Chapter 6
Searches and Seizures of Property
Introduction


Johnson v. United States: the question of
whether there is probable cause to justify a
search is best answered by a “neutral and
detached magistrate” rather than by a police
officer “engaged in the often competitive
enterprise of ferreting out crime”
balancing of interests


the need to conduct searches to investigate
crimes and to seize evidence of crimes
against the interest in individual privacy
Search Warrants




affidavit
probable cause
particularity requirement
electronic surveillance
Knock and Announce
common law
 Wilson v. Arkansas: the special status of the
home as an individual’s “castle” merits
heightened protections against
governmental intrusions
 three primary reasons
 violence
 privacy
 destruction of property

Knock and Announce (cont.)
exceptions
 physical violence
 prison escape
 destruction of evidence
 Richards v. Wisconsin: no drug offense
exception
 overly broad
 could apply to other crimes

Knock and Announce (cont.)

United States v. Banks: how long the police
must wait before breaking down the door
after knocking and announcing their
presence



in the absence of exigent circumstances, the police may
forcibly enter a home when the occupant’s “failure to
admit [the police] fairly suggested a refusal to let them in”
generally depends on the “size of the establishment”
the test is not how long it would take the suspect to reach
the front door, but the time required to destroy the
evidence
Legal Equations
Search Incident to Arrest
three purposes
 safety
 prevent resistance to the arrest
 prevent destruction/concealment of evidence
 grab area / lunging area

Legal Equation
Contemporaneous Requirement



Rawlings v. Kentucky: the search must be undertaken
“immediately before the arrest, at the same time as the
arrest or immediately after the arrest”
Preston v. United States: the justifications for searches
incident to an arrest “are absent where a search is remote
in time or place from the arrest. Once an accused is under
arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place
without a warrant is simply not incident to an arrest”
United States v. Edwards: “effects” in the suspect’s
“immediate possession” may be searched “on the spot at
the time of arrest” or “later when the accused arrives at
the place of detention, if need be”
Immediate Control Searches
and Automobiles



New York v. Belton: articles and containers within the
passenger compartment as a rule are within the area in
which an individual might “reach in order to grab a
weapon or evidentiary item”
Thornton v. United States: Belton applies to “recent
occupants” who have exited an automobile
Arizona v. Gant: “Belton does not authorize a vehicle
search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the
arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior
of the vehicle. . . . We also conclude that circumstances
unique to the automobile context justify a search incident
to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of
the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle”
Misdemeanors and
Search Incident to Arrest




there is no requirement that the officer
reasonably believe that the suspect is armed
or dangerous
there is no requirement that the officer
reasonably believe that offense for which the
suspect is arrested is associated with the
possession of weapons or that there is a risk
that evidence may be concealed or destroyed
bright-line rule
Knowles v. Iowa: cannot search “incident to
citation”
Pretextual Arrests


an officer’s subjective motivations “play no part
in Fourth Amendment analysis” and do not make
otherwise lawful conduct “illegal or
unconstitutional”
the basis for objecting to the intentionally
discriminatory application of the laws is the
Equal Protection Clause rather than the Fourth
Amendment
Consent Searches





an individual who consents to a search
waives his or her right to privacy under the
Fourth Amendment
consent must be voluntary and may not be
the result of duress or coercion
officers need not inform suspect of right to
refuse consent
preponderance of the evidence
burden of proof rests with the prosecution
Scope of Consent Searches



Florida v. Jimeno: “‘objective’ reasonableness what would the typical reasonable person have
understood by the exchange between the officer
and the suspect?”
United States v. Dichiarinte: “consent search is
reasonable only if kept within the bounds of the
actual consent. . . . The defendant’s consent sets
the parameters of the agents’ conduct”
consent to search a person includes the crotch
area (some states require special permission)
Withdrawal of Consent



an individual can withdraw his or her consent or
limit the scope of the consent search at any time
a withdrawal of consent does not affect the items
already seized by the police
courts require a clear, unambiguous, and
unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal of
consent
Third Party Consent




Frazier v. Cupp: joint use
Illinois v. Rodriguez: common authority
actual authority vs. apparent authority
“mutual use of the property by persons having
joint access or control for most purposes”
Third Party Consent and Co-Occupants


“common authority”
if one party withdrawals consent, search must
cease immediately
Legal Equation
Legal Equations
PC and Automobile Searches
Carroll v. United States: automobile
exception
 it is not “practicable” to require the police to
obtain a search warrant for motor vehicles
due to their inherent mobility
 two justifications
 mobility
 regulation
 automobiles as homes

PC and Containers Within Automobiles



a container inside the automobile may be
searched without a warrant when there is
probable case to believe that the container houses
the object of the search
probable cause limited to container
probable cause extends to the vehicle
Legal Equation
Inventories








police record all of the possessions and clothes that are
with an arrestee at the time he/she is detained, including
the objects inside an automobile that is impounded
four purposes
any unlawful objects that are seized during an inventory
may be used against the arrestee
uniformity
no required probable cause
reasonable
cannot be a pretext for a criminal investigatory search
“special needs” search
Legal Equation