Traffic Stops in Michigan –Know Your Constitutional Rights
A traffic-stop is the most common type of contact a citizen has with law enforcement. Most anyone who has driven a car for any period of time has been stopped by the police for some type of traffic infraction. Many more serious criminal cases begin with a simple traffic stop and end with the driver in handcuffs and facing serious criminal charges. Even if you are not doing anything illegal it is important to know your legal rights in the context of a traffic stop and how to manage the encounter. It is also important for all citizens to exercise their rights. As recent Nobel Prize winning journalist Maria Ressa said, “don't be afraid, if you don't exercise your rights you will lose them.”
General Guidelines
Getting pulled over is always a bit anxiety provoking and stressful even for law abiding citizens. If you are pulled over try your best to stay calm. It is also important that you talk and act in a respectful manner to the police officer. Even if the police officer does not afford you the same courtesy it is important that you remain respectful and polite. Remember, if the stop results in a ticket being issued or you are arrested the prosecutor, the judge and even jurors may see how you behaved during the encounter.
The best practice when you pull over for a traffic stop is to leave your hands on the steering wheel in the ten and two position. You should leave them in this position until the officer has approached you and asked for your driving documents. Once directed to do so obtain your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance and present it to the officer. If you have a concealed pistol license you should present it to the officer as well. (*If you are a CPL holder you are required to inform the officer of this and advise whether or not you are carrying your weapon.)
The officer should advise you the reason for the traffic stop. If he does not inform you of the reason for the stop, politely ask the officer why you were stopped.
If you disagree with the officer's assessment of the situation, believe he is mistaken about the law or have any other point of contention with the officer—do not argue. The roadside is not the time or place to resolve legal disputes with the police. This is not to say you should not assert your constitutional rights which I will discuss in more detail below.
Requests to Exit the Vehicle
In some situations, the police officer may ask you and your passengers in the vehicle to exit the vehicle during the stop. In Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a police officer may order the driver out of the vehicle during a routine traffic stop without violating the 4th Amendment. The rule was extended to apply to passengers as well in the case of Maryland v Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997.) If an officer requests that you or your passengers exited the vehicle you must comply. Failure to comply could result in criminal charges.
For purposes of the 4th Amendment everyone in the vehicle is “seized” during a traffic stop. If you are a passenger you may ask the police if you are free to leave if you wish to leave the scene of the stop.
Pretext Stops
Police officers who are on patrol and conduct traffic stops sometimes have a hidden agenda. Officers who patrol interstate highways and urban areas often conduct traffic stops as a pretext to look for drugs and weapons. The Supreme Court in Wren v United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), ruled that pretext stops do not violate the 4th Amendment. As long as the officer has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred he may legally stop the vehicle irrespective of his underlying motives for making the stop.
Vehicle Searches
The Supreme Court has long held that individuals have a 4th Amendment privacy interest in their vehicles. However, the Court has carved out several exceptions to the warrant requirement. The following are the most common exceptions to the warrant requirement for vehicle searches:
Consent Searches.
The most common tactic that police officers utilize to search a citizen's vehicle is to simply ask for permission. An officer can ask you for permission to search your vehicle for any reason or no reason at all. Officers do not need to have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to ask for consent. If an officer asks permission to search your vehicle and you give the officer consent then the search is lawful. If an officer asks for your consent to search your vehicle you should always politely but firmly decline. The same rule applies to an officers request to search your person or your personal effects such as a bag or purse.
During a traffic stop police may conduct what is know as a Terry pat down to be sure you are not armed. The police are only allowed to pat down your outer layers of clothing. They cannot search inside your pockets or manipulate items felt in your pocket. An extension of the Terry pat rule know as the “Plain Feel Doctrine” allows police to conduct a more thorough search of a person without a warrant if the officer can determine that an item felt during a Terry pat is not a weapon and is likely contraband. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 US 366 (1993.)
2. Inventory Searches.
In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), the Court ruled that law enforcement may conduct what is called an “inventory search” of any vehicle which is lawfully impounded. A vehicle can be impounded in a number of situations including situations where:
The driver is intoxicated or otherwise unable to safely drive;
The driver does not have a valid driver's license;
The car is not properly registered or licensed;
There is no insurance on the vehicle; or
There are significant equipment violations which render the vehicle unsafe to drive.
If an officer wants to search your vehicle and he cannot gain consent or otherwise lawfully search your vehicle, he may l ook for a reason to impound your vehicle. This would allow him to conduct a lawful “inventory search.”
3. Protective Sweeps.
In Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), the Court ruled that officers who conduct a lawful traffic stop may conduct a “protective search” of the passenger compartment of the car without a warrant and without probable cause in certain circumstances. The exact language of the standard set forth by the Court in Long is cumbersome and ambiguous; however, the essence of the rule is that police can conduct a protective-search of the passenger compartment of the car if the officer has reasonable suspicion that one of the occupants may be dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. Many courts, citing Long and similar cases, have held that so called “furtive” movements during a traffic stop are sufficient cause to warrant a protective search of the passenger compartment. For example, if a police office is behind you, is signaling for you to pull over and he observes you lean over towards the passenger seat he could use this so called “furtive” movement as justification to search your car. At court the prosecutor would argue that your “furtive” movement of leaning towards the passenger seat gave the officer cause to believe you might be hiding a weapon or hiding evidence of a crime. For an example of a case making this kind of finding see United States v. Green, 151 US App D.C. 35 (1972).
If you are being pulled over do not make any movements that would allow a police officer to use that as an excuse to search your vehicle.
4. Plain View Doctrine.
This one is pretty simple. If an officer pulls you over and you have a bag of drugs sitting on the seat that the officer can view from outside the car he can search your entire car without a warrant. Texas v. Brown 460 U.S. 730 (1983.)
5. Search Incident to Arrest.
If you are arrested during a traffic stop the police may search your car incident to your arrest in certain situations. Whether or not such a search is lawful depends on the facts of the case. The rule was first established by the Court in Chimel v. California, 395 US 752 (1969) in the context of a person who was arrested in their home. In that case, the Court ruled that the police could not search the entire house of the person who they arrested in the house; however, the Court found the 4th Amendment allowed the police to search that area of the home which was in the immediate control of the arrestee. In a more recent case, Arizona v. Gant, 556 US 332 (2009), the Court ruled that officers could not search the passenger compartment of a car belonging to a person who was arrested after he exited his vehicle and had been summoned over (several feet away) to speak with the police.
Providing Identification to Police for Driver's and Passengers
In the State of Michigan (and most other states) if you are stopped while driving a vehicle you are required to provide the officer with identification. The rule for passenger's is different.
A passenger in a vehicle is not required to identify himself to a police officer unless the officer has a reasonable and artictuable suspicion that the passenger is committing a crime. In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), the Court ruled that an officer may not lawfully order a passenger in a vehicle to identify herself absent a particularized suspicion that she has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in criminal activity.
Length of Traffic Stop
The Supreme Court has recently placed some strict limitations on the length and scope of detention allowed for a routine traffic stop. In Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), the Court ruled that the police may not extend the length of a routine traffic stop beyond what is ordinarily necessary to complete “the mission of the stop.” The mission of the stop includes such tasks as: asking for license, registration and insurance; checking for equipment violations; issuing citations; and checking for wants and warrants. Any extension of the stop beyond what is required to accomplish these tasks is unreasonable and in violation of the 4thAmendment. In the Rodriguez case, the police stopped Mr. Rodriguez for swerving in his own lane. The police conducted the standard checks but then extended the detention long enough for a K9 unit to arrive and conduct a K9 sniff of Mr. Rodriguez's car. The Court ruled this extension of the stop violated the 4th Amendment.
Answering Questions - Miranda and the Right to Remain Silent
The 5th Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to be a witness against himself. A police officer, during a traffic stop cannot require you to answer any questions. Some citizens will simply answer “I don't answer questions” any time a police officer asks a question. As a practical matter, most police officers will not appreciate this and it will likely result in a lengthier and less pleasant encounter. However, anything you say can be used against you so even in the context of a simple traffic stop for speeding your statements could be used in court to establish that you committed the infraction. The safest court of action is not to answer anything but the most basic of questions. If you have any indication at all that the officer may suspect you of committing a crime do not answer any questions before speaking with a lawyer.
If you are arrested for any reason DO NOT make any statements to the police. If the police attempt to question you just politely ask to speak to a lawyer. Police officers can (and frequently do) lie or mislead citizens in an attempt to get them to forfeit their rights. Don't fall for it. No matter what the officers tell you or promise you do not make any statements to the police. If you have been arrested, the police are not your friends and are not there to help you. They are there to gather evidence and make a criminal case against you. Stand firm, exercise your constitutional rights and call a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.
Hire Experienced Legal Representation
If you, a family member or a friend have been charged with a crime in Jackson, Hillsdale, Lenawee, Calhoun or Washtenaw counties in Michigan contact Michigan criminal defense attorney Philip C. Curtis for a free phone consultation.