A. No, you cannot refuse this request. The United States Supreme Court has held that it does not violate your 4th amendment rights (which protect you from unreasonable seizures) if the police ask you to step out of your vehicle during a traffic stop. Kentucky Courts have stated, “Accordingly, the Court held that ‘once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable seizures.’” (Carlisle v. Commonwealth, 601 S.W.3d 168, 180 (Ky. 2020) (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1977)).

Q. If the police ask to search my car, can I say no?

Well, do you mind if I look around the car a little bit?

A. Yes, you always have the right to say no if the police are asking you for permission to search your car. There is a reason they are asking and not just going ahead and searching. Now, I often get the question “If there is nothing in my car, why would I refuse?” There are two reasons: The first is that a search will extend the length of your traffic stop, as it will take time for them to go through your vehicle. The second is that the police often make a mess when they are searching and they rarely put things back where and how they found them. Even if they find nothing, they’re likely to leave a mess.

Q. Do the police need a warrant to search a locked glovebox or trunk?

Well, my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights, so you gon’ need a warrant for that

A. No, as long as the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime and the vehicle was readily mobile, they can search your vehicle without a warrant – EVEN IF you said no to a search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has stated that “police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and have probable cause to believe contraband is concealed within the car may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, including compartments and containers within the vehicle whose contents are not in plain view.” (Smith v. Commonwealth, No. 2014-CA-001482-MR, 2016 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 907, at *5 (Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2016) (Citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982)) The Kentucky Court of Appeals went on to note “Under the Ross rationale, if ‘probable cause justifies the search of the lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and the contents that may conceal the object of the search.’” (Id.)

Q. Does the 4th amendment protect against K9 searches?

We’ll see how smart you are when the K9 come

A. Yes, but not in the way you would think. The United States Supreme Court has held that while you are being held for a lawful stop, a dog sniff of the exterior of your car does not implicate the 4th amendment. So, if an officer is actively investigating the reason they stopped you, another officer may have a K9 sniff your vehicle, “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” (Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410, 125 S. Ct. 834, 838 (2005)) Further, if the K9 alerts to your vehicle, the police now have probable cause to search your vehicle without a warrant or your permission.

However, the police cannot extend a lawful stop beyond the purpose of the stop, so that a K9 can come to the scene to perform the sniff. For example, if you are pulled over for speeding, the police cannot pause or slow down citing you for speeding to “buy time” until the K9 can arrive on the scene. However, that totally changes if the officer develops reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity, which would be new information occurring during the traffic stop. To that end, the Court stated “The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as Justice Alito supposes, post, at 370-372, 191 L. Ed. 2d, at 509, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 355, 191 L. Ed. 2d, at 499.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 358, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616 (2015).

So, here’s the answer to the Big Question: Although Jay-Z may be one of the greatest rappers of all time, he should not be your source for legal advice! Instead, contact Eric Ray, an experienced criminal defense attorney, for help with your legal questions and cases. Eric is based in Lexington, but he represents clients throughout Central Kentucky. Give him a call today at (859) 242-3487.