Not quite, but it has been limited. In State v Smart, the NJ Supreme Court held that a search of an automobile requires a search warrant unless the circumstances that give rise to the articulable suspicion was “unforeseeable and spontaneous.”

In Smart, after police received information that defendant was utilizing his vehicle to sell drugs, police placed defendant under surveillance for 47 minutes. During that time, police observed defendant enter the backyard of his residence and come out to the street with another person. Police then observed Defendant and other person enter his vehicle and leave. Police having articulable suspicion of drug activity had defendant’s car stopped. Police did not see any drugs in the car and Defendant refused to consent to a search. Police then detained defendant and his car and requested a drug sniffing dog. The dog reacted positively to the car and subsequently the police searched and found drugs inside the vehicle without obtaining a search warrant. 

The Court, in suppressing the drugs, held that the circumstances surrounding this case were not “unforeseeable or spontaneous.” The police officers were investigating defendant for nearly 2 hours. Although the dog sniff is actually what gave rise to probable cause, the investigation that led up to the sniff can’t be discounted when evaluating whether the circumstances were unforeseeable or spontaneous.

So what does this mean? Generally, unless, police officers see contraband upon approaching the vehicle, any subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle likely will end up with a successful suppression motion. The fact that this is a very fact sensitive decision, most police will now have to detain defendants on the side of the rode or impound the vehicle and wait to get a search warrant any time probable cause is developed after the stop of a vehicle.  What does this mean for you? Do not consent to a search of your vehicle and contact an a Certified Criminal Trial attorney to fight for your 4^th Amendment rights.