{
  "id": "RL30316",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30316",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105446,
      "date": "1999-09-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:42:24.036941",
      "title": "Search and Seizure in the Vehicular Context: Fourth Amendment Issues",
      "summary": "The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that \"The right of the\npeople to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and\nseizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by\nOath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things\nto be seized.\" The Supreme Court has interpreted this language as imposing a presumptive warrant\nrequirement on all searches and seizures predicated upon governmental authority, and has ruled that\nany violations of this standard will result in the suppression of any material or information derived\ntherefrom.\n However, the Court has also recognized that certain circumstances render the obtainment of a\nwarrant impractical or unnecessary, and, accordingly, has crafted exceptions to an otherwise\ninflexible constitutional standard. Among the various exceptions established by the Court are\nwarrantless searches based on exigent circumstances, plain view seizures, searches incident to a valid\narrest, and searches where law enforcement needs surpass the warrant requirement. Some of the most\npervasive and controversial exceptions recognized by the Court have centered on law enforcement\nauthority to conduct warrantless searches and investigatory detentions in the vehicular context.\nRecent Court decisions in this area have imbued law enforcement officers with greater authority to\nact without a warrant during traffic stops, based upon the previously established automobile\nexception and the need for adequate protective measures to ensure police safety. This apparent\nexpansion of police power has led many commentators to assert that Fourth Amendment protections\nhave been essentially eviscerated in the automobile and traffic stop setting. Upon examining the\nscope of law enforcement authority subsequent to these decisions, however, it appears that basic\nFourth Amendment privacy strictures still pertain to traffic detentions, with the recent Court rulings\nsimply applying previously established rationales to new factual scenarios.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30316",
          "sha1": "2bc2746fcbbfc7618f6b4c8aebb3a4b9bd14397b",
          "filename": "files/19990915_RL30316_2bc2746fcbbfc7618f6b4c8aebb3a4b9bd14397b.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19990915_RL30316_2bc2746fcbbfc7618f6b4c8aebb3a4b9bd14397b.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}