PA cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles

**hotdog** · May 1st, 2014, 01:32 AM

Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles.

The district attorney said the ruling puts Pennsylvania in line with federal law and many other states.

A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search.

Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.

“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”

**Kabloosh** · May 1st, 2014, 05:38 AM

Who will be the lucky sap(10 years later of course) that gets to sue the hell out of the state for millions of dollars and takes this to federal court and wins?

The only people that lose in the end are us really. We get to foot the nasty bill that the inevitable monster lawsuit this is going to result in.

**Gunowner99** · May 1st, 2014, 10:18 AM

We always lose. At least it seems that way.

**StingyGunner** · May 1st, 2014, 11:50 AM

Cuz our side is too busy working to go on the offensive like the parasitic other side can.

**jthrelf** · May 1st, 2014, 12:08 PM

I'm probably a little ignorant on this but...

Before this ruling, would there have to be a warrant no matter what to have a vehicle searched? I.e. a cloud of marijuana smoke would be probable cause that there is marijuana in the car, but they still couldn't search without a warrant?

I'm assuming "plain sight" is a different story? A bag of drugs laying out in plain sight would then not require a warrant for search? This is probably the same as if a cop hears a person screaming and being attacked, they can forcefully enter a home without a warrant

**mosseater** · May 1st, 2014, 12:16 PM

I guess the real answer is, we don't know yet. My suspicion is that this will make it even easier for rogue cops to ply their talents agains innocent citizens. The other side of the coin is, if they were going to take you for the full ride before this law, how much difference could it make now? One concern I have is they mentioned "reasonal, probable cause" as being, among other things, a gun in the vehicle. If one is silly enough or forthright enough to tell the cop you have a legally-owned firearm in the car, for whatever reason that may necessitate the divulging of that info, will that give him legal authority to search?

We don't have to worry, though. It's all done for our own good, just like higher taxes and better light bulbs.

Fuckin' bastards.

**ChuckS** · May 1st, 2014, 01:48 PM

Please, we already have two other threads on this same ruling.

Post here: new-court-opinion-will-affect-concealed-carry-vehicles

**Deleted** · May 1st, 2014, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by jthrelf

I'm probably a little ignorant on this but...

Before this ruling, would there have to be a warrant no matter what to have a vehicle searched? I.e. a cloud of marijuana smoke would be probable cause that there is marijuana in the car, but they still couldn't search without a warrant?

I'm assuming "plain sight" is a different story? A bag of drugs laying out in plain sight would then not require a warrant for search? This is probably the same as if a cop hears a person screaming and being attacked, they can forcefully enter a home without a warrant

It's not different than its been since the 80's

**Kabloosh** · May 1st, 2014, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by jthrelf

I'm probably a little ignorant on this but...

Before this ruling, would there have to be a warrant no matter what to have a vehicle searched? I.e. a cloud of marijuana smoke would be probable cause that there is marijuana in the car, but they still couldn't search without a warrant?

I'm assuming "plain sight" is a different story? A bag of drugs laying out in plain sight would then not require a warrant for search? This is probably the same as if a cop hears a person screaming and being attacked, they can forcefully enter a home without a warrant

They need the probable cause to get the warrant to do the search. Probable cause can be something as simple as smelling marijuana which has a distinct smell as it is. Even if they had probable cause to search my car I'd still refuse in the event they screwed something up.
However, I don't do anything that is remotely illegal that would result in my car getting searched. So if I do end up in a situation I would know it is bullshit, and my goal during the entire encounter would be to survive it. I'll tear the cop's ass open in court instead of arguing him on the scene and actually give him something legitimate to throw at me. The likelihood of such an event is practically non-existent though.