New Guidlines for Traffic Stops?

[sgser]

There have been a number of threads in the forum about how to act during a traffic stop. Some, depending on what we say or how we act, result in our having to exit our vehicle and the police, using one rubric or another, proceed to search our vehicle.

An April Supreme Court ruling seems to have limited what police may do at traffic stops. In the August/September 2009 issue of Reason magazine reports that the Court stated that:

“A rule that gives police power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offence creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals .”

Justice Stevens writing for the majority noted the danger of “giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.”

What does this all mean? Maybe one or more of the forum’s lawyers can weigh in on this (The Case involved someone named Gant) and clarify anything I stated that may be misleading or erroneous and perhaps provide some guidance.

[Steve in PA]

It used to be that if the person was arrested the officer was allowed to search the interior of the vehicle that was within reach of the driver.

Now, if the person is arrested outside the vehicle, the interior cannot be searched (there are some exceptions) without a search warrant.

For example, the driver is stopped for suspicion of DUI. The driver is away from the vehicle in contact with the officer, doing field sobriety tests, etc. If and when the decision is made to arrest for DUI, the interior of the vehicle cannot be searched without the warrant.