Search and Seizure

They are generally done for a privilige, like being able to drive, or playing on a high school sports team. They can only be done for priviliges, if they are done for a right they violate the constitution.

• In its first landmark drug-testing ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the suspicionless drug-testing of railroad employees who are involved in accidents in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n (1989). The court held that the government has a compelling interest in public safety that overrides Fourth Amendment rights of the employees.

California v. Carney, 471 US 386 (1985)

You may be referring to the decision in California v. Carney that extended the "motor vehicle exception," developed from Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132 (1925) and subsequent Fourth Amendment cases, to parked vehicles.

Motor Vehicle Exception (aka Carroll Doctrine)

Police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle under exigent circumstances if they have lawful access to the vehicle, and if probable cause exists that the vehicle contains evidence or contraband. There is no fixed definition of "probable cause," but the standard used must be high enough to support issuance of a warrant.

Explanation

In Carney, a small RV parked in a public lot in downtown San Diego was under DEA Agents' surveillance because they'd received a tip the occupant was bartering marijuana for sex. The Agents observed the owner of the vehicle intercept a juvenile on the street and hold a brief conversation with him. The two then walked to the motor home, went inside, and lowered the window shades. When the boy exited the motor home sometime later, the agents searched him, discovered a bag of marijuana, and issued a citation. Upon questioning, the juvenile acknowledged having exchanged sex for drugs. This created "probably cause (for search) accompanied by exigent circumstances," per Carroll v. United States.

At police request, the juvenile returned to the motor home and knocked on the door. When the occupant emerged, the officers arrested him and proceeded to search the vehicle without warrant or consent, and discovered a quantity of marijuana sufficient impound the vehicle and to support a charge of possession with intent to sell.

The defendant attempted to have the evidence suppressed at trail, claiming the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he was living in the motor home and had a higher expectation of privacy than he would in a parked car, but the trial court denied his motion. He subsequently plead "no contest" and began the appeal process. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision, but the Supreme Court of California reversed on the grounds that the expectation of privacy for someone living in a motor home was similar to that of someone living in a house.

The US Supreme Court overturned the California Supreme Court ruling, holding that the motor vehicle exception applied to the motor home, and that the warrantless search did not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation.

Chief Justice Burger wrote, in the Opinion of the Court:

"[W]hen a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found in a place not regularly used for residential purposes, temporary or otherwise, two justifications for the automobile exception com into play . . . First, the vehicle is obviously readily mobile by the turn of an ignition key, if not actually moving. Second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from its use as a licensed motor vehicle subject to a range of police regulation inapplicable to a fixed dwelling."

According to the Court, the exceptions are:

• Ready mobility of the vehicle
• Diminished expectation of privacy due to vehicles' "pervasive regulation."

Burger wrote that the Court had previously held in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 US 433 (1973) that even vehicles not immediately mobile (such as those immobilized due to an accident) were still accorded a lower expectation of privacy:

"Even in cases where an automobile was not immediately mobile, the lesser expectation of privacy resulting from its use as a readily mobile vehicle justified application of the vehicular exception . . . These reduced expectations of privacy derive not from the fact that the area to be searched is in plain view, but from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways."

To view the complete Opinion of California v. Carney, see Related Links, below.

I'll assume you meant to ask "Can the police search mycar when I'm not there?"

The only situation where the police would require your presence is if the justification for the search was your consent. Otherwise, the search could be based on the car appearing to be abandoned, unlawfully parked (which would permit it to be towed and inventoried), used in a crime, based on probable cause, incidental to an arrest, or other other circumstances. Even a consent search would be lawful if you or someone else having control of the vehicle had given their consent for a search with you not present.