| Knowles v. Iowa | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 3, 1998 Decided December 8, 1998 | |
| Full case name | Patrick Knowles, Petitioner v. Iowa |
| Citations | 525U.S.113 (more) 119 S. Ct. 484; 142L. Ed. 2d 492; 1998U.S. LEXIS 8068; 67 U.S.L.W. 4027; 98 Daily Journal DAR 12417; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6164 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction affirmed,State v. Knowles, 569N.W.2d601 (Iowa 1997);cert. granted,523 U.S. 1019 (1998). |
| Holding | |
| A law enforcement officer may not search a person's vehicle without their consent when they are not in custody once they have been cited without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined byunanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Iowa Code §321.485(1)(a);U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), was a decision by theUnited States Supreme Court which ruled that theFourth Amendment prohibits apolice officer from further searching avehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written acitation for the offense.[1]
Patrick Knowles was stopped inNewton, Iowa, driving 43 mph (69 km/h) in a 25 mph (40 km/h) zone. The police officer ticketed Knowles rather than arresting him, as was permitted underIowa law. The officer then searched thecar, findingmarijuana and a "pot pipe." Knowles was then arrested and charged with violation of state laws dealing withcontrolled substances.
Before trial, Knowles argued the search was not applicable to the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized inUnited States v. Robinson,[2] because he had not been placed under arrest. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the police officer conceded that he had neither Knowles' consent nor probable cause to conduct the search. He relied on Iowa law dealing with such searches.
BecauseIowa Code § 321.485(1)(a) permits either an arrest or a citation when making a traffic stop, theIowa Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as providing authority to officers to conduct a full-blown search of anautomobile and driver in those cases where police elect not to make a custodial arrest. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the defendant was convicted.
A dividedIowa Supreme Court upheld the search and the conviction.[3]
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the search was unlawful.
Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the car.
Because, given the type of stop, there were no grounds for the officer to believe that his safety was in jeopardy, and thus had no probable cause to perform a search without consent of the driver. Also, since Knowles was not "in custody", there was no custodial exception to permit a search either. Thus the search was ruled illegal.
The Supreme Court reversed the case and remanded it for redetermination.
This article incorporatespublic domain material from this U.S government document.