Search & Seizure Rights by State (2026)

Alabama provides search and seizure protections under both the Alabama Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Alabama Constitution, Art. I, § 5 protects against unreasonable searches
• Alabama generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• Alabama allows DUI checkpoints conducted according to established guidelines
• Warrants required for most searches with standard exceptions

Alaska provides stronger search and seizure protections than the federal Constitution:

• Alaska Constitution, Art. I, § 14 protects the right to privacy — Alaska's privacy clause is one of the strongest in the nation
• The Alaska Supreme Court has held that the state privacy right provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment
• DUI checkpoints are not allowed in Alaska — the Alaska Supreme Court found them unconstitutional under the state constitution
• A warrant is required for cell phone searches, GPS tracking, and most electronic surveillance
• Alaska follows the exclusionary rule — illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible

Arizona's search and seizure protections come from the Arizona Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Arizona Constitution, Art. II, § 8 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Arizona generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• Arizona requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, plain view, exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• Arizona allows DUI checkpoints if conducted according to constitutional guidelines
• Arizona has a strong automobile exception — vehicles may be searched without a warrant if there is probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Arizona follows the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence
• Arizona courts require warrants for cell phone searches and digital data, following Riley v. California

Arkansas protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Arkansas Constitution, Art. 2, § 15 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Arkansas generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards and does not provide significantly broader state protections
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Arkansas if they follow federal constitutional guidelines
• The automobile exception applies — officers can search a vehicle with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant. without a warrant
• Cell phone searches require a warrant under Riley v. California

California provides some of the strongest search and seizure protections in the country:

• California Constitution Art. I, § 13: Mirrors the 4th Amendment but California courts have historically interpreted it more broadly.
• Proposition 8 (1982): Limited some state-level exclusionary rule protections, aligning California more closely with federal standards. However, California courts still provide greater protection in several areas.
• Vehicle searches: California follows the federal automobile exception but requires police to have actual probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant. — not just a hunch — to search a vehicle without a warrant.
• Electronic devices: CalECPA (California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 2015) requires a warrant for government access to electronic communications, metadata, and location data — stronger than federal law.

Colorado provides broader search and seizure protections than federal law in several areas:

• The Colorado Constitution, Art. II, § 7 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Colorado courts have interpreted Art. II, § 7 more broadly than the Fourth Amendment in some areas
• Colorado rejected the federal "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule under the state constitution — the People v. Altman decision preserved the exclusionary rule
• Colorado requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions
• Colorado has strong protections for digital privacy — warrants are required for electronic communications
• Colorado does allow sobriety checkpoints — the Colorado Supreme Court upheld their constitutionality in People v. Rister (1990)

Connecticut provides search and seizure protections under both state and federal constitutions:

• Connecticut Constitution, Art. I, § 7 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Connecticut courts have in some cases interpreted state protections more broadly than federal — particularly regarding automobile searches
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Connecticut if they follow constitutional guidelines
• Connecticut limits inventory searches of vehicles more strictly than federal law
• Cell phone searches require a warrant — Connecticut was early to adopt this principle

Delaware protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Delaware Constitution, Art. I, § 6 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Delaware generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Delaware — the Delaware Supreme Court has upheld them
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant under Riley v. California
• Delaware has relatively active drug enforcement; knowing search rights is important during traffic stops

D.C. follows federal 4th Amendment standards with additional local protections:

• Federal jurisdiction: D.C. criminal cases are prosecuted in federal court (U.S. District Court for D.C.) and D.C. Superior Court, applying federal constitutional standards.
• Body camera requirements: MPD officers are required to activate body cameras during searches. Failure to do so can be used to challenge the search's validity.
• First Amendment Assemblies Act (2004): Limits police searches and seizures during protests and demonstrations. Police cannot search protesters' bags or belongings without individualized probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant..
• Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results (NEAR) Act: Reformed police practices in D.C. including requirements around stop-and-frisk documentation.

Florida's search protections generally track federal law due to the Truth in Evidence amendment:

• Florida Constitution Art. I, § 12 (Truth in Evidence): Adopted in 1982, this amendment requires Florida courts to interpret search and seizure rights in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment — limiting state courts from providing broader protections.
• Vehicle searches: Florida follows the federal automobile exception. Police with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant. may search a vehicle and its containers without a warrant.
• Two-party consent: Florida is an all-parties consent state for audio recording (Fla. Stat. § 934.03). However, recording police in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is generally protected under the 1st Amendment.
• Cell phone searches: Florida follows Riley v. California — police need a warrant to search cell phones.

Idaho protects against unreasonable searches under both the Idaho and U.S. Constitutions:

• Idaho Constitution, Art. I, § 17 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Idaho generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• Idaho has a strong Castle Doctrine — homeowners have significant rights regarding their dwelling
• Idaho is a Constitutional Carry state, which affects how officers interact with armed individuals during stops
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Idaho if they follow federal constitutional guidelines
• A warrant is required for cell phone searches under Riley v. California

Indiana's search and seizure protections come from both the Indiana Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• The Indiana Constitution, Art. 1, § 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Indiana uses a unique analysis under Art. 1, § 11: the Litchfield reasonableness test considers (1) the degree of the intrusion, (2) the basis for the warrant or search, and (3) law enforcement needs
• This Indiana-specific test can provide broader protections than the federal Fourth Amendment
• Indiana requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions
• IN courts follow the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence
• Indiana allows DUI/sobriety checkpoints under specific guidelines

Iowa protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Iowa Constitution, Art. I, § 8 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Iowa courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment standards but have in some cases provided broader protections
• DUI checkpoints are not allowed in Iowa — Iowa law requires reasonable suspicionA lower bar than probable cause: specific, articulable facts that would make a reasonable officer suspect someone of criminal activity. It is enough to briefly stop and question a person, but not enough to arrest or search them thoroughly. to stop a vehicle
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

Kansas protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Kansas Constitution, Bill of Rights, § 15 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Kansas generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Kansas if they follow constitutional guidelines
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant
• Kansas has consent-search laws — officers may ask for consent, but you can refuse

Kentucky provides protections under both the Kentucky Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Kentucky Constitution, § 10 protects against unreasonable searches
• Kentucky generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• Kentucky allows DUI checkpoints
• Warrants required for most searches with standard exceptions

Louisiana provides strong search and seizure protections under its state constitution:

• Louisiana Constitution, Art. I, § 5 explicitly protects against unreasonable searches, including protection of communications (broader than the Fourth Amendment text)
• Louisiana has rejected the federal "good faith" exception — evidence obtained with a defective warrant is still suppressed (State v. Church)
• Warrants required for most searches
• Louisiana allows DUI checkpoints under certain conditions

Maine protects against unreasonable searches under both the Maine and U.S. Constitutions:

• Maine Constitution, Art. I, § 5 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Maine courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence but may provide broader protections under the state constitution
• DUI checkpoints are not used in Maine — the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has questioned their constitutionality under Art. I, § 5
• A warrant is required for most searches with standard exceptions
• Cell phone searches require a warrant
• Maine has a strong tradition of individual liberty that influences search and seizure jurisprudence

Maryland's search and seizure protections come from both the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Fourth Amendment:

• The Maryland Declaration of Rights, Art. 26 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Maryland courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence but have occasionally provided broader protections under the state constitution
• MD requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• Maryland has strict requirements for wiretap and electronic surveillance warrants
• Maryland follows the exclusionary rule — illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible
• Maryland allows DUI/sobriety checkpoints if conducted according to established guidelines

Massachusetts provides broader search and seizure protections than federal law under the state constitution:

• The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Art. 14, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• MA courts have interpreted Art. 14 more broadly than the Fourth Amendment in several areas
• MA requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest)
• MA rejected the federal "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule — illegally obtained evidence is excluded even if officers acted in good faith
• MA requires a warrant for cell phone location data (stronger than prior federal law)
• Sobriety checkpoints are permitted in MA but must follow strict procedural requirements

Michigan's search and seizure protections come from both the Michigan Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Michigan Constitution, Art. I, § 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Michigan generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but the Michigan Supreme Court has occasionally interpreted the state constitution more broadly
• Michigan requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• Michigan law allows DUI/sobriety checkpoints if conducted according to established guidelines
• Michigan requires a warrant for blood draws in DUI cases (following Missouri v. McNeely)
• Michigan follows the federal exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence

Minnesota provides search and seizure protections under both the Minnesota Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Minnesota Constitution, Art. I, § 10 protects against unreasonable searches
• Minnesota generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• Minnesota requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions
• Minnesota requires a warrant for blood draws in DUI cases (following Missouri v. McNeely and State v. Trahan)
• DUI checkpoints are not used in Minnesota — while not explicitly ruled unconstitutional, the state has chosen not to conduct them

Mississippi protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Mississippi Constitution, Art. 3, § 23 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Mississippi generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Mississippi
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant under Riley v. California

Missouri's search and seizure protections follow the Fourth Amendment and the Missouri Constitution:

• The Missouri Constitution, Art. I, § 15 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Missouri courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• MO requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark case Missouri v. McNeely (2013) originated in Missouri, establishing that police generally need a warrant for blood draws in DUI cases
• Missouri follows the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence
• Missouri allows DUI/sobriety checkpoints under specific procedural requirements

Montana provides exceptionally strong search and seizure protections through its constitutional privacy right:

• Montana Constitution, Art. II, § 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Montana Constitution, Art. II, § 10 provides an explicit right to individual privacy — courts apply this to provide broader protections than the Fourth Amendment
• Montana's privacy right means surveillance, data collection, and warrantless searches face higher scrutiny
• DUI checkpoints are not used in Montana — the Montana Supreme Court found them unconstitutional under Art. II, § 11 (State v. Sloat, 2003)
• A warrant is required for most searches, with courts interpreting exceptions narrowly
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

Nebraska protects against unreasonable searches under both the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions:

• Nebraska Constitution, Art. I, § 7 mirrors the Fourth Amendment protections
• A warrant is generally required for searches unless an exception applies (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest)
• Nebraska allows DUI checkpoints — they have been upheld as constitutional by the Nebraska Supreme Court
• Nebraska follows the federal automobile exception for vehicle searches
• Cell phone searches require a warrant under Riley v. California, which Nebraska courts apply

Nevada protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Nevada Constitution, Art. 1, § 18 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Nevada generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Nevada — particularly common in Las Vegas
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant
• Nevada casino security is private — different rules apply than for law enforcement

New Hampshire provides strong search and seizure protections under both state and federal constitutions:

• NH Constitution, Part I, Art. 19 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• New Hampshire courts have interpreted the state constitution to provide broader protections than the Fourth Amendment in some areas
• DUI checkpoints are not used in New Hampshire — the state has a tradition of limited government intervention
• A warrant is generally required for searches with standard exceptions
• Cell phone searches require a warrant
• New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" philosophy influences courts to interpret search and seizure rights broadly

New Jersey provides significantly stronger search and seizure protections than federal law:

• NJ Constitution Art. I, Par. 7: New Jersey courts have repeatedly interpreted this provision to provide greater protection than the federal 4th Amendment.
• State v. Earls (2013): NJ Supreme Court held that cell phone location data is protected under the state constitution and requires a warrant — two years before the federal Carpenter decision.
• Vehicle searches: Under State v. Witt (2015), NJ requires a warrant to search a vehicle unless exigent circumstances exist. This is stricter than the federal automobile exception.
• Consent searches: Under State v. King (2018), officers must inform people of their right to refuse a search before consent is considered voluntary.

New Mexico provides strong search and seizure protections:

• New Mexico Constitution, Art. II, § 10 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• New Mexico courts have interpreted state protections more broadly than federal in several areas
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in New Mexico if they follow constitutional guidelines
• New Mexico has adopted strong privacy protections for electronic data
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

New York provides additional search protections beyond the federal 4th Amendment:

• NY Constitution Art. I, § 12: New York's constitutional search and seizure protections are interpreted independently from the federal 4th Amendment and often provide greater protection.
• People v. Weaver (2009): The NY Court of Appeals ruled that police need a warrant to use GPS tracking — years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in United States v. Jones (2012).
• Vehicle searches: Under People v. Belton (as interpreted by NY courts), police have more limited authority to search vehicles than under federal law.
• Stop-and-frisk reform: Following Floyd v. City of New York (2013), NYPD stop-and-frisk practices were found unconstitutional. A federal monitor oversees NYPD search practices.

North Carolina's search and seizure protections follow the federal Fourth Amendment with some state-specific rules:

• The NC Constitution (Art. I, § 20) provides protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, generally interpreted in line with the federal Fourth Amendment
• NC requires warrants for most searches, with standard exceptions (consent, plain view, exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest)
• NC courts recognize the automobile exception allowing warrantless vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• NC allows checkpoints (DWI checkpoints) if conducted according to a written plan and supervisory authorization
• NC follows the federal exclusionary rule — illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible

North Dakota protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• North Dakota Constitution, Art. I, § 8 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• North Dakota generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in North Dakota — "saturation patrols" are more common
• North Dakota has an implied consentBy driving on a public road, you are legally considered to have agreed to take a breath, blood, or urine test if police lawfully arrest you for DUI. Refusing usually triggers an automatic license suspension, even if you are later acquitted. law for DUI testing — refusal can result in license suspension
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

Oklahoma provides search and seizure protections under both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Oklahoma Constitution, Art. II, § 30 protects against unreasonable searches
• Oklahoma generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• Oklahoma allows DUI checkpoints
• Warrants required for most searches with standard exceptions

Oregon provides stronger search and seizure protections than the federal Fourth Amendment:

• Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 9 protects against unreasonable searches — interpreted more broadly than the Fourth Amendment
• Oregon has rejected the federal "automobile exception" — vehicles generally cannot be searched without a warrant even with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant. (State v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129 (2021))
• Oregon has rejected the federal "inevitable discoveryThe pre-trial phase where each side exchanges evidence, answers written questions, and takes depositions. It is usually where most lawsuits settle because both sides see the strength of the other's case." doctrine in some contexts
• DUI checkpoints are not used in Oregon — the Oregon Court of Appeals found them unconstitutional under Art. I, § 9

Rhode Island protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Rhode Island Constitution, Art. I, § 6 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Rhode Island courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment standards but may provide broader protection in some areas
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Rhode Island — they are commonly conducted
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

South Carolina provides search and seizure protections under both the SC Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• SC Constitution, Art. I, § 10 protects against unreasonable searches
• SC generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• SC allows DUI checkpoints conducted according to established guidelines
• SC requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions
• SC follows the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence

South Dakota protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• South Dakota Constitution, Art. VI, § 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• South Dakota generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in South Dakota
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

Tennessee's search and seizure protections follow the Fourth Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution:

• The Tennessee Constitution, Art. I, § 7 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• TN courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence but the state constitution provides independent protections
• TN requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• Tennessee allows DUI/sobriety checkpoints if conducted according to established guidelines
• TN follows the federal exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence
• Tennessee law specifically addresses vehicle searches — officers may search a vehicle with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant. without a warrant

Texas generally follows federal 4th Amendment standards with some state-specific rules:

• Texas Constitution Art. I, § 9: Mirrors the 4th Amendment. Texas courts generally interpret it consistently with federal law but retain the power to provide broader protections.
• Consent searches: Texas courts require that consent to search be truly voluntary. Under Meekins v. State (2020), the totality of circumstances is examined, including whether the person felt free to refuse. Texas does not require officers to explicitly inform you of the right to refuse, but failure to do so is a factor courts consider.
• Blood draws: Following Missouri v. McNeely (2013), Texas requires warrants for blood draws in DWI cases (with narrow exceptions for accidents involving serious injury or death).
• Vehicle searches: Texas follows the federal automobile exception broadly. Police with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant. can search a vehicle and all containers within it without a warrant.

Utah protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Utah Constitution, Art. I, § 14 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Utah courts have in some cases provided broader search protections than federal law
• DUI checkpoints are allowed in Utah
• Utah has enacted the Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (Utah Code § 77-23c) providing strong digital privacy protections
• Cell phone and electronic device searches generally require a warrant

Vermont provides strong search and seizure protections:

• Vermont Constitution, Ch. I, Art. 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Vermont courts have interpreted state protections more broadly than federal in several areas
• DUI checkpoints are not allowed in Vermont — the Vermont Supreme Court found them unconstitutional under the state constitution
• Vermont has strong privacy protections for electronic data
• Cell phone searches require a warrant

Virginia search and seizure protections derive from both the Virginia Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• Virginia Constitution, Art. I, § 10 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Virginia generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• Warrants are required for most searches, with standard exceptions (consent, plain view, exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• Virginia requires warrants for cell phone searches incident to arrest (following Riley v. California)
• Virginia permits DUI checkpoints conducted according to a predetermined plan
• Virginia follows the exclusionary rule — illegally obtained evidence may be suppressed
• Virginia recently enacted laws limiting pretextual stops and consent searches during minor traffic stops

Washington provides stronger search and seizure protections than the federal Fourth Amendment:

• Washington Constitution, Art. I, § 7 states: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs" — interpreted more broadly than the Fourth Amendment
• Washington does NOT recognize the federal "open fields" doctrine — areas outside the home's curtilage may still have privacy protection
• Washington requires warrants for most electronic surveillance and cell phone searches
• Washington has rejected the federal "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule — evidence obtained with a defective warrant is still excluded
• Washington requires warrants for most automobile searches (unlike the federal automobile exception in many situations)
• DUI checkpoints are prohibited in Washington under Art. I, § 7

West Virginia protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• WV Constitution, Art. III, § 6 provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
• West Virginia generally follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• DUI checkpoints are permitted in West Virginia under both state and federal law
• West Virginia requires a warrant for most searches with standard exceptions
• Cell phone searches require a warrant following Riley v. California
• West Virginia's rural character means encounters with law enforcement often occur on highways and in remote areas — understanding vehicle search rules is important

Wisconsin's search and seizure protections come from both the Wisconsin Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

• The Wisconsin Constitution, Art. I, § 11 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Wisconsin courts generally follow federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
• WI requires warrants for most searches with standard exceptions (consent, exigent circumstances, plain view, search incident to arrest, automobile exception)
• Wisconsin has specific provisions for blood draws in OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) cases following Missouri v. McNeely
• Wisconsin follows the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence
• Wisconsin does not allow sobriety checkpoints — the WI Supreme Court has not authorized them

Wyoming protects against unreasonable searches under both state and federal constitutions:

• Wyoming Constitution, Art. 1, § 4 protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
• Wyoming generally follows federal Fourth Amendment standards
• DUI checkpoints are not allowed in Wyoming — Wyoming law does not authorize sobriety checkpoints
• The automobile exception applies for vehicle searches with probable causeA reasonable basis — more than a hunch — for police to believe a crime has been committed. Police generally need probable cause to arrest you, search your home, or get a warrant.
• Cell phone searches require a warrant