and took the driver into custody. However, there was a large gang gathering and members started to intervene into our investigation by shaking the patrol car and trying to lynch the suspect.
Damn. Some brazen activity going on around here.
So anyway, due to officer safety concerns, one of our officers got into the stolen vehicle and drove it back to the police station as everyone else left and followed. At the station we conducted a search of the vehicle and located a loaded extended firearm magazine but no firearm.
It’s still going to be illegal, right? In California to have the ammo, by a prohibited person, probably. But well, in the extended mag too, you know, over 10 rounds.
The officer continues. Based on my understanding, since the suspect has no standing over the stolen vehicle, it was okay for us to search the car at the police station without obtaining a warrant. However, had the car not been stolen and belonged to the suspect, would we need a warrant at that point to search it at the station? Or because of officer safety, this is why we drove it away, would that search still be contemporaneous with the stop and no warrant needed?
Does no standing in a stolen car answer the whole question?
Okay, well my friend, I have your answer. You are correct, first of all, about the standing issue. That is one way to deal with this incident, is just to say no standing.
But that would not resolve any kind of searching of the person’s personal property. Now I don’t know where exactly you found that extended magazine. If it was under the seat, no standing. In his backpack, standing. So that’s one issue that you may have there.
But another way to slice this is that the motor vehicle exception does not require that you get a warrant if you move the vehicle.
What are the requirements of the motor vehicle exception?
Searching a motor vehicle requires four things in California, and this is most states by the way. I know my officers are in California, but most states comply with this, except New Mexico, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Montana. Some states are a little more strict. But here it is.
Number one, probable cause. If you have probable cause to get a warrant, then that’s what the motor vehicle exception requires, is the probable cause. My officer said, do we have to go get a warrant? Well, that implies to me that my officer thinks that they have the probable cause. Otherwise how could you get a warrant if you don’t have probable cause?
Number two, not within curtilage. You cannot use the motor vehicle exception to search vehicles on curtilage. Well, clearly this vehicle is in a park. That’s not curtilage, it’s not around the home. So we’re good there.
Number three, readily mobile with little to no repair. Well, the vehicle was located by LoJack, so it indicates that the vehicle was mobile with little to no repair.
And finally, scope. You search the vehicle in the same manner as if you had a warrant.
Which cases let you search the car later at the station?
So where do we get these cases from? Where is this coming from? Number one is this moving the vehicle issue. That’s Chambers versus Maroney, U.S. Supreme Court, where the court said for constitutional purposes it really does not make a difference between searching the vehicle on the roadside with probable cause or moving that vehicle back to the station house and searching it with probable cause. Given the option, cops can do either one.
We also have a case called Michigan versus Thomas, where the court said the justification to conduct such a warrantless search of a vehicle does not vanish once the car has been immobilized, nor does it depend upon a reviewing court’s assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away by somebody else, or that its contents would have been tampered with during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.
So this is well settled law in California, but also across the United States. California comports with the federal standard here.
So do you need the warrant or not?
So the answer is there’s nothing unlawful about what cops did in this case, constitutionally. Whether you call it standing or if the guy did own the car, either way is fine.
However, at the same time, if you’re dealing with big cases, here you clearly probably had exigency to even get the car moved and so forth, but what I would like to say is if you’re dealing with a big case, drug traffickers and violent criminals, it’s always nice to get that warrant, because it gives you a little more leeway in court. There’s a lot of advantages to warrants. But do you need it here? The answer is no.
The short version
- No standing in a stolen car is one way to deal with the incident, but it does not resolve searching the person’s personal property.
- Under the seat, no standing. In his backpack, standing.
- The motor vehicle exception does not require that you get a warrant if you move the vehicle.
- Four requirements: probable cause, not within curtilage, readily mobile with little to no repair, and scope.
- Most states comply with this, except New Mexico, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Montana. Some states are a little more strict.
- Chambers versus Maroney: for constitutional purposes it does not make a difference between searching on the roadside or at the station house.
- Michigan versus Thomas: the justification does not vanish once the car has been immobilized.
- On big cases, drug traffickers and violent criminals, it’s always nice to get that warrant. But do you need it here? No.
Guys, that’s what I got for you. But do me a favor, hit the like button, subscribe so you know when I get new videos, share with your friends, because I want to help you get it right every single time. Thank you.
Related from Blue to Gold
- What is the Motor Vehicle Exception?
- Searching a Parked and Unoccupied Car in New Jersey with PC
- Conducting Warrantless Vehicle Searches
This article is an edited transcript of Roadside Chat Ep. #176. It is legal training, not legal advice. Check your state law and your agency policy, because both can be more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment.
