There is almost a century-old precedent in the United States that officers need probable cause to search a vehicle. (Carroll vs. United States, 1925). While not entirely analogous, we know that cell phones are also not subject to a warrantless search. (Riley vs. California, 2014). We don’t have a clear answer from the Supreme Court yet, but Court has not taken up any case where State prosecutors argued on appeal that black boxes can be obtained without a showing of probable cause. (The Supreme Court’s decision to take a case or not take a case sometimes gives us valuable insight into what the Court’s position might be.) At the state-level, courts vary by jurisdiction. For example, courts in Florida and Georgia have ruled the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy in the vehicle’s black box data while courts in New York and California have disagreed.
Notably, in Tiger Woods’ case, we know a search warrant was obtained to retrieve the black box. This means an application was made by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department outlining why they believe there was probable cause that a criminal offense took place. Sources have reported the probable cause statement was based on an allegation that Tiger Woods was committing the criminal offense of driving recklessly.
Probable cause requires “specific and articulable facts that an offense occurred.” Yet sources have also reported the search warrant affidavit does not list any specific crime. You can expect an incredible amount of scrutiny to be placed on the affidavit for search warrant and the judge’s decision once the affidavit is released to see if probable cause was established or whether this was nothing more than a fishing expedition – the latter would mean any evidence collected could be thrown out.