In a routine accident investigation where a vehicle is impounded, is there any warrant requirement that would apply to the investigators' inspection of the vehicle and seizure of the computer "black box" for analysis? As I read the authorities, it would appear that such a search would fall under a "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement.

I'm aware of the vehicle exception that would apply in a criminal context where you have PC to believe a car has contraband. Here I'm just talking about the need to get the computer data in an effort to ascertain whether a vehicle was speeding, whether brakes were applied, etc..

Why would you want to risk it ? You have more than enough time to get a warant if tis impounded, I say better safe than sorry. And I would add, lets say for arguments sake that under a CC exception you could seize the black box, whats your exception for searching/examining it once its in your possession. If I were the defense I would argue its the same as a computer, you need permission to seize and permission to do the forensic examination too.

Stacey,
If it's just a routine accident investigation and you don't have any specific evidence of any criminal wrongdoing (other than perhaps some minor traffic offense) what's your PC for a search warrant? Officers routinely conduct accident investigations and identify causal or contributing factors on their accident reports without any criminal charges being filed. Is the mere fact that a collision occurred sufficient justification to get a search warrant to seize and analyze the black box? Suppose it's a fatality accident and the investigation is attempting to determine whether a deceased driver was either speeding or took evasive action? Obviously you're not going to charge a dead person with an offense, but by what legal authority might the officer have access to the impounded wrecked vehicle to conduct his/her investigation? Is a "totalled" vehicle considered abandoned if law enforcement seizes it and stores it?

Transportation Code 547.615 provides that the information recorded or transmitted by a recording device installed by a manufacturer in a motor vehicle (see (a)(2)) may not be retrieved by anyone other than the owner of the vehicle except: (1) on court order; (2) with owner's consent, including for purposes of repairing the vehicle; (3) for purpose of medical research or vehicle safety improvements if owner or driver is not disclosed; or to determine the need for or to facilitate emergency medical response after an accident. To a court order, the person seeking the order must show that getting the information is necessary to protect public safety or that it constitutes evidence that a particular person committed an offense.

Janette A

Thanks Janette, I figured there was some obscure provision of the Transportation Code that I was missing which spoke to this issue. This does raise another question in my mind, however: would you need an order or search warrant if the object of your search was just to inspect other damage to the vehicle or maybe take specimens of paint fragments? I guess the more general question is by what authority does DPS, for example, have to access a vehicle to inspect it and search for clues that would allow the officer to figure out the cause of an accident? Or is it just a simple as getting a search warrant in each instance based upon the notion that a collision would not likely have occurred without, at a minimum, some traffic violation having been committed--e.g., speeding, failure to maintain a safe speed under the conditions, failure to yield the right of way, etc.?