Fourth Amendment Guarantees

Background

• 4th guarantees freedom from UNreasonable searches and seizures AND need probably cause for warrant “particularly" describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”

• what is probable cause?

  • more than suspicion, less than proof

  • need judge permission, separation of powers

• reasons for warrantless search and seizure

  • 1. destruction of evid

  • 2. officer’s safety

• Chimel v. CA (1969)

  • overturned Harris which allowed police to make sweeping search w/ only arrest warrant

  • constrained to searching only what is in “plan view, immediately apparent as contraband, within grabbing area of suspect”

• Riley v. CA (2014)

  • need search warrant to search cell phone

• Robinson = diminished privacy interests once arrested

• Terry v. Ohio

  • suspicious individual subject to stop and frisk (limited to outer clothing, search for weapons)

  • Sokolow allows “drug carrier profiles,” argue racial profiling

    • need “reasonable suspicion” → more than hunch, considerably less than probable cause

Riley v. CA (2014)

Vote: 9-0

Facts: David Riley was stopped for a traffic violation and arrested on weapon charges. The officer who arrested him seized a cell phone from his pants pocket, which was use to charge him w/ a gang related shooting. Riley’s attorney moved to suppress all evidence obtained from his phone, and the trial court denied; affirmed by appellate. Brima Wurie was arrested after making a drug sale. His phone was used to track down his apartment which had drugs, a firearm and ammunitions. He moved to suppress the evidence, trial court denied, appellate court reversed.

Issue: Are cell phones protected from search of digital contents without a warrant under the 4th?

Holding: Yes.

Opinion (J. Roberts):

(1) Scope of exception debated

1. Police can search arrestee’s body and are “within his immediate control” for safety and evidence purposes (Chimel)

2. Officers are entitled to inspect personal property IMMEDIATELY associated with person of arrest (US v. Chadwick, Acevedo)

3. Police can search vehicle only when arrestee is within reaching distance of passenger compartment and reasonable to believe evidence relevant to crime of arrest might be found in vehicle (Gant).

(2) Searches of digital content don’t prevent harm to officers or destruction of evidence, so not gov interest (Robinson test?)

(3) Cell phones have “vast quantities of personal information”—not comparable to brief physical search in Robinson.

(4) Destruction of evidence on phone after police seizure would involve third party, different question, also avoidable.

Comment: Phone not immune from search, just need warrant unless “exigent circumstances” threaten an immediate wipe.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Vote: 8-1

Facts: Officer McFadden observed two men, Chilton and Terry, taking turns strolling down Huron Road to look in the same shop window (casing, prepping to rob store). They conferred w/ a third man, continued this ritual, and the officer followed them when they left. They met up with the third man, and the officer approached, patting down their outer clothes for weapons, and only going beneath the outer garments when he felt guns. Trial court said this was fine.

Issue: Can revolvers obtained by stop-and-frisk be used as evidence under the 4th (and 14th)?

Holding: Yes.

Opinion (C.J. Warren):

(1) “When an officer is justified in believing that a suspicious indiv at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer and others, it is unreasonable to deny the officer the power to determine if person is armed and neutralize.”

(2) Should not have to ask questions if answers might be bullets.

(3) Look @ quote on page 901 “We merely hold 1. where police officer observes unusual conduct that 2. leads him reasonably to conclude 3. armed and dangerous 4. identify as police and makes reasonable search…”

Dissent (J. Douglas):

(1) There was no probable cause in this case.

Exceptions to warrant

1. consent searches

2. items in plain view (weed in front yard)

3. cross a border

4. board an airplane (TSA = gov employees)

5. stop and frisk

Special problems of automobiles

• Carroll v. US (1925)

  • car searched when cross border b/c national security

  • cops can’t stop and search everyone, only those “known to a competent officer, authorized to search, probably cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise”

• US v. Chadwick (1977)

  • locked footlocker in automobile → need warrant for contained in automobiles, not automobiles themselves

  • akin to locking front door, expect personal effects not to be seen

• US v. Ross

  • if searching car coincidentally had containers in it, Carroll prevailed

  • if search of containers coincidentally in care, then Chadwick and Sanders govern

• CA v. Acevedo

  • overrule Chadwick

California v. Acevedo (1991)

Vote: 6-3

Facts: Police staked out Jamie Daza after he picked up a package of marijuana. they inspected Richard St. George’s blue knapsack as he left the house and found 12 lbs of weed. A little later, Charles Acevedo arrived and left the house with a full brown bag. Acevedo put the bag in the trunk of his car and started the engine. Officers stopped the car, opened the trunk and bag to find weed. Trial court denied his move to suppress introduction of weed as evid; appellate say should have suppressed b/c lacked probably cause to suspect car contained contraband. Say should rule under Chadwick (need warrant) not Ross (warrantless).

Issue: Is the warrantless search of a car trunk for weed a violation of the 4th?

Holding: No.

Opinion (J. Blackmun):

(1) Adopting one clear-cut rule for automobiles: police can search w/o warrant if probable cause. Multiple diff rules impede effective law enforcement.

Dissent (J. Stevens):
(1) There is no “confusion” amongst lower courts.

(2) Makes no sense to prohibit search of briefcase while on street but not once in car; every person clearly has an interest in privacy when placing their belongings in a container.

(3) Made this decision in compliance w/ War on Drugs, not Constitution.

Other governmental searches in the administrative state

• lower standard than probably cause for administrative search warrants (done by non-police officers)

  • admin warrant balance private interests w/ health, safety, and env regulations

• National Treasury v. Von Raab (1989)

  • split 5-4 upholding U.S. Custom Service’s drug testing employees

• Skinner v. Railway (1989)

  • 6-3 over mandatory drug tests for railway workers in accidents

• Vernonia v. Acton (1995)

  • 6-3 uphold school dist policy drug test when sign up for sports and throughout year

• Chandler v. Miller (1997)

  • strike down GA 1990 law requiring public office candidates to submit to drug testing or certify drug free

• Ferguson v. Charleston (2001)

  • drug testing pregnant women w/o their consent was unreasonable search and seizure

• Board of Ed v. Earls (2002)

  • uphold requirement students in extracurriculars submit to random drug tests

Warrantless searches OK in administrative state

• no prosecution if positive drug test for job, therefore lower standard

• can randomly test students, workers and immigrants, but not politicians

• basically NEED warrant when going to use drug results as criminal evidence

Board of Ed v. Earls (2002)

Vote: 5-4

Facts: Lindsay Earls, member of choir and marching band, challenge Tecumseh, OK school dis policy requiring all middle and high schoolers involved in extracurriculars to consent to random drug testing. Monitor listens while student urinates. Invasion of privacy? Fed dis court reject claim, court of appeals and tenth circuit reverse, school board appeal.

Issue: Is a school policy mandating random drug testing for 7-12 graders involved in extracurricular activities in violation of the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the 4th?

Holding: No.

Opinion (J. Thomas):

(1) School does not need probable cause b/c not criminal investigation (Treasury Employees v. Von Raab)

(2) Students’ privacy limited in public school b/c State responsible for discipline, health, safety.

(3) State interest in curbing student drug use (Vernonia)

Dissent (J. Ginsburg):

(1) Risk of drug use present for all students, doesn’t make sense to only subject some to random testing.

(2) Sports require close safety and health regulation in a way choir and band do not.

(3) Vernonia does not justify suspicionless searches, affirms that “the legality of the search of a student should depend simply on reasonableness under all circumstances of the search” (TLO)

(4) Testing pop who are least likely to develop substance abuse problem while driving away those who are.

Comment: Could they randomly drug test ALL school students regardless of extracurricular activity? We don’t know. Can’t test professors or college students.