Stop And Frisk: Does It Extend To Motor Vehicles?

The stop and frisk rule in the United States allows police officers to briefly detain and search an individual if they suspect them of committing, having committed, or being about to commit a crime. This rule, which originated from the Fourth Amendment's language regarding unreasonable searches and seizures, applies to both pedestrians and motorists. When it comes to motor vehicles, a police officer can initiate a traffic stop if they have a reasonable suspicion that the driver is intoxicated or violating traffic laws. During a traffic stop, the police can investigate the cause of the traffic violation, confirm their suspicions, and request the driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. If the police officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver or occupants of the vehicle may be dangerous and have access to a weapon, they may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment, also known as a Terry Stop and Frisk. This type of investigative detention is permitted to ensure the safety of the officers and the public, but it must be based on specific and articulable facts and cannot be prolonged beyond what is reasonably required to complete the mission.

Can police stop a vehicle without probable cause?

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that police officers cannot pull over a vehicle without a reason to do so.

Probable Cause vs Reasonable Suspicion

The terms "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are often used interchangeably, but they are different. Probable cause is specifically mentioned in the Fourth Amendment, but it is not defined there. The Supreme Court has been tasked with defining this concept, and it has stated that it "does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense." It is also not a technical term with a simple definition. Instead, it has been described as "dealing with probabilities" based on commonsense conclusions.

Reasonable suspicion, on the other hand, is a less exacting standard that was fashioned by the court to describe suspicion that is less than probable cause. This standard was first announced in 1968 in the case of Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot, and these facts should be specific to the stop.

A police officer is within their rights to stop a vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation or crime has occurred. This could include suspicion of criminal activity, traffic violations, or equipment violations. For example, a police officer will typically justify pulling someone over because they observed them:

• Running a red light
• Not stopping at a stop sign
• Swerving in lanes of traffic
• Driving without headlights
• Exhibiting excessive braking

If there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop, any evidence obtained during the stop will likely be inadmissible in court. This is due to the exclusionary rule, which requires that evidence resulting from an unlawful detention or arrest be excluded from court. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For example, if there is a valid arrest warrant for the driver, the stop may be retroactively justified, and any evidence found during the stop may be admissible in court.

How to Know if a Traffic Stop Was Legal

Every situation is unique, but in some cases, it may be obvious that the police had a reason to pull over a vehicle, such as when a driver breaks a law like running a stop sign or speeding. In other cases, the reason for the traffic stop may not be clear, and the legality may be debatable. If a driver believes they were unlawfully detained, they should get in contact with an attorney who can review the police report and assess their case.

What constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'?

The "stop and frisk" rule in the United States allows police to stop and "pat down" anyone they suspect may be committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime. Their suspicion alone is what permits them to stop and search an individual. This suspicion must be based on "reasonable suspicion, based on observable conduct and/or information". For example, if an individual matches the description of a recent burglary suspect, or was observed running a red light, this would generally be considered reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion is required for police to stop a person, and they must also have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed before they can frisk them. A frisk is a quick pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing to check for weapons. A police officer may frisk an individual if they reasonably believe that their safety, or that of others, is endangered.

In the context of motor vehicles, a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that someone in the car committed a crime, or probable cause to believe the driver committed a traffic violation, in order to stop the vehicle. If a police officer reasonably believes a driver is speeding or driving while intoxicated, they can stop the vehicle and ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer or field sobriety test if they suspect the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

In addition to reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk must also meet the criteria of "good cause to believe" and "articulable suspicion". This means that police officers must be able to articulate their fear that the suspect is armed, and the stop must be limited to what is absolutely necessary, such as looking for a weapon. The stop must also be brief and non-intrusive, and cannot be a full-scale seizure of a person.

Can police search a vehicle during a stop?

In the United States, the "stop and frisk" rule allows police to stop and "pat down" anyone they suspect of committing, having committed, or being about to commit a crime. This rule originated from the Fourth Amendment's language regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio in 1968 that police officers could temporarily detain and search someone they suspect of doing something illegal. This ruling has been adopted by all 50 states in some form.

When it comes to vehicles, the answer is yes—police can search a vehicle during a stop, but there are some important nuances and limitations to this power.

Firstly, police officers must have a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the driver or occupants of the vehicle. This is a lower standard than "probable cause," which is needed for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion can include factors such as the time and place of the suspected offense, the suspect's appearance and behavior, and information obtained from third parties.

Secondly, the duration of the stop and any associated search must be reasonable and related to the purpose of the stop. For example, if a car is stopped for a routine traffic violation, the stop should not be prolonged beyond what is necessary to address the violation, such as writing a ticket.

Thirdly, during a traffic stop, police officers are permitted to investigate the cause of the traffic violation or confirm their suspicions. They will typically ask for the driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. If, during this investigation, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed, they may remove the driver and any occupants from the vehicle and conduct a "Terry Stop and Frisk."

A Terry Stop and Frisk allows officers to conduct a brief, non-intrusive search of the vehicle and its occupants to ensure their safety and the safety of the public. This may include a pat-down of the outer clothing of the driver and occupants to check for weapons. If, during this pat-down, an officer feels an item that appears to be contraband (such as drugs or weapons) based on their experience, they are permitted to seize it and extend the search to that area.

It is important to note that the investigative detention during a traffic stop cannot last an extended period. While there is no exact time limit, the length of the detention will be considered when determining if the stop and frisk violated the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.

In summary, while police can search a vehicle during a stop, they must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the duration of the stop must be reasonable, and the scope of the search must be limited to ensuring the safety of the officers and the public.

What is a 'pretextual stop'?

A pretextual stop, also known as a 'mixed-motive traffic stop', is a police stop of a vehicle that is ostensibly for a minor traffic violation but is actually conducted to investigate more serious crimes. In other words, it is a speculative criminal investigation unrelated to the motorist's driving ability or adherence to the traffic code.

In the US, there are so many traffic laws and motor vehicle equipment regulations that nearly all drivers could be pulled over at any time for some kind of violation. This gives police officers a lot of discretion in who they stop, and they can use a minor traffic violation as a pretext to investigate other potential crimes. For example, a driver might be pulled over for a routine traffic violation but then be arrested for drunk driving, drug possession, or other offences unrelated to the initial reason for the stop.

The use of pretextual stops by police is controversial. Law enforcement advocates claim that they are necessary to ensure public safety, but critics argue that they are unconstitutional and have led to significant racial bias in policing. In response to this criticism, some state legislatures are working to restrict the offences for which officers can make pretextual stops, in an effort to reduce racial disparities and limit the amount of investigative interactions between police and citizens.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Whren v. United States (1996) that a pretextual traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. However, the Supreme Court of Washington held in State v. Ladson (1999) that these stops are unconstitutional under the Washington Constitution, which states that a person must not be disturbed in their private affairs without legal authority.

What are an individual's rights during a stop?

An individual has certain rights during a stop in a motor vehicle. Firstly, it is important to understand the legal basis for the stop. The United States' "stop and frisk" rule, derived from the Fourth Amendment, allows police to stop and "pat down" individuals they suspect of committing a crime, have committed a crime, or are about to commit a crime. This suspicion alone permits them to stop and search an individual.

During a stop, an individual is not under arrest but is also not free to leave. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or that the individual is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a pat-down search of the outer clothing to check for weapons. This search must be brief and non-intrusive, and officers cannot search pockets or other areas unless they feel something that could be a weapon or contraband.

• Compliance with orders: If a police officer orders an individual out of their vehicle during a traffic stop, they must comply with this directive, as supported by Supreme Court decisions, which prioritize officer safety.
• Refusal to consent to additional searches: While individuals must comply with orders to exit the vehicle, they have the right to refuse consent to any further searches unless the officer has a legal basis, such as a warrant or probable cause, to proceed.
• Remaining calm and respectful: It is crucial to keep hands visible and avoid sudden movements. Being cooperative and polite can help de-escalate the situation.
• Declining to answer questions: Individuals have the right to decline to answer police questions, especially those unrelated to the traffic stop, such as "Where are you headed?" or "Do you have anything illegal in the car?". While cooperation is generally advisable, answering questions is not mandatory.
• Recording the interaction: Individuals have the First Amendment right to film or record a traffic stop. However, this should be done without interfering with the officer's investigation.
• Reasonable detention length: An officer cannot detain an individual indefinitely during a traffic stop. While there is no exact time limit, if the detention lasts for an extended period (e.g., over 30 minutes), individuals can inquire about the reason for the continued delay.

It is important to note that these rights apply to stops in motor vehicles, and the specific laws and procedures may vary across states.

Frequently asked questions