13 votes

PA Supreme Court: Pennsylvania cops no longer need a warrant to search citizens’ vehicles

Lancaster Online | April 30, 2014

Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.

The high court’s opinion, released Tuesday, is being called a drastic change in citizens’ rights and police powers.

Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.

That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.

Continue reading:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Remind Me Not to Visit PA

I haven't been to an airport since the creation of the TSA, and now I guess I can't enter PA.

The Tourism Industry is likely to suffer as I imagine such violations cause an international bad reputation.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

I hope this gets appealled

In any case, never, never, never give consent to search your vehicle. Think about it, are you 100% certain there isn't stuff in your car that could be used against you? Own a used car? Was it a drug dealer's ride? New car, it's been on test drives and many car lots let their sales agents take cars home with them.

A lot of the work that a criminal defense attorney has to do involves undoing the legal mess you created for yourself after the fact. You say yes to a search and they find something and now the search is legal. You say no and your attorney is successful, then anything found in that search might be suppressed as evidence.

Never say anything to a cop that you don't want repeated to 12 jurors. Do every legal thing in your power to prevent them from finding something that they can show those jurors.


It won't matter soon enough

Weed will be legal across the country in the next few years then this decision will not matter.

If they stop Ricky

Police can search your car without warrant in all 50 states!

First, you refuse a search after police pull you over. Next, the police impound your car to get it off the road while they decide if/when a warrant will be issued. Then, the police conduct an "inventory" of items in the vehicle (including inside trunk, glove box, and console compartments). Anything illegal found in the "inventory" will be legally used against you, even though it was obtained without a warrant.


The fact is, refusing a search will just delay the search. It won't get you a warrant as stipulated by our defunct U.S. constitution.

The problem is not that the

The problem is not that the Constitution is defunct, it is the nature of our citizenship. Ask yourself: "what kind of Citizenship did Thomas Jefferson have that is fundamentally different from my citizenship?" Answer that and you have a big key to the puzzle.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

From the article:

"'This case does not eliminate the need for the police to have probable cause to search,' Stedman said."

"A driver can still refuse if an officer asks for consent to search a car. The officer can then only search if he/she has probable cause to do so, or a warrant. A driver refusing consent, alone, does not give a police officer probable cause to search."

This law makes sense to me. The headline is very misleading. That being said, they need to define "probable cause".

I think probable cause been defined

Probable cause:
Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a Cause of Action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit.

Reasonable suspicion:
A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it.

minus one

That is one more state I will not be traveling through or to!