|
The letter ‘Rape can be forgiven’ written by Mr Farrugia, published in the MaltaToday 1 May, contained several incorrect statements about United States case law and the ability of law enforcement officers to search vehicles.
The United States Supreme Court established the “automobile exception” in the landmark case known as Carroll v United States back in the 1920s. This “automobile exception” states that officers may search an automobile without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains fruits of crime, instrumentalities of crime or contraband, but the vehicle must be “moving”, stopped by law enforcement agents as opposed to a parked vehicle. It is the mobility of the vehicle that justifies the failure to obtain a warrant.
Furthermore, in California v Carney (105 S.Ct. 2066), the United States Supreme Court established case law by justifying the search of a parked motor home without a warrant following a tip to Drug Enforcement Special Agents by a youth that he had sex in there in exchange for marijuana.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court in Colorado v Bertine (107 S.Ct. 738) and California v Acevedo (111 S.Ct. 1982 (1991)) established case law by accepting circumstances where areas of a vehicle and cases or containers found in a vehicle may be searched without a search warrant.
Courts have recognised that there is a lower expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle in a public street (and by extension on a plane and boat) than in a home. It is in the case of private dwellings that law enforcement agents need the consent of the owner or a search warrant and even the need of a warrant (or procedures to obtain one) may be waived if the “knock and announce” and “no knock” warrant procedures are applied properly.
Kevin J Sciberras
BS Forensics (NY)
Sliema
|
