The fourth amendment in the USA
The fourth amendment in the USA has been revised and improved on several occasions through the Supreme Court interpretation. The amendment does not allow police or other law enforcement officers to search vehicles when attempting to locate the identification of the driver following a traffic stop. All searches should be accompanied by a search warrant under normal circumstances but can also resort to a search that has no warrant when there are a strong belief and reason that something sinister is underway. The drivers have their right to freedom from arbitrary search, among other rights. However, there are circumstances when this freedom is not guaranteed. In addition, the search on the trunk of vehicles is done differently from the passenger compartment. This question, therefore, seeks to show some of the rights enjoyed by drivers traveling in vehicles. These circumstances can lead to a search, and to show searches in the passenger’s compartment and trunks are done differently.
The drivers’ rights are protected by the fourth amendment, which guarantees drivers of their security, their houses, effects, and papers against arbitrary searches. In the case of Katz vs. USA 389, the court ruled that legalized searches are to be done by the law. The amendment requires the searching officer to produce a search warrant before proceeding to execute the search. That warrant should be supported by an affirmation or oath with a precise description of the things, persons, or places that will be searched. The law states that when officers undertake a search without a warrant, the search should not be extended to the passengers or the persons therein. That can only be violated when there is a strong reason to believe that the individuals therein are dangerous and armed. Otherwise, terry pat-down is not allowed under normal traffic inspection.
Despite the above discussion that drivers shall not be subjected to terry pat-down search, some circumstances may circumvent that provision. Such include deep suspicion of a massive criminal activity by the persons therein or the passengers. Other belongings and luggage belonging to the driver or passengers may consequently be subjected to further searches as a result of suspicion. Vehicles are subjected to the warrantless search only in the circumstances where the officers suspect or have evidence of criminal developments—chime vs. California 395 (1962) ruling stated that an individual might be searched to deprive him of a route to escape, destroy evidence or conceal weapons.
There is a slight difference between searching the trunk and searching the driver compartments. The law allows the law enforcement officer to search a trunk quickly. The threshold of searching the passenger compartments is way above that of the searching trunk (Rehkemper, 2016). Since trunk conceals its content, an officer needs to have extra motivation to proceed ahead to search the trunk. Supreme Court in Knowles vs. Lowe ruled that passenger cars should not be searched after giving the ticket for routine traffic violations. Ticketing a driver for not indicating the direction does not warrant the officer to search your passenger compartments.
In conclusion, the fourth amendment gives drivers several basics rights. The rights can, however, be suspended by various circumstances when there is a threat to criminal activities. Otherwise, a search warrant should always be availed before searching. There also exist some minor differences between the searching on passenger compatriot and the trunk, as indicated through the above discussion.