Justices set limits on police searches in traffic stops

The passenger compartment and the trunk of a car are legally separate.
By MICHELE C. HLADIK
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- Smelling burnt marijuana during a traffic stop is not enough reason for law enforcement to search the trunk of a car, according to the Ohio Supreme Court Wednesday.
"A trunk and a passenger compartment of an automobile are subject to different standards of probable cause to conduct searches," wrote Justice Paul Pfeifer for the majority.
"The odor of burnt marijuana in the passenger compartment of a vehicle does not, standing alone, establish probable cause for a warrantless search of the trunk of the vehicle."
He said that because there was no other evidence found within the passenger section of the car, there was no reason to search the trunk.
The case evolved from a 2002 traffic stop made on US Route 30 in Wooster.
After an Ohio State Highway Patrolman stopped Stephen Farris, then 21, of Wooster for speeding, the officer detected the odor of burnt marijuana in the car.
Before being read his Miranda rights, Farris was questioned in the cruiser and told the car would be searched. He was asked if anything would be found.
Farris said his roommates had been smoking marijuana in the car and there was a pipe in the trunk. He was reportedly then read his Miranda Rights and asked the same questions, to which he gave the same replies.
Arrested
The car was searched and Farris arrested after drug paraphernalia was found in the trunk.
Also before the high court was the issue of whether Farris had been in custody and the timing of the recitation of his Miranda rights.
The high court did find that Farris was detained legally and his rights were not violated in this area because of the smell of the marijuana.
However, the high court found Miranda was necessary in this case before questioning.
"A defendant need not be under arrest, however, to be 'in custody' for Miranda purposes," the decision read.
"Here, the officer's treatment of Farris after the original traffic stop placed Farris in custody."
"The words themselves are not magical and are not curative of interrogation mistakes that occur before it is given," the decision read.
The high court ruled Farris' statements made before and after his Miranda rights were read should have been allowed in court or as probable cause for opening the trunk.
Votes and reactions
Pfeiffer was joined in the 4-3 decision by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justices Maureen O'Connor and Judith Lanzinger.
Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Terrance O'Donnell and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton disagreed in part.
The majority decision was applauded by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.
"They get it exactly right," said Jeff Gamso, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio.
Gary Vest, president of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, questioned the decision.
According to Vest, questioning conducted on the side of the road during the traffic stop should be considered in a different light than questioning in a police station.
He also said that any time a law enforcement officer suspects or finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing they should have the ability to search the whole car. He said there are times, especially at night when it is not possible to obtain a warrant before searching a vehicle.
Vest said he doesn't think the decision will have a great effect on the way law enforcement officials conduct traffic stops.
Vest also said the decision shows the limited judicial understanding of the dynamics of a traffic stop.