The Prouse case holds that the general purpose of the fourth amendment is to impose a standard of reasonableness on the exercise of discretion by government officers. Thus, the permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. It is our opinion that the governmental units involved in the proposed survey cannot show a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to overcome motorists' legitimate expectation of privacy in their vehicles. As the Court stated in Prouse , An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. Automobile travel is a basic, pervasive, and often necessary mode of transportation to and from one's home, workplace, and leisure activities.
Many people spend more hours each day traveling in cars than walking on the streets.
Undoubtedly, many find a greater sense of security and privacy in traveling in an automobile than they do in exposing themselves by pedestrian or other modes of travel. Were the individual subject to unfettered governmental intrusion every time he entered an automobile, the security guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment would be seriously circumscribed. Nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Additionally, because protected constitutional rights are involved, liability could be asserted under 42 U.S.C. 1983. It is our understanding that the information sought in the survey could be obtained through less obtrusive means.