The Constitution has always protected the rights of people, and the matters that pertain to private domiciles and vehicles are no exception. However, the issue of warrants in house or vehicle search situations has recently become controversial. The reason for this might be the opinion that both types of private property require privacy and, therefore, should be respected, with the searches not being able to be conducted warrantless. Yet, houses and vehicles cannot be treated differently, implying that the former must require a warrant and the latter must not.
There are specific factors that differentiate vehicles from houses, which supports why the two are not treated in the same manner. The first reason is the mobility of cars, which might complicate the process for both parties if a warrant is required. A police officer cannot detain a car owner and await a warrant to search. Obtaining a search warrant is time-consuming, and before the officer receives it, the driver will leave. The second factor is the privacy that every individual expects in a private domicile. A vehicle requires less privacy since the driver is exposed. However, on the premises of private property, such as a house, a person expects to obtain maximum privacy. As a result, the rights of individuals on the territory of the United States are protected by the Fourth Amendment (United States Courts, n.d.). These factors draw a parallel between the two types of property.
Hence, houses and vehicles cannot be treated equally and thus should have different requirements for warrants. In this sense, residences need to require warrants for searches due to the level of privacy expected by owners. In turn, vehicles and car owners are often exposed and do not require the same amount of privacy. Additionally, the mobility of the vehicles can complicate the search process due to the time it takes to obtain a warrant.
Reference
United States Courts. (n.d.). What does the Fourth Amendment mean?Web.