The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution was established to protect a citizen’s right to privacy. And, it empowers individuals freedom from arbitrary invasions.

Its text reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In a 4-to-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided to allow police officers the authority to search a vehicle with probable cause. They previously had to obtain a warrant from a judge.

The state’s highest court points to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Shiem Gary, a 2010 traffic stop that occurred in Philadelphia. Police officers noticed Gary driving an SUV with “heavily tinted windows. Believing that the level of tint in the windows violated Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Code, the officers stopped and approached the vehicle.”

Gary said his rights were violated under Article One, Section Eight of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article One, Section Eight language is similar to that of the Fourth Amendment.

Officers smelled marijuana and found two pounds of it, which Gary confessed that he had marijuana in his possession. Gary said the officers didn’t have probable cause to search his vehicle, and accused officers of a warrantless vehicle search.

A majority of Justices didn’t see it that way. The ruling is said to shift Pennsylvania law in line with federal law.

Trib-Live reports:

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin, Seamus P. McCaffery and Thomas G. Saylor disagreed.

In the majority opinion, McCaffery said adopting the federal stance will ensure police follow a “uniform standard for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle, applicable in federal and state court, to avoid unnecessary confusion, conflict and inconsistency in this often-litigated area.”

Justices Debra McCloskey Todd and Max Baer opposed the decision, with Todd writing that it “heedlessly contravenes over 225 years of unyielding protection against unreasonable search and seizure.”