Locked Glove Box Now Searchable

[Jubbie]

Indiana Court of Appeals just agreed today that a locked glove box can be searched without a warrant during a traffic stop.

Indiana Court of Appeals OKs search of locked glove box in traffic stop

 

[eldirector]

Wow. Thanks for the link, I think.

So, in the name of Officer Safety, LEOs can now remove you from the vehicle, handcuff you, and search (essentially all areas of) your car without a warrant?

Or are their exigent (sp?) circumstances because this individual was already a suspect in other violent crimes?

Anyone have a link to the actual decision?

 

[dross]

It's hard to tell from the article, but it sounds like they're saying that part of the reason was that he was a fugitive.

 

[Jubbie]

Closest I could find on more info.

The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 3 NFP)

Going to guess the trunk is safe. Just goes with what a driver could easily reach.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I believe there needs to be more than 'officer's safety' for just any traffic stop, as noted in the article...

But in a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said because Parish was a known suspect in other shootings and police believed he could be armed, "a reasonably prudent person in Officer Foster's position would be warranted in the belief that her safety was in danger."

I don't think the court would rule in the officer's favor if there was no other reason than officer's safety during a routine traffic stop.

 

[lashicoN]

Most people I know think they can already do this. You'd be surprised by how many people will open up their trunk at the officer's request. People have no idea what rights are, on either side.

 

[semperfi211]

I have thought about bolting a pistol sized lock box to the floor of my truck with a combination lock. If I was pulled over and they wanted me to open it I would forget the combo.

 

[steveh_131]

Court affirms locked glove box search | The Indiana Lawyer

This subject came up in another thread, and it interested me. This story is extremely sketchy. Here is why.

They pulled this guy over for not using his turn signal. They pull him from the car and cuff him because they realize he is a suspect in several murders. They then proceed to search his locked glovebox without a warrant, based on "officer safety". They find marijuana, a scale, and a handgun. He is then let go with a citation.

1. If he was no longer in the vehicle, how was anything in the vehicle considered a threat to officer safety?

2. If he was a murder suspect, why did they let him go? They could have charged him with carrying a handgun without a license, possession, and he even had a scale. Why not use these things as a way to hold him until they could check the evidence?

3. Why did they confiscate his gun? And why did it take them 4 months to check the ballistics on it and compare it to the case if he was supposedly a murder suspect already?

This story does not add up, yet it is being used to set a dangerous precedent that allows the police to illegally search our glove boxes.

 

[mrjarrell]

I believe there needs to be more than 'officer's safety' for just any traffic stop, as noted in the article...

I don't think the court would rule in the officer's favor if there was no other reason than officer's safety during a routine traffic stop.

As that notation reads, it would seemingly allow for the law enforcers to profile you, via stickers and the like, and then do a search based on that. Yet another chunk of the 4th is hammered away by the law and order crowd.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I have thought about bolting a pistol sized lock box to the floor of my truck with a combination lock. If I was pulled over and they wanted me to open it I would forget the combo.

I already have this, a combo lock box with a cable attached to the seat pillar.

Just remember the mantra: "I do not grant permission to search my vehicle."

Also remember that you can revoke permission given at any time. Of course, this is hard to do when you are locked in the back of the patrol car...

 

[Ashkelon]

"Officer Safety" will be the new big thing in search and seizure. This line of reasoning will continue regardless of whether the suspect has been a person of interest in other cases. I don't think this case will be treated as isolated instance.

We will now see "officer safety" as the bootstrap and PCs filled with facts and impressions to gin up officer safety concerns.

It will become textbook material at the academy and quite frankly if the Court is going this direction I don't blame them for using it to their advantage. Don't like it but it is where our Country is heading regardless.

IMO it is more of the negative evolution of law enforcement. Gone are the days of citizenry and law enforcement being a team. We have become adversarial on many new levels.

Our society has eroded and allowed and/or required this new "tactical" version of law enforcement..thoughts anyone? Or am I off base?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nothing new, just reinforces existing law as to containers.

However, given that the appellee was out of the vehicle and there was no other probable cause (but for the universal access key of "officer safety"--if she's so afraid why is she poking around in potentially booby-trapped areas?), I'm a little confused about how this stands up in light of Gant but maybe the Indiana Supreme Court will accept transfer?

 

[E5RANGER375]

I already have this, a combo lock box with a cable attached to the seat pillar.

Just remember the mantra: "I do not grant permission to search my vehicle."

Also remember that you can revoke permission given at any time. Of course, this is hard to do when you are locked in the back of the patrol car...

or " I do not consent to ANY searches" the constitution protects us from illegal searches of even our person! can I pat you down? NO YOU CANNOT!

 

[printcraft]

Also getting into a "locked" glove box portion of this bugs me greatly.

Although a glove box is in the reach area, if it is locked it is not accessible.


Under the seats are CLEARLY more readily accessible than a LOCKED glove box.
Why stop with the glove box???????

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IMO it is more of the negative evolution of law enforcement.

Nah, not really, Ash. They can search containers, locked, unlocked, closed, open, as long as they have probable cause.

However, my concern is that the opinion is converting the Jedi Powers that judges believe the police have (I think he is a danger) to probable cause. This is especially disconcerting since the appellee is out of the car, especially in light of Gant. . . but you know how I am.

I think we need to re-set to zero on this whole car search thing. The exception was carved out because there was "no time" to go see a judge about obtaining a warrant. Give modern communications I do not believe this reasoning is valid today.

 

[jsgolfman]

Scary and expected.

 

[j706]

or " I do not consent to ANY searches" the constitution protects us from illegal searches of even our person! can I pat you down? NO YOU CANNOT!

Wrong- the constitution protects us from unreasonable Search and Seizures.

 

[Love the 1911]

Nah, not really, Ash. They can search containers, locked, unlocked, closed, open, as long as they have probable cause.

However, my concern is that the opinion is converting the Jedi Powers that judges believe the police have (I think he is a danger) to probable cause. This is especially disconcerting since the appellee is out of the car, especially in light of Gant. . . but you know how I am.

I think we need to re-set to zero on this whole car search thing. The exception was carved out because there was "no time" to go see a judge about obtaining a warrant. Give modern communications I do not believe this reasoning is valid today.

Come on Kirk. If you had a client that was held for 25 minutes as one of us LEO contacted our prosecutor, got the number for the on-call judge, had to call the prosecutor back because judge #1 didn't answer, call judge #2, you would get the whole stop thrown out.

As a LEO, I have seen a few cases that have been surprising to me recently. One involved a defendant being arrested for PI before having Implied Consent read to him for OWI. He asked for a lawyer and was told he was not allowed to seek legal counsel at that time. He tested over the limit, was arrested, and IN Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that the test was admissible. (My opinion, he should not have been placed under arrest for PI and the first sign of refusing the test or asking for legal counsel, stop all questioning and seek a warrant for a blood draw)

While I should be happy that my job just got easier, I do find it troubling. This case doesn't make much sense to me for multiple reasons. Guy out of car, not being read Pirtle/Miranda, seizing gun, finding drugs and a scale, citation and released? All these circumstances in one case is difficult to comprehend. All that being said, its good that they were able to get a murderer off the street and where he belongs.

 

[Rookie]

Seems more of a case where the end justifies the means.

 

[CarmelHP]

Indiana Court of Appeals just agreed today that a locked glove box can be searched without a warrant during a traffic stop.

Indiana Court of Appeals OKs search of locked glove box in traffic stop

It wasn't a routine stop, the driver was recognized as a wanted suspect. Still, I agree with the dissent.