New legislation has been passed in West Virginia dealing with search and seizure. It was pushed by the ACLU, who of course were only concerned for minorities having their rights disregarded. But the fact is that everyone, across the board, has had their rights trampled when it comes to traffic searches and seizures.
It essentially provides that no longer can law enforcement merely testify after-the-fact that the vehicle owner consented to a search of his or her vehicle. This, by the way, is pretty much the foundation for 80% of criminal prosecutions. Either people are too dumb/ignorant/naive to realize that they can say “no” to the officer who is asking to search their vehicle, or the cop just “testi-lies” after-the-fact that consent was given, when in fact it was not. Who do you think the judge is going to believe, the law enforcement officer, or the guy who had marijuana/concealed weapon, etc. in his car?
Pursuant to this new statute, consent must now be recorded, either in writing through an approved form, or through an audio/video recording. It must be communicated to the suspect that he or she has the right to refuse the search. It also provides that he or she can revoke their consent at any time. Though this may be dicey, because the revocation would not be recorded unless there was a dash cam, or other recorder, recording the audio. The one exception for the recordation of consent is if there is an issue of officer safety. Basically, if the cop can articulate some justification for believing there may be some weapon that could potentially harm him or her, then the statute flies out the window.
Remember, states are generally free to provide greater protection of civil liberties than is provided for in the U.S. Constitution (i.e., the US Supreme Court), which West Virginia has done here. However, states are not free to provide less protection. Hence, West Virginia could not pass a statute (that would be constitutional) which would allow officers to search vehicles without probable cause or consent.
The statute will take effect January 11, 2011.
Here is the statute:
A BILL to amend of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto two new sections, designated §62-1A-10 and §62- 1A-11, all relating to searches of motor vehicles by law- enforcement officers; establishing criteria; and requiring rules.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended by adding thereto two new sections, designated §62-1A-10 and §62- 1A-11, all to read as follows:
ARTICLE 1A. SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
§62-1A-10. Motor vehicle searches.
(a) A law-enforcement officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic may not search the vehicle unless the law-enforcement officer:
(1) Has probable cause or another legal basis for the search;
(2) Conducts a search for weapons based on an articulation of a reasonable fear for the officer’s safety or the safety of others;
(3) Obtains the written consent of the operator of the vehicle on a form that complies with subsection (b), section eleven of this article; or
(4) Obtains the oral consent of the operator of the vehicle and ensures that the oral consent is evidenced by an audio and video recording that complies with subsection (c), section eleven of this article.
(b) This section takes effect on January 1, 2011.
§62-1A-11. Rules for certain evidence of consent to vehicle search.
(a) To facilitate the implementation of section ten of this article the Director of the Governor’s Committee on Crime, Delinquency and Corrections, in consultation with the Division of Motor Vehicles, shall propose emergency and legislative rules in accordance with article three, chapter twenty-nine-a of this code to establish the requirements for:
(1) A form used to obtain the written consent of the operator of a motor vehicle under section ten of this article; and
(2) An audio and video recording used as evidence of the oral consent of the operator of a motor vehicle under section ten of this article.
(b) At a minimum, the rules adopted under subsection (a) of this section must require the form to contain:
(1) A statement that the operator of the motor vehicle fully understands that the operator may refuse to give the law- enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(2) A statement that the operator of the motor vehicle is freely and voluntarily giving the law-enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(3) A statement that the operator of the motor vehicle may withdraw the consent at any time during the search;
(4) The time and date of the stop giving rise to the search;
(5) A description of the motor vehicle to be searched; and
(6) The name of each law-enforcement officer conducting the stop or search.
(c) At a minimum, the rules adopted under subdivision (2), subsection (a) of this section must require the audio and video recording to reflect an affirmative statement made by the operator that:
(1) The operator of the motor vehicle understands that the operator may refuse to give the law-enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(2) The operator of the motor vehicle is voluntarily giving the law-enforcement officer consent to search the motor vehicle; and
(3) The operator of the motor vehicle was informed that the operator may withdraw the consent at any time during the search.
(d) The Director of the Governor’s Committee on Crime, Delinquency and Corrections shall adopt the rules required by this section no later than December 31, 2010.
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to provide procedures to protect motor vehicle operators with regard to searches of their motor vehicles by law-enforcement officers.
§§62-1A-10 and 62-1A-11 are new; therefore, strike-throughs and underscoring have been omitted.