Justices Bar Searches in Routine Traffic Stops

WASHINGTON —  Police officers cannot routinely search motorists and their cars after stopping them for traffic violations, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The 9-0 decision marked a rare victory for privacy rights and overturned the drug conviction of an Iowa man who was stopped for speeding, searched and then arrested when an officer found a bag of marijuana under his seat.

The case was closely watched because Iowa is the only state that authorizes officers to search all cars that are stopped for traffic violations. Its police do not even need a reason for searching a vehicle. In California, as in most states, officers cannot stop a vehicle on a pretext and then search it.

But the court ruled that this broad authority to search violates the 4th Amendment. The ruling calls a halt to the trend of giving police ever more leeway to search vehicles, especially for drugs.

Normally, police must have a specific reason to search a person or his car. For example, if officers chase a car that sped away from a robbery, they would have good reason for searching the occupants and the vehicle. But in recent years, many motorists--and especially black men--have complained that they were stopped by police for vague reasons and then pressed to allow the search of their cars.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that the officer in the Iowa case (Knowles vs. Iowa, 97-7597) was not in danger when he wrote the traffic ticket and that the speeding violation itself did not justify a full-blown search of the car.

Officers who fear for their safety can require drivers and passengers to step out of a car to be checked for weapons, the court said. Further, officers who have reason to believe a motorist is carrying drugs can search a vehicle.

But the high court drew a line at allowing searches during routine traffic stops where there is no apparent danger and no evidence of other criminal activity.

In 1973, the court said that searches were justifiable in cases where a suspect is arrested. Officers needed authority to disarm a person, if necessary, and to search for evidence that a suspect might be carrying or have in his vehicle.

But Rehnquist said that those rationales do not apply when a motorist violates a traffic law. “A routine traffic stop is a relatively brief encounter and is [not] analogous to a formal arrest,” the chief justice wrote. While an officer always faces some danger, that “does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion [on the driver’s privacy] attending a full field-type search.”

On March 9, 1996, Patrick Knowles was driving at 43 mph in Newton, Iowa, on a road where the speed limit was 25. A police officer gave him a speeding ticket and, without getting his consent, searched his vehicle and found marijuana and a “pot pipe.”

Knowles challenged the search as unconstitutional, but the Iowa courts upheld it.

Millions of Americans could have faced routine searches following traffic stops if the Iowa law were upheld, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union told the court.

Rehnquist agreed that danger to officers does not justify arrests in all traffic stops. Moreover, there is no need for a further search for evidence to bolster a case involving a traffic stop, he added.