The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday to overturn a 1997 Iowa Supreme Court decision giving law enforcement officials the right to search vehicles stopped for minor traffic violations.

The U.S. Court’s decision came just five weeks after the closing of oral arguments.

Ben Stone, executive director of Iowa Civil Liberties Union, said the swift reversal showed how easy it was for the court to find the law unconstitutional, according to a press release.

The case stemmed from the 1996 arrest of Newton native Patrick Knowles. Knowles was initially stopped for speeding but arrested after police searched his car and found marijuana.

In Knowles vs. Iowa, the Iowa court issued a 5-4 decision stating that the code of Iowa authorized police to search people cited with traffic violations, even if they are not taken into custody, according to a press release.

The State of Iowa’s argument was that concerns for officer safety and the need to preserve evidence justified the practice.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s six-page ruling found the Iowa court’s reasoning unfounded.

Steve Holmes, Story County attorney, agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

“In analysis, I determined that it was something that was an intrusion,” Holmes said. “It’s a power we didn’t exert even though we had the authority to exert it.”

The ruling only applies to the practice known as “search incident to citation,” Holmes said.

In this case, the motorists are being stopped solely for a traffic violation and only receive a citation, he said.

Holmes wished to make it clear that it is still legal for police to conduct a search if they either arrest the individual or suspect that they are carrying a weapon.

“If a driver is arrested, [officers] can look for further evidence in what’s called an inventory search,” Holmes said. “If officers are looking for a weapon, they can still conduct a … search.”

Capt. Rob Bowers of the Department of Public Safety does not foresee any problems as a result of the ruling.

“This won’t have a real dramatic effect on our officers,” Bowers said.

He said DPS rarely searched cars when making stops, even before the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The ruling, which takes effect immediately, raises some important constitutional issues.

“A search warrant, by nature, is a very intrusive means which is available to law enforcement,” Holmes said. “The Fourth Amendment guards this very specially; it’s a very big deal.”