Kellen Wright
Model Lesson Plan: Search & Seizure Opinion Poll
Time: 50 minutes
I.
II.
III.
Goals
a. Students will get an overview of Federal and Washington State constitutional law
relating to search and seizure
b. Students will understand the balancing of privacy and security under Federal and
Washington State constitutional law
c. Students will understand how Federal constitutional protections differ from
Washington State’s constitutional protections
d. Students will articulate their thoughts about the proper balance between the need
for privacy protections and the need for security
Objectives
a. Knowledge objectives - as a result of this lesson, students will be able to
understand:
i. The different “layers” of Federal and Washington State constitutional
protection
ii. How Federal and Washington State constitutional protections differ, and
how these differences manifest themselves in concrete cases
iii. That these are cases that require a balancing of important rights, and that
there is no easy way to determine the proper balance
b. Skill Objectives – as a result of this lesson, students will be better able to:
i. Article their opinions, and make cogent and convincing arguments in
support of their position
ii. Critically evaluate their arguments, and the arguments of their classmates
c. Attitudinal Objectives – as a result of this lesson, students will feel:
i. Confident that they can publically state and support their opinion
ii. That they better understand the reasoning behind why the law is the way it
is, and that law is not merely arbitrary enactments by those in authority
iii. That they have important rights protected by the Federal and Washington
State constitutions
Classroom Methods
a. Play brief video about the origins and importance of the 4th Amendment located
here:
http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,1027506447001_2080296,00.ht
ml (note: the relevant portion of the video runs from 0:00 - 3:45).
b. Present brief PowerPoint presentation (see below) to orient students on the
concepts of Federal and State constitutions, and how they interact. Show the 4th
Amendment to the US Constitution, and Article 1 Section 7 of the Washington
State Constitution. Allow 5 minutes for presentation.
c. Pass out materials for opinion poll (see below). Explain that students should
complete the opinion poll hand out, and will then be asked to move around the
room based on their answers to the questions. Explain that they should not answer
the questions on the basis of what they think the law is, but instead should base
IV.
their answers on what they feel is the proper answer. There are no right or wrong
answers. Allow 5 minutes for students to fill out their opinion polls.
d. After students have finished filling out their handouts, have them move around
the room to stand under the sign that indicates how they answered (i.e. if they
answered ‘Strongly Agree’ then have them stand under that sign). Next, ask one
or two students in each category to explain why they selected the answer that they
did. Save the ‘Undecided’ category for last, and then ask students who were
undecided if hearing their fellow students persuaded them one way or the other.
Record the results on the whiteboard, or on poster-board. Allow 5 minutes for
discussion of each question – though do not hesitate to allow more time if the
students are having a productive discussion.
e. After students have finished discussing each question, reveal the PowerPoint slide
that discloses the current state of the law under both the Federal and the
Washington State constitutions. If there are differences, explain the reasons why
there are differences between the two constitutions. Ask student if they think the
law should be changed, and, if so, how it should be changed. Allow about 5
minutes for explanation and discussion.
f. Briefly debrief the activity, focusing student's attention on key takeaways from
the exercise. Ask students which "level" of constitutional protection they believe
is more appropriate. Allow 5 minutes for debriefing.
g. Explain the homework assignment that students will be asked to complete (see
below).
Evaluation
a. Evaluate students’ participation in class discussions, including willingness to
defend their position.
b. Evaluate students’ completion of assigned homework (see below).
Name:
Date:
Student Opinion Poll
Circle the answer that most closely corresponds with your opinion.
1. Walter White is driving a RV when he is pulled over by police officer Hank Schrader. Officer
Schrader recognizes White as a suspected meth cooker who has an outstanding arrest warrant for
selling meth, and he knows that RVs are often used to cook meth. When Officer Schrader asks
White if he can search the RV, White says that he cannot. Officer Schrader places White under
arrest, and places White in the back of his police car. Based on these facts, Officer Schrader
should be able to search White's RV without having to first obtain a warrant.
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
Strongly Agree Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2. Dexter Morgan is being investigated by the police for murder. Detective Debra Morgan
believes that there is evidence of Dexter's crimes in his trash. Dexter has placed his trash on the
curb in front of his house for pick-up. Based on these facts, Debra Morgan should be able to look
in Dexter's trash without first obtaining a warrant.
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
Strongly Agree Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
3. Sheriff Rick Grimes believes that a man shambling along the road and moaning is acting
suspiciously. Sheriff Grimes approaches the man to speak with him, but is worried that the man
might have a weapon, and, given the man's strange behavior, that the man might use the weapon
against him. Sheriff Grimes should be able to frisk the man's clothing before speaking with him,
to ensure the man does not have any weapons.
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
Strongly Agree Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4. School Resource Officer (SRO) Ned Stark is told that Joffrey Baratheon has been seen with a
small dagger on school grounds. Joffrey was seen putting the dagger into his backpack before
heading to class. RSO Stark removed Joffrey from class and brought him to the principal's office.
There RSO Stark asked Joffrey about the dagger, and Joffrey denied possessing the dagger. RSO
Stark asked to search Joffrey's locked backpack, but Joffrey refused to consent to the search.
RSO Stark should be able to search Joffrey's locked backpack without first obtaining a warrant.
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
Strongly Agree Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Opinion Poll Teacher's Guide
1. What rights are protected in the US Constitution? What rights are protected in the Washington
State Constitution?
4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Note: only "unreasonable" searches
and seizures are prohibited.
Article 1 Section 7: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded,
without authority of law." Note: there is no "reasonableness" standard.
2. What is a search? What is a seizure?
To included under the 4th amendment (or under the Washington Constitution), the "search" or
"seizure" must have been done by an agent of the government (i.e. a police officer, an FBI agent,
etc.).
A search: "for there to be a Fourth Amendment search the police must have… intruded into “a
constitutionally protected area."1 Search & Seizure § 2.1(a) (5th ed.). An area is constitutionally
protected if it meets "a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual
(subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is
prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’" Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S. Ct. 507,
516, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). Examples: : a home, a car, a business.
Seizure of property: "a seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference
with an individual's possessory interests in that property." 1 Search & Seizure § 2.1(a) (5th ed.).
Examples: police impounding a car, confiscating alcohol, or taking a cell phone.
Seizure of an individual: "a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable
person would have believed that he was not free to leave."1 Search & Seizure § 2.1(a) (5th ed.).
Examples: police arresting an individual, searching an individual, pulling an individual over.
3. What happens if the government violates the constitutional rights?
The exclusion of any evidence gained through the unconstitutional action is the normal remedy.
This means that any evidence uncovered during the illegal search/seizure or any evidence that
results from the illegal search/seizure will not be allowed to be introduced in court. This means
that someone who is known to be guilty might escape punishment through the improper actions
of the government. The rule is designed to give police no incentive to violate constitutional rights
when attempting to build a criminal case.
If the violation is serious enough, an individual can try to sue the government.
Case Studies:
1. Walter White and Hank Schrader:
 The US Constitution would likely allow the search. According to Arizona v. Gant,
"Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is
within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is
reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." 556 U.S.
332, 351, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1723, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009). Because White is being
arrested for cooking meth, and Schrader knows that RVs are often used to cook meth,
Schrader can probably search the RV without a warrant.
 The Washington State Constitution would not allow the search. As the Washington
Supreme court said, "We hold that the second version of the vehicle-search-incident-toarrest exception recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Gant…does not apply
under article I, section 7. We also conclude that a variation of this exception, requiring
probable cause to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest might be found in the
vehicle rather than a reasonable belief that such evidence might be found, is also not a
valid form of the vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant because neither
of the justifications for this exception to the warrant requirement justify such an
exception. State v. Snapp, 174 Wash. 2d 177, 201-02, 275 P.3d 289, 301 (2012). The
Washington Supreme Court ruled this way because of the language of Article 1 Section 7
- there is no language allowing "reasonable" searches, so the general assumption in most
cases is that police need to get a warrant before conducting a search.
2. Dexter and Debra Morgan:
 The US Constitution does allow the search of an individual's garbage without a warrant.
As the Supreme Court said, "we conclude that respondents exposed their garbage to the
public sufficiently to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. It is common
knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily
accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.
Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of
conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through
respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. Accordingly, having
deposited their garbage “in an area particularly suited for public inspection and, in a
manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take
it, respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory
items that they discarded." California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40-41, 108 S. Ct. 1625,
1628-29, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1988).
 The Washington State constitution does prohibit warrantless searches of an individual's
garbage. The court rejected the Supreme Court's position, saying, "While a person must
reasonably expect a licensed trash collector will remove the contents of his trash can, this
expectation does not also infer an expectation of governmental intrusion." State v.
Boland, 115 Wash. 2d 571, 581, 800 P.2d 1112, 1117 (1990). Therefore the trash was a
protected area.
3. Rick Grimes and the zombie:
 Both constitutions might allow the weapons-frisk. The US Supreme Court has recognized
that the stop and the frisk is both a search and a seizure, but has said that " When an
officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is
investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it
would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary
measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize
the threat of physical harm." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1881, 20 L.
Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Similarly, the Washington Supreme Court has said that " addition to
questioning, Terry permits the officer to frisk the person for weapons if the officer has
reasonable grounds to believe the person to be armed and presently dangerous." State v.
Hudson, 124 Wash. 2d 107, 112, 874 P.2d 160, 163 (1994).
 The key question in this case will therefore be whether or not Sheriff Grimes had
reasonable grounds to believe the zombie was armed. Based on the facts of the case
given, there probably is not sufficient evidence to justify the frisk, but it is not a sure
thing; a court could find that there was sufficient evidence.
4. Joffrey and Ned


Under the US Constitution, the search of the backpack would probably be allowed. The
US Supreme Court has said that "Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by
a teacher or other school official will be “justified at its inception” when there are
reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student
has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be
permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the
objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the
student and the nature of the infraction." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341-42,
105 S. Ct. 733, 743, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985). The question is therefore whether or not an
RSO is a "school official." The Supreme Court has not yet answered this question
squarely, but given the court's deference to officials to keep order in school, they
probably would allow such a search - especially when looking for a potentially deadly
weapon. An examples of how far the court is willing to let school officials go in, random
drug tests for student athletes have been upheld by the Court. See Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J
v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995).
Under Washington State's Constitution, the search would not be allowed. As the state
supreme court has said "In sum, we hold that in light of the overwhelming indicia of
police action[i.e. a uniformed school resource officer], the school search exception [of
T.L.O.] does not apply to [a search of a] locked backpack. [The RSO] is a fully
commissioned law enforcement officer employed by the Bellevue Police Department
who has no ability to discipline students. At the time of the search, [the RSO] was
seeking to obtain evidence for criminal prosecution, not evidence for informal school
discipline. Further, the search was not to maintain order because [the student] was being
removed from school regardless of the search. Therefore, the underlying purpose of the
school search exception is not served. Without the application of the exception, [the
RSO] required a warrant supported by probable cause to search [the student's] locked
backpack. State v. Meneese, 174 Wash. 2d 937, 947-48, 282 P.3d 83, 88 (2012). Note,
however, that a principal could likely conduct the search (thought not at the behest of
police).
Debrief:
Note how the different language of the 4th Amendment and Article 1 Section 7 drives the
divergent outcomes in these cases. Generally, Washington imposes a higher standard on police
before they can conduct searches (usually a warrant). This is possible because the US
Constitution only provides a "floor" for rights - i.e. no state can offer fewer rights than those
guaranteed in the US Constitution. Because it does not provide a "ceiling" for rights, states like
Washington are free to offer greater protections in their state constitutions.
Name:
Date:
Search and Seizure Homework Assignment
1) List 2 things that you found interesting in today's class.
2) List 2 things that you learned in today's class.
3) List 2 questions that you would like us to answer about the material covered in today's class.
Search & Seizure
KELLEN WRIGHT
What does the US Constitution say about searches and
seizures? What about the Washington State Constitution?
 The 4th Amendment to the United States’ Constitution says:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 Article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution says:
“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home
invaded, without authority of law."
What are searches and seizures?
 A search is an intrusion into a an area that in which:
 1) a person has exhibited an actual (subjective)
expectation of privacy and,
 2) that the expectation is one that society is prepared
to recognize as ‘reasonable
 A seizure is an interference with property, or, for an
individual, when that individual reasonably does not
feel free to leave
Walter White
 Officer Schrader should
be able to search White's
RV without having to
first obtain a warrant.
Is this Constitutional?
 US Constitution:
 Washington State
 Yes! Warrantless
Constitution:
 No! The Washington
Constitution requires
that police obtain a
warrant before searching
the car.
searches are allowed to
look for evidence of the
crime that the suspect
has been arrested for.
Dexter
 Can Debra search
Dexter’s trash without a
warrant?
Is this Constitutional?
 US Constitution:
 Washington
 Yes! You don’t have a
Constitution:
 No! You don’t expect
people to be pawing
through your garbage
once you put it out, so
you do have a protected
privacy interest.
protected privacy
interest in garbage you
put out on the curb.
Rick Grimes
 Can Sheriff Grimes stop
and frisk the (zombie)
man?
Is this Constitutional?
 Both: Maybe. Both allow searches for weapons is the
cop’s suspicions are “reasonable.” The question
would therefore be if Rick Grimes’ suspicions in this
case were actually reasonable.
Joffrey Baratheon
 Can Ned Stark search
Joffrey’s locked
backpack?
Is this Constitutional?
 US Constitution:
 Washington
 Probably yes. The
Constitution:
 No! Uniformed police
officers (including RSOs)
must get a warrant
before searching a
student’s locked
backpack (at least when
the purpose of the search
is to uncover evidence of
a crime).
Supreme Court has been
very willing to let
officials have the
authority to search
students at school.