Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?

Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in Cars

Background

Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both the driver and Mead out, the driver consented to a search of the car.

The police officer searched the car, including Mead’s backpack left on the passenger seat, revealing methamphetamine, marijuana, pills, and a digital scale.

Mead’s possession of methamphetamine led to his arrest, followed by a motion to suppress the search which was ultimately denied. The court denied the motion, citing People v LaBelle, 478 Mich 891 (2007). Defendant was convicted and sentenced to serve 2 to 10 years in prison as a habitual offender, resulting in a 2 to 10-year prison sentence imposed by the judge.

The Case

Mead argued that the police did not have the right to search his backpack, highlighting the limited ability of a car passenger to challenge a vehicle search.

However, there may be specific circumstances where a passenger could potentially contest such a search.

To challenge a search, one must show a valid Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the area searched, recognized by society. Courts analyze all circumstances to determine the legitimacy of this expectation.

The Court found that Mead had a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding his backpack, as it was his own property that was being searched. This differs from a common scenario where a passenger may hide illicit items in a car they are traveling in.

In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice MCCORMACK, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held:

A passenger’s personal property is not subsumed by the vehicle that carries it for Fourth Amendment purposes. Accordingly, People v LaBelle, 478 Mich 891 (2007), was overruled; in its place, the following standard applies: a person may challenge an alleged Fourth Amendment violation if that person can show under the totality of the circumstances that he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and that his or her expectation of privacy was one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

The Driver Gave Consent to the Search the Car?!?!

The driver voluntarily allowed the officer to search the vehicle. Consent grants the officer the authority to conduct a search without the need for a warrant.

The key difference lies in the driver lacking the authority to authorize the officer to search Mead’s backpack, as the backpack belonged to Mead.

Read the case and opinions here

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LARRY GERALD MEAD, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 156376.
Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal October 24, 2018.
Decided April 22, 2019.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

Recent

Other Articles

Students and 4th Amendment Rights

Students are entitled to a right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures even within school premises, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

However, these rights are somewhat limited for students, allowing school officials to conduct searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than just probable cause.

Reasonable Suspicion – The standard that must be met in order to search a student at school; this criterion was established by in 1985 by the case New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Case Background

In a New Jersey high school, a teacher caught two girls smoking in the bathroom and escorted them to the principal’s office. While one girl confessed to smoking, the other, identified as T.L.O., denied it.

The principal discovered that the girl was also selling marijuana at school when they inspected her purse. T.L.O. confessed to the offense after being brought to the police station.

Based on her confession and the evidence in her purse, the state of New Jersey brought charges against her. In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated.

The school was supported by the court, but T.L.O. appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ultimately deemed the search unreasonable and the evidence inadmissible.

The state of New Jersey appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

US Supreme Court Decision

School administrators are not required to obtain a search warrant or establish probable cause

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled, by a 6-3 margin, that New Jersey and the school had met a “reasonableness” standard for conducting such searches at school.

School administrators are not required to obtain a search warrant or establish probable cause before conducting searches, as students have a decreased expectation of privacy while on school premises.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

Recent

Other Articles