Yes, you have rights…
Last week’s article on DUIs provoked the following question: So police can basically stop you for anything, don’t we have any rights?
Yes, a person has the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures. Whenever you break a traffic law, including equipment malfunctions as minor as a broken license plate light, the police have the right to stop your vehicle. However, the stop must be limited to the reason for the stop. So if an officer has no other reason to suspect any further criminal activity beyond a broken license plate light, then he must let you go.
A recent court of appeals spoke to the issue. The court reversed a lower court decision that permitted a search of a man’s car. In State v. Kowalewski, Mr. Kowalewski was stopped by police for swerving beyond the centerline. The police officer also noticed the driver lighting what appeared to be a pipe, possibly holding illegal drugs. After stopping the car, approaching the car, conversing with the man, taking his license, and detecting no odor of illegal drugs, a police officer requested consent to search the vehicle and was denied by the driver. [Generally, if police officers are asking to search your vehicle it is due to the fact that they can’t do it otherwise, so just say “no.” Nothing will happen to you for raising your Constitutional protections.] At that point, the stop should have ended, but the officer pressed on for another five to ten minutes. He said that he suspected something was going on and that he was going to get a drug dog to sweep the perimeter of the vehicle. Eventually the driver relented and the officer searched the vehicle to find a one-hitter, marijuana, and prescription drugs in the car.
The court ruled:
Once the vehicle was stopped, however, the scope and duration of the…investigation must be limited to the justification for the stop. Any expansion of the scope or duration of a traffic stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity. An investigative stop must be temporary and cannot last longer than is necessary to achieve the purpose of the stop.
The Fourth Amendment further protects your person, which includes searches of blood, breath and urine, but that right is balanced by the fact that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege bestowed upon you as a driver by the State. Also, when driving, you are in public and have limited privacy in your car. These serve to reduce your expectation of privacy. These considerations culminate in Minnesota’s Implied Consent law, which allows for a preliminary breath test (PBT) during a valid stop when a further articulable and specific suspicion of drunk driving is aroused, such as the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, or glassy eyes.
Due to the history of tragic deaths that have resulted from drunk driving, our state’s legislature has made a concerted effort to stop drunk driving by increasing funding for stepped-up police enforcement, lowering the acceptable blood-alcohol concentration from .1 to .08, increased fines and jail sentences, enhancing offenses (meaning the more DUIs one gets the harsher the sentences and fines), and increasing advertisements threatening to drunk drivers. The legislative consideration surrounding DUI enforcement is no different than any other consideration. It is a balance between liberty and order. The voters are ultimately in control of this balance, so if you want change one way or other, contact your state representatives
