Opinion ID: 2444991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: relevant public policy

Text: Routine requests to search a detained motorist, in the absence of any suspicion of criminal activity beyond an initial traffic violation, represent a real and disturbing burden on motorists [13] and a substantial breach of privacy. See Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 48, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (I ... assume that motoristseven those who are not carrying contrabandhave an interest in preserving the privacy of their vehicles and possessions from the prying eyes of a curious stranger); Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d at 630 (These searches result in a substantial interruption of motorists' travels. Because drugs are easily concealed in crevices, behind paneling, and under seats and carpeting, a search for drugs can be a painstaking business.); State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, 593-94, 639 N.E.2d 498 (1994) (noting that motorists are routinely delayed in travels and asked to relinquish right of privacy in vehicles and luggage); O'Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401, 415 (Wyo. 2005) ( Terry has been whittled away to the point that in some jurisdictions routine traffic stops are commonly turned into drug investigations through a variety of techniques including ... seeking consent for a full roadside exploration of the motorist's car.... The result is a far cry from a straightforward and unadorned traffic stop.... [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]); R. Whorf, Consent Searches Following Routine Traffic Stops: The Troubled Jurisprudence of a Doomed Drug Interdiction Technique, 28 Ohio N.U. L.Rev. 1, 18-20 (2001-2002) (discussing how consent searches, especially suspicionless consent searches, infringe on dignitary interests). Although, ostensibly, a driver in this situation may refuse consent, most detained motorists will feel compelled to grant permission to search their vehicles, regardless of whether they in fact are carrying contraband. See 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure (4th Ed.2004) § 9.3(e), p. 395 and notes; Brown v. State, supra, at 630 (listing studies demonstrating that the vast majority of motorists who are subjected to this type of request will accede to the officer and allow the search); State v. Carty, supra, 170 N.J. at 644-45, 790 A.2d 903 (noting that [i]n the context of motor vehicle stops, where the individual is at the side of the road and confronted by a uniformed officer seeking to search his or her vehicle, it is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that the individual feels compelled to consent and listing studies indicating that nearly 95 percent of detained motorists granted consent to search). Recognizing these concerns, many states have enacted statutory provisions protecting motorists detained because of a routine traffic violation from consent searches except when the circumstances evidence criminal activity independent of the traffic violation. See footnote 6 of this dissenting opinion. Although we have no specific data evidencing the frequency of consent searches during routine traffic stops in Connecticut, the fact that so many people must drive in order to fulfill their daily work, family and educational needs means that many Connecticut citizens may be subject to requests for consent searches and the significant interruption that such searches entail. See Brown v. State, supra, 182 P.3d at 631-32 (because most people need to travel by car, and because of the near-inevitability that people will commit traffic infractions, the `routine' traffic stop has become the doorway to widespread and probing searches of persons, vehicles, and luggage). Moreover, research suggests that these searches have in fact become more frequent, in part because of the dual wars on drugs and terrorism. See Brown v. State, supra, at 629 (listing [c]ases from other states [that] show that this police practice is not an isolated phenomenon); 4 W. LaFave, supra, at p. 395 ([r]equesting consent has apparently become yet another part of the `routine' of `routine traffic stops'); S. Lazos Vargas, Missouri, The `War on Terrorism' and Immigrants: Legal Challenges Post 9/11, 67 Mo. L.Rev. 775, 813, 826 (2002). I therefore conclude that there are strong public policy arguments weighing in favor of limiting consent searches undertaken during routine traffic stops.