Policy Text
Roll Call Training Bulletin
Produced by: Sergeant Clayton Buchanan, PSU Daniel Hahn, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Of ficer Rose Cabrera , PSU Volume 82
Vehicle Search es
9/23/ 2020
In RCTB # 76 (Search of vehicles for identification) we discussed changes in your ability to search a motor
vehicle for identification when the operator does not produce one. Here we will discuss alternative methods
that may be used to examine the contents of a lawfully stopped vehicle without a warrant .
This RCTB will cover the various legal methods for conducting a vehicle search . Additionally , two case law
summar ies involving vehicle stops and vehicle searches will be covered .
Search Methods
1. Consent Searches : It is recommended to ask for consent to search , if circumstance s permit , even if
there are other lawful alternatives to search a vehicle. When seeking consent, officers have to consider
four different elements:
a. The right to seek consent : officers can ask for consent during consensual contacts or during
lawful detentions. Merely asking for consent, even when it is unrelated to the original purpose of
the stop, is permissible as long as the request for consent and the search occur in the tim e it
would normally take to handle the original violation .
b. Voluntariness : Obtaining consent during an unlawful arrest or detention will render any grant of
permission invalid. The California Peace Officer’s Legal Sourcebook discusses potential
problems with “voluntariness” when officers obtain consent AFTER they have issued a citation
or warning. The CPOLSB recommends seeking consent during the traffic stop or obtaining a
written consent waiver if consent is obtained after the stop has been completed.
c. Authority : Simply put, the person gra nting permission to search must have the authority to do
so.
d. Scope : Scope deals with limitations over the area being searched. For instance, c onsent to
search for drugs reasonably suggests the scope of the search would include any compartment
or object that reasonably could contain narcotics (e.g. c onsent granted to search for stolen
bicycles obviously keeps us out of glove compartments, center consoles and from peeking
under seats ).
2. Incident to Arrest : Officers may search a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of the vehicle’s operator
or any of its passengers. This is only allowable when an actual arrest occurs , and the search is limited
and must be contemporaneous to the arrest . In instances where d rivers/occupants are released via
citation (even if an arrest would have been permitted) will not justify a search under this authority. In
Arizona v. Gant (2009) : Law enforcement officers lost search incident to arrest in most situations.
Also, i n Arizona v. Gant it was held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle
incident to a n occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the
vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehic le contains evidence of the offense of the arrest.
3. Probable Cause : Courts have long recognized that vehicles have a lower expectation of privacy than
residences and are obviously far more mobile. As such, it is permissible to search a vehicle when you
have developed probable cause to believe evidence of a crime may be inside the vehicle.
Roll Call Training Bulletin
Produced by: Sergeant Clayton Buchanan, PSU Daniel Hahn, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Of ficer Rose Cabrera , PSU Volume 82
4. Vehicles as an Instrumentality of a Crime : Officers may seize and search vehicles when the vehicle
itself is evidence of the crime for which an arrest is made. This means the car is itself evidence of a
crime and not just used to transport evidence or was used during the commission of a crime. While
vehicles seized as an instrumentality of a crime can be searched without a warrant, obtaining a warrant
can protect evidence seized from suppression in later court challenges.
5. Plain View/Plain Smell (Marijuana) :
a. The plain view doctrine allows a polic e officer to seize objects not described in a warrant when
executing a lawful search or seizure if the officer observes the object in plain view , provided the
officer has a lawful right to be there and has probable cause to believe that it is connected with
criminal activities.
b. As in plain view, “plain smell ” can serve as probable cause for lawful searches of a vehicle
provided the officer has other criminal activity. Proposition 215 and Proposition 64 impacted an
officer’s ability to search vehicles based upon plain smell of marijuana . Previously plain smell ,
as it pertained to a marijuana investigation , provided a basis for a search but that is no longer
allowed .
Case law summary (People v. Shumake (Dec. 16, 2019) 45 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 ):
In Shumake , a Berk eley PD officer working a DUI detail stopped a motorist for an equipment violation and
thereafter noticed the smell of fresh and burnt marijuana coming from the car. Shumake told the officer he had
a small amount of marijuana in the car’s center console. The offic er commenced searching the vehicle based
on her interpretation of CVC 23222 (any marijuana transported in a vehicle must be in a closed, sealed
container), believing this section required such containers be closed and heat -sealed.
Checking the center co nsole first, the officer found a plastic tube containing what proved to be