Traffic Stop - Controversy in The United States

Controversy in The United States

In the United States, traffic stops have been criticized for their use in police dragnets to check compliance with laws such as those requiring the use of seat belts or those forbidding the possession of narcotics.

Some people have objected that the tactic violates the United States Constitution; the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, contains a provision against unreasonable search and seizure. Typically police must either have probable cause for a search or get a warrant from a judge specifying a particular individual by name or get a "John Doe warrant" with a specific description.

In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations was unconstitutional.

In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), the United States Supreme court ruled that when a police officer has made a lawful arrest of a driver, he may search the passenger area of the vehicle without obtaining a warrant.

In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the use of sobriety checkpoints was constitutional.

In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that 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.

In Arizona v. Gant, (2008), the United States Supreme Court ruled that an officer must demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to search a vehicle pursuant to an arrest, distinguishing New York v. Belton.