So, is your sleeper truck considered your "home"?

Best be sure about that. Most states that have "Castle Defense" or "Castle Doctrine" only allow such a defense to take place within the home itself. I, for example, live in PA. PA only recently extended its Castle Doctrine to include the entire property, meaning I no longer have a duty to retreat from a deadly force situation anywhere on my property. Prior to that extension, I would have had to retreat unless the situation took place within the confines of my home itself.

I'm not sure about Iowa's defense laws. Might be to your benefit to read up on them, find out exactly what your rights of self-defense are.

 

There's a tremendous amount of difference in a commercial motor vehicle engaged in commerce regulated by the federal government and an actual private home or dwelling. Not that I'm a govco supporter or anything. It's just absurd to even compare the two.

 

If you are a company driver you do not own the tractor, nor do you pay any type of 'rent' upon the tractor. Therefore you do not, as I understand it, have any right of privacy within the confines of the tractor. If an LEO desired entrance to the tractor and you denied it, a very simple call to the company (owner of the vehicle) would gain the necessary permission for a full search. No search warrant would be required unless the company denied the search. You as the driver do not, as I understand the law, have the power to deny a search on your own.

Obviously if you are an owner operator or possibly a lease operator the rules are somewhat different.

 

In a world where ALL LEO's abide by the law instead of making it up as they go along, you would be correct as I understand the law. However, this is not a perfect world. While its true there are some LEO's who do their job, there are also quite a few who bring a stain unto the badge as we all know.

In many cases, it would be fairly obvious to a Commercial Vehicle Enforcement officer if he is dealing with a company or an O/O. Plenty of big big carriers out there. Smaller outfits may be something I would question if I were an LEO before I conducted a search (based upon solely reasonable, articulable suspicion).

 

In New York v. Burger, 482 U. S. 691 (1987) The Supreme Court held that warrantless inspections of a commercial entity are permitted if the entity is part of a "closely regulated industry", is a "substantial government interest", the inspections are "necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme', and the inspection provides "the two basic functions of a warrant: it must advise the owner of the commercial premises that the search is being made pursuant to the law and has properly defined scope, and it must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers."

That case involved the search of an automobile junk yard. The officers were checking for proper documentation of VINs to determine if vehicles were stolen. The Court framed the issues as follows:

1. ""[W]hether the warrentless search of an automobile junkyard, conducted pursuant to a statute authorizing such a search, falls within the exception to the warrant requirement for administrative inspections of pervasively regulated industries."
2. "[W]hether an otherwise proper administrative inspection is unconstitutional because the ultimate purpose of the regulatory statute pursuant to which the search is done . . . is the same as that of penal laws."

The Court that because junkyards are a "closely" regulated industry, the state has a "substantial interest in regulating" it because the threat of "motor theft", and "regulation of the . . . industry" can control "the receiver of, or market in, stolen property." That statute provides a "constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant" by informing the operator "that inspections will be made on a regular basis."

In California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a warrantless search of a motorhome. It noted preliminarily that the Fourth Amendment provides the people have a protected privacy interest in their homes, persons and effects stating that "This fundamental right is preserved by a requirement that searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by an independent judicial officer." The Court noted that there are exceptions to this rule requiring a warrant, including the exception allowing warrantless searches of automobiles under some circumstances because "the ready mobility of the automobile justifies a lesser degree of protection of those interests." "Besides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office." The Court also noted that there is a lesser degree of privacy required with respect to an automobile due to "the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways." ...."In short, the pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met.
When a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly
used for residential purposes -- temporary or otherwise -- the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play.".

In holding that the warrantless search of a motor home does not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Court said the following:

The Court found that the fact that the motorhome was capable of being a residence was not sufficient to pull it out of the automobile exception to the requirement for a warrant before search, stating as follows:

If the issue of warrantless searches of sleeper berths ever reaches the Supreme Court I suspect it would hold such searches do not require warrantless because of the diminished expectation of privacy in a commercial vehicle, the fact that the vehicle is subject to heavy regulation, and the fact that the vehicles are mobile which, under such exigent circumstances justifies a warrantless search. Please note that there is still the requirement for probable cause. The Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

I do not necessarily agree with the Court's rationale in allowing such searches. This is simply my opinion with respect to whether a Court would permit the warrantless search of a sleeper berth.

Nothing in this post should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship.

Paul Taylor
Attorney
www.truckersjusticecenter.com