> While the police are entering private vehicles, it's in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime
The only argument supporting the claim that it is "in the pursuit of reducing and preventing crime" is that they are removing attractive, easily stolen property. There's really not a significant difference between the cops wandering through a residential neighborhood, looking into houses from the street, and if they see anything through the windows that looks attractive to thieves, checking if the any exterior doors or windows are unlocked, and, if they are, entering the house, taking the item, and the calling the property owner listed on the deed (who may or may not be the current occupant of the real property, or the owner of the item of personal property removed; similar issues exist in the case of autos) to let them know that if they want to recover the confiscated property, they need to turn up at the police station during limited hours and present ID, and if they don't do so soon enough, the property will be sold and the proceeds pocketed by the government.
> I also think the notion that this is all a front for probable cause is a bit far-fetched and cynical. For one, do only criminals leave their cars unlocked with valuables in plain sight? What exactly would the "cover for probable cause" strategy accomplish?
Its not so much a cover as a substitute. Since under this policy they can enter the car to "confiscate" easily stolen items, they no longer need the probable cause they would need for a search, but this gives them an excuse for entering the car and conveniently "noticing" items that would not be apparent without entering the car, or for seizing and inspecting items that they would not have had probable cause to enter the car to inspect closely.