High Court Green Lights Car Searches

Millions of American motorists may have lost a constitutional right on Monday that they didn’t know they had.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court said drivers who are stopped for traffic violations may be pressured into having their cars searched without being told they have a choice in the matter.

Many officers, particularly those on drug patrols, routinely use traffic stops as a means to look for drugs and weapons. Technically, the law says drivers can leave once they get a ticket. Most motorists don’t know that--and many officers are glad of it.

“It would be unrealistic to require police officers” to tell motorists they are free to leave and need not submit to a search of their cars, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said without explanation.

The ruling overturns a decision of the Ohio Supreme Court that ordered police to tell motorists of their rights.

The state judges concluded that police were taking advantage of the public’s ignorance and their own authority by turning “routine traffic stops into fishing expeditions.” One officer who patrolled Interstate 70 near Dayton testified he had done 786 searches in one year. Once stopped for speeding, drivers were pressured to allow a search of their car, its glove compartment and their luggage, even when nothing hinted the motorist was carrying drugs or a weapon.

To preserve the 4th Amendment guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Ohio court decreed officers must tell motorists they are free to leave after answering to a traffic violation. Rejecting that idea in a cursory opinion, the Supreme Court said car searches will continue to be deemed “consensual” unless a motorist can prove he objected.

Five years ago, the high court took the same approach in upholding routine searches of passengers traveling on interstate buses. In that case, drug agents in Florida walked down the aisles of buses and asked to search the bags of all the passengers. The court said these were “consensual” searches, even though the passenger who appealed said he did not agree to having his bags searched.

Dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said Monday that detaining a motorist after a traffic stop should be deemed an “illegal seizure” in violation of the 4th Amendment. “A reasonable person would not feel free to walk away,” he wrote.

Thirty years ago, in the famous Miranda decision, the Supreme Court said people who are taken into police custody must be warned of their rights before they are questioned. Chief Justice Earl Warren said these warnings were needed because most people did not know they had a constitutional right not to answer questions or to consult with a lawyer.

State prosecutors praised the court for giving the police a freer hand. “We’re thrilled with the decision. It prevents the creating of a new set of ‘Miranda rules’ for the 4th Amendment,” said Ohio State Atty. Jeffrey S. Sutton.

Reacting angrily, Boston University law professor Tracey Maclin accused the justices of simply ignoring the 4th Amendment.

“This guy was seized. It was not a voluntary search,” he said. The decision “means that for millions of people who suffer this kind of intrusion, the Supreme Court is saying we are not going to impose any rules on police who make traffic stops.”

The case, Ohio vs. Robinette, 95-891, arose when a sheriff’s deputy on a drug patrol on Interstate 70 stopped a car driven by Robert Robinette for going 69 mph in a construction zone, where the speed limit was 45. After checking the man’s license, the deputy decided to give Robinette a warning.

Before letting him go, however, the officer asked Robinette if he had drugs or a gun in the car. When he answered, “No,” the officer asked to search the vehicle. He found a small amount of a marijuana and one pill that contained methamphetamine.

In a hearing, the deputy admitted he routinely stopped cars and searched them for drugs. An Ohio court threw out the drug evidence on the grounds the officer had no reason or legal basis for searching Robinette’s car. Ohio’s highest court agreed on a 4-3 vote.