February 1, 2023
In Texas, a police officer can search your car if they have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle, or if you give them consent to search the car. Additionally, if the officer makes a lawful arrest, they can search the car incident to the arrest. Finally, if the officer has reason to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, and there is no time to obtain a warrant, they can conduct a search under the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement.
The “motor vehicle” exception is a legal principle that allows police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. The reasoning behind this exception is that vehicles are mobile, and can be easily moved or the evidence inside can be destroyed, so there is a greater need for officers to be able to search them without a warrant.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Carroll v. United States (1925), has ruled that the warrantless search of a vehicle is constitutional if the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. This means that if the officer has probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime inside a vehicle, they can search the entire vehicle and any containers within the vehicle that could hold the evidence.
It’s important to note that the probable cause must be specific to the vehicle and not just the driver or passenger.
“Motor Vehicle” Exception Does Not Apply to Driver or Passenger
The “motor vehicle” exception applies to the vehicle itself and any containers within the vehicle that could hold evidence of a crime. However, it does not extend to the driver or passengers of the vehicle unless there is probable cause or other legal justification to do so.
The U.S. Supreme Court case that established that the “motor vehicle” exception does not extend to the driver or passengers is called Arizona v. Gant (2009).
In this case, the Supreme Court held that police officers may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of the search or if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence related to the offense of arrest. The court overruled its prior precedent, which had allowed officers to search a vehicle incident to arrest whenever the arrestee was an occupant of the vehicle at the time of arrest.
The court held that the rationale for the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, that vehicles are mobile and can be easily moved or the evidence inside can be destroyed, does not apply to searches of arrestees’ persons and belongings, which are not going anywhere.
It’s important to note that the ruling on this case is that the search of the vehicle incident to arrest must be related to the offense of arrest, not just any crime.
While a police officer may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime, they generally need a warrant or the individual’s consent to search a person. However, if the officer makes a lawful arrest of the driver or passenger, they can conduct a search of the arrestee incident to the arrest, which includes a search of the person and any items in their immediate control. Additionally, if an officer has reason to believe that the individual is carrying a weapon, they may conduct a pat-down search for officer safety.
It’s important to note that the probable cause must be specific to the individual and not just the vehicle.
Examples of Probable Cause to Search a Car
Probable cause is a legal standard that requires law enforcement officers to have a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime or is in possession of evidence of a crime. This belief must be based on specific facts and circumstances, and not just a hunch or suspicion. Probable cause to search a vehicle can be established in a variety of ways. Some examples include:
- Observing illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia in plain view inside the vehicle
- Smelling the strong odor of marijuana or other controlled substances coming from the vehicle
- Observing the driver or passengers engaging in suspicious behavior, such as attempting to conceal something or making furtive movements
- Having information from a reliable informant that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime
- Being alerted to the presence of drugs or other contraband by a trained police dog
- Observing the vehicle being used in the commission of a crime
- Having an arrest warrant for an individual and knowing the individual is in a specific car.
It’s important to note that the probable cause must be specific to the vehicle and not just the driver or passenger.
| Situation | Can the police search the vehicle? |
| The police have a warrant | Yes |
| The police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime | Yes |
| The police are acting under the “automobile exception” | Yes |
| The police are acting under the “plain view” doctrine | Yes |
| The police are acting under the “exigent circumstances” exception | Yes |
| The police are acting under the “consent” exception | Yes |
| The police do not have any of the above | No |
How Can I Stop a Police Officer from Searching my Car?
A person can take certain steps to try to prevent a police officer from searching their car without a warrant or their consent. These steps include:
- Refusing to give consent for the officer to search the car. A person has the right to refuse a warrantless search and the officer must have a legal justification to proceed with the search.
- Being polite and respectful towards the officer, but also assertive in asserting your rights.
- Reminding the officer that they do not have your consent to search the car and that you do not wish to waive your constitutional rights.
- If the officer has a warrant, ask to see it, read it and make sure it is valid, specifying the place and items to be searched.
- If the officer has no warrant, ask if they have a legal justification to search the car without one.
It is important to note that an officer may proceed with a search if they have probable cause or other legal justification. Additionally, a person should be aware that if they give consent to a search, they may be waiving their right to challenge the legality of the search in court.
It’s also worth noting that if the officer has a warrant, you can’t prevent the search, but you can ask to see the warrant, make sure it’s valid, and specify the place and items to be searched.
What if the Police Violate my Rights and Searched my Car?
If a police officer conducts a search of a car without a warrant or without a legal justification, such as probable cause or consent, it is considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
If a person’s rights have been violated during a search, they may be able to have any evidence obtained during the illegal search suppressed, meaning it cannot be used against them in court. This is known as the exclusionary rule.
What is the “Exclusionary Rule?”
The exclusionary rule is a principle in American criminal law that holds that evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights cannot be used against them in a criminal trial. The rule is intended to deter police officers from violating a person’s rights and to ensure that the government does not benefit from its own illegal conduct.
The exclusionary rule was first established by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Weeks v. United States (1914). In this case, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights could not be used in a federal criminal trial. Since then, the exclusionary rule has been extended to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth amendment, but it doesn’t apply to all types of evidence. It doesn’t apply to evidence obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, for example. Additionally, the exclusionary rule applies only to evidence obtained illegally by the government, not to evidence obtained illegally by private individuals.
It’s worth noting that the exclusionary rule is not a guaranteed way to suppress the evidence, as there are some exceptions to the rule such as the good faith exception, which allows evidence obtained by officers acting in good faith, even if the warrant is later found to be defective.
The “Exclusionary Rule” in Texas
The exclusionary rule in Texas is similar to the federal rule in that it holds that evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights cannot be used against them in a criminal trial. However, there are some differences between the federal rule and the Texas rule.
One main difference is that the Texas exclusionary rule is not as broad as the federal rule. The Texas rule applies only to evidence obtained in violation of the Texas Constitution, whereas the federal rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Texas has a state statute that allows for the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Texas Constitution if the evidence would have inevitably been discovered by legal means. This is known as the “inevitable discovery” exception. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23 states that evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in court, unless the state can prove that the evidence would have been obtained independently of the illegal act or that it would have inevitably been discovered by legal means.
This statute applies to cases where the evidence was obtained in violation of the Texas Constitution’s provisions on search and seizure. The application of this exception is determined by the court on a case-by-case basis and it has to be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another difference is that Texas has a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, similar to the federal good faith exception. This allows evidence obtained by officers acting in good faith to be admitted in court, even if the warrant is later found to be defective.
Finally, It’s worth noting that Texas has a state-specific “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, similar to the federal one but with some differences, which allows the admission of evidence that was obtained illegally if it was discovered through an independent source or if it would have been inevitably discovered by legal means.
It is important to consult with an attorney familiar with Texas law to know how the exclusionary rule applies to a specific case. The application of this exception is a complex topic and it’s important to consult with an attorney familiar with Texas law to know how the exception applies to a specific case.
Contact a Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer Today
If a person believes that their rights have been violated during a search, they should speak with a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. An attorney can help them understand their rights and options, and can also help them file a complaint against the officer.
Additionally, if the person’s rights were violated, they may have a civil rights claim against the police department and/or the officer. A civil rights attorney can help them evaluate their claim and take appropriate legal action.
It’s important to note that if the person is detained or arrested as a result of the search, it is always recommended to not resist or give false information, and request to speak with an attorney.
At The Napier Law Firm, we understand the seriousness of criminal allegations and the potential consequences for our clients. We are dedicated to providing the highest level of legal representation and to fighting for the rights of our clients. If you have been charged with a crime in Houston, contact us today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help. We also serve Harris County, Montgomery County, Houston County, Galveston County, Conroe County, and Fort Bend County.