Chapter 7
Actions Based on
Administrative Justification
and Consent
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
Introduction: Casting Off the Fourth
Amendment’s Restraints


Searches based on administrative justification
are noncriminal, that is, not intended for
discovering evidence of crime
A balancing test is used, which weighs:



Individual privacy interests
Public safety
This chapter also considers consent searches
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
I. SEARCHES BASED ON
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTIFICATION



Administrative justification is a Court-creation and an
exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
requirement
Administrative searches are sometimes called special
needs or regulatory searches
Types of administrative searches include:







Inventory searches
Inspections
Checkpoints
School disciplinary searches
Government employee searches
Drug and alcohol testing
Probation supervision
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
A. Inventory Searches

Inventories come in two varieties:




Vehicle inventories
Person inventories
Vehicle inventories usually occur after a
person has been arrested and a car
impounded
Person inventories usually occur following an
arrest
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
1. Vehicle Inventories

In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), the
Court held that vehicle inventories are
permissible when:




Following a lawful impoundment
They are of a routine nature
They are not a pretext
Reasons for vehicle inventories



Protect owner’s property
Protect police against stolen property claims
Protect from dangerous items possibly concealed in
the car
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
(continued)

Scope:


Vehicle inventories are practically unrestricted in
terms of their scope
Vehicle inventories should follow department
policy
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
2. Person Inventories


Person inventories are also called arrest
inventories
Person inventories are usually conducted as
part of a search incident to arrest, with some
possible follow-up and documentation at the
booking stage
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
B. Inspections

Several types of inspections have been
permitted by the Supreme Court:





Home inspections
Business inspections
Fire inspections
International mail inspections
The invasion-versus-need balancing act is
once again relied upon
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
1. Home Inspections

Two types of home inspections have been
addressed by the Supreme Court:




Health and safety inspections
Welfare compliance inspections
Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) invalidated
health and safety inspections
Wyman v. James (1971) upheld welfare
inspections
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
2. Business Inspections




See v. Seattle (1967) required warrants for
business inspections
Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States
(1970) overruled See
Colonnade Catering dealt with liquor stores,
but the Court has held that other “closely
regulated business” can be inspected without
warrants:
Examples:


Firearms dealerships
Vehicle junkyards
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
(continued)

Warrantless inspections of closely regulated
businesses are permissible when:



Government has a substantial interest in the activity
at stake
A warrantless search is necessary
The inspection protocol provides a “constitutionally
adequate substitute for a warrant” (Donovan v.
Dewey, 1981)
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
3. Fire Inspections


Warrantless inspections of burned
buildings/residences authorized in Michigan v.
Tyler (1978)
Requirements:


Contemporaneous search
Less than a full-blown criminal investigation
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
4. International Mail Inspections

United States v. Ramsey (1977) permits
government officials to open incoming
international mail
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
C. Checkpoints

Several types of checkpoints have been
addressed by the Supreme Court:






Border checkpoints
Illegal immigrant checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints
License and safety checkpoints
Airport checkpoints
Requirements:


Should possess an element of randomness
Not intended to search for evidence of crime
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
1. Border Checkpoints


Carroll v. United States (1925) permits brief
border detentions without any justification
Border checkpoints have also been upheld on
the nation’s waterways, inside international
borders, and at airports
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
2. Illegal Immigrant Checkpoints

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
upheld the INS’s decision to establish
roadblocks near the Mexican border to
discover illegal aliens
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
3. Sobriety Checkpoints


Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
upheld warrantless, suspicionless checkpoints
for detecting drunk driving
Requirements:


Evenhandedness
Officers not given discretion to decide who is
stopped
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
4. License and Safety Checkpoints

In Delaware v. Prouse (1979), the Court
refused to sanction a license and safety
checkpoint, but the Court did state that states
could develop acceptable methods for doing
so
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
5. Crime Investigation Checkpoints

In Illinois v. Lidster (2004), the Supreme
Court decided that checkpoints are also
authorized for officers to ask questions
related to crimes occurring earlier in the same
area.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
6. Other Types of Checkpoints

Airport checkpoints fall under the
administrative justification exception to the
Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
7. Unconstitutional Checkpoints

The administrative search rationale is not
acceptable for detecting evidence of criminal
activity (City of Indianapolis v. Edmond,
2000)
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
D. School Disciplinary Searches



Warrantless searches of public school students
are permissible with reasonable suspicion that
the search will yield evidence that the student
has violated the law or school policy
Search should not be excessively intrusive
This exception to the warrant requirement is
limited to K-12
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
1. Locker Searches and Drug Dog
“Sniffs”


Random, suspicionless locker searches are
permissible with advance notice that lockers
can be searched at any time
Fifth Circuit has upheld dog sniffs of lockers
and cars in public schools
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
E. Searches of Government
Employee’s Offices

Warrantless search of government employee
office is permissible but must be “a
noninvestigatory work-related intrusion or an
investigatory search for evidence of suspected
work-related employee misfeasance”
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
F. Drug and Alcohol Testing

The Supreme Court has addressed three types
of drug and alcohol testing:



Testing of employees
Testing of hospital patients
Testing of school students
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
1. Drug and Alcohol Testing of
Employees


Warrantless, suspicionless drug tests of
employees are permissible (e.g., Skinner v.
Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 1989)
Important requirement:

Regulatory, not criminal purposes
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
2. Drug and Alcohol Testing of
Hospital Patients

In Ferguson v. Charleston (2001), the Court
declared that hospital personnel, working with
the police, could not test pregnant mothers
for drug use without their consent
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
3. Drug and Alcohol Testing of School
Students


In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
(1995), the Court upheld a random drug
testing program for school athletes
In Board of Education of Independent School
District v. Earls (2002), the Court extended
Vernonia to include extracurricular activities
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
G. Probation Supervision



Probationers enjoy lesser expectation of
privacy
Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987) upheld warrantless
searches of probationers with reasonable
suspicion
United States v. Knights (2001) permits
warrantless searches of probationers for
probation-related and investigative purposes
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
1. Searches of Probationers in
California


People v. Bravo (1987) permits warrantless,
suspicionless searches of probationers
Important issues:



Searching officer need not be aware of probationer’s
status
Probationer need not be advised that search is
imminent
Decisions by California’s Supreme Court
contradict Ninth Circuit decisions (e.g., Ninth
Circuit requires reasonable suspicion)
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
2. Police/Probation Partnerships


Recent law enforcement tactic pairs probation
officers with police officers
Critics claim that police can circumvent the
Fourth Amendment in this way
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
II. CONSENT SEARCHES


When a person consents to search, no
justification is necessary
Consent searches are a valuable law
enforcement tool
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
A. Voluntariness


Consent must be voluntary
Consent can be voluntary even if the
consenting party is unaware of his or her right
to refuse consent (Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, 1973)
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
B. Scope Limitations


The scope of a consent search is limited to the
terms of the consent
Consent can be withdrawn once given

Theory and reality may collide here
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
C. Third-Party Consent

General rules with regard to third-party
consent:




Wives and husbands can give consent to have their
partner’s property searched
Parents can give consent to have their minor
children’s property searched
Children cannot give consent to have their parents’
property searched
More confusing with:




Roommates
Former girlfriend or boyfriend
Friends
Extended family members
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
(continued)

Third party consent can be given when:



The third party possesses common authority over
the area searched
The nonconsenting party is absent (United States v.
Matlock, 1974)
Alternatively, third party consent can be given
when:

The police reasonably believe the consenting party
has authority to grant consent (Illinois v. Rodriguez,
1990)
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
(continued)

Other restrictions concerning consent
searches:




Landlords cannot give consent to search property
rented by another person (Stoner v. California,
1964)
Lessor cannot give consent to search the premises
of another lessor (United States v. Impink, 1985)
Hotel clerks cannot give consent to search guests’
rooms (Stoner)
College officials cannot give consent to search
students’ dormitories (Piazzola v. Watkins, 1971)
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
D. “Knock and Talk”



“Knock and talk” occurs when police officers
approach someone’s house, knock on the
door, and ask for consent to search
This is a controversial practice because it is
not premised on probable cause, a warrant, or
both
The Supreme Court has yet to address the
constitutionality of knock and talk
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007