>Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Search warrants specifically exist to give police the "legal right to access/take people's private property", and are widely accepted to be constitutional.
This might be setting a new precedent though. I'm making assumptions here, but I'd have thought that search warrants were historically used at locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented. Even at premises not owned by the suspect, the police turning up and requiring all the security footage doesn't deprive the premise owner of anything. Towing away an innocent law-abiding citizen's car for a matter entirely unrelated to them seems like it's massively overstepping the line set by any previous precedent.
I can't think of anything else that could be seized by the police from an entirely innocent non-suspect which would cause a similar level of disruption in their life. What happens when the car owner needs to head to work in the morning and find their car has been taken. I doubt a call to the police is going to quickly reveal that it was the police themselves who took it. Even if it does, if they're holding it for evidence, they might not get it back very quickly. What if the lack of car leads to negative consequences for the owner - maybe they miss an important work meeting, flight, date, whatever - are the police going to compensate them for that? What if the owner is out of the country for a month and they only need a week to act on the court order and get all the video - does the owner then have to pay impound fees? Is it discriminatory that the police assume all Tesla's can be seized this way even if they don't happen to be recording, but they wouldn't consider doing to same to any other make of car even though any car might have a dash-cam that records when locked.
>This might be setting a new precedent though. I'm making assumptions here, but I'd have thought that search warrants were historically used at locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented.
Search warrants exist to give police access to evidence when there's probable cause. Often times this is "at locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented", but there's nothing in the jurisprudence that limits it to those areas. The standard is "probable cause" in any case.
>Even at premises not owned by the suspect, the police turning up and requiring all the security footage doesn't deprive the premise owner of anything. Towing away an innocent law-abiding citizen's car for a matter entirely unrelated to them seems like it's massively overstepping the line set by any previous precedent.
They can and do break into premises, even if they're "an innocent law-abiding citizen", if the owner isn't there to allow them access onto the premises. The article specifically mentions that they only tow the car if they can't contact the owner, which seems consistent with that.
That's fair enough to some extent. Not sure about the US, but in the UK they are also responsible for re-securing the access point when they leave, and I believe you can claim compensation for the repair work. Presumably also, if there were any thefts while the property was in this vulnerable state, the insurance company would sue the police to try to reclaim the money paid out to cover the loss.
Taking someone's primary mode of transport, perhaps their only viable option, is a whole order of magnitude worse than breaking into a property to carry out a search warrant. For someone who's not even a suspect, or in any way connected, it's a massive violation of their rights.
> only tow the car if they can't contact the owner, which seems consistent with that
To be honest, it seems unlikely they'd easily be able to contact the owner, unless it happens to be parked outside their own residence. And the flip side of them not being able to contact the owner to ask permission is that the owner has absolutely no idea where their car is, and they only find out it's missing when they need it most. And probably not in an area they'd like to hang around too long in, if there's just been a homicide near there.
You pretend this is some obvious fact, but obtaining a search warrant against a person or property that were uninvolved in the crime but may have only been 'witness' to it is not obvious or clear to me.
The standard for getting a search warrant is probable cause, and that includes just probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime at the place to be searched.
Taking the witness analogy, even an actual person who's a mere witness can be compelled to testify with a subpoena.
A lot of places, talking to police is a very bad idea both because of the police and the other people in the neighborhood. You could very easily get shot for doing so.
Search warrants specifically exist to give police the "legal right to access/take people's private property", and are widely accepted to be constitutional.