Searches & Seizures of Things or Items-Redced Version

Department of Criminal Justice

California State University - Bakersfield

CRJU 3110 Advanced Criminal LawDr. Robert Fong

Topic: Searches & Seizures of Things or Items

The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution plays a crucial role in safeguarding citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. It enforces that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause, which must be supported by oath or affirmation. Additionally, warrants must specifically describe the location to be searched and the individuals or items to be seized. This provision emphasizes the need for law enforcement to respect individual privacy rights, highlighting the importance of a warrant as a means of preventing arbitrary governmental intrusions.

When discussing searches and seizures, it is essential to define what a "search" is. A search can be understood as an exploration or examination of an individual's premises or person with the intent to discover evidence for criminal prosecution. The landmark case of Katz v. United States (1967) significantly shaped the interpretation of searches by establishing that such actions can occur in any area where an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court applies a two-pronged test to evaluate reasonable expectations of privacy, which involves examining the subjective efforts made by individuals to ensure their privacy, alongside the objective societal norms regarding privacy in specific locations, such as bathrooms being universally recognized as private spaces.

On the other hand, a "seizure" refers to the government's control over a person or an item due to a violation of the law. Notable cases such as Maryland v. Macon (1985) elucidate that a meaningful interference with a possessory interest qualifies as a seizure, while mere observation does not suffice. Additionally, Torres v. Madrid (2021) established that utilizing physical force to constrain an individual constitutes a seizure, provided that the police intend to exercise control over the person. This case also touched upon the issues surrounding excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims.

Several items are subject to search and seizure under the law. These include contraband, which encompasses illegal items like drugs, counterfeit currency, and gambling equipment. Additionally, the "fruits of crime" refer to items resultant from unlawful acts, such as stolen property or forged checks. Furthermore, instruments of crime include items used in perpetrating offenses, such as weapons or tools used in burglaries. Lastly, mere evidence pertains to items that may be linked to a crime (for instance, clothing with bloodstains) when probable cause regarding their connection to criminal activity exists.

Search & Seizure With Warrant

When conducting searches and seizures under a warrant, the scope of the search must remain reasonable and confined to the specific parameters outlined in the warrant itself. Officers are authorized to detain individuals present during the search; however, they cannot search individuals not named in the warrant, as affirmed in Ybarra v. Illinois (1979). The duration of the search must cease once the goals of the warrant are achieved, as continuing the search without justification may lead to a violation of rights.

Anticipatory search warrants are another crucial aspect, issued based on probable cause that evidence will be present at the time of execution, contingent on predefined conditions, such as the delivery of narcotics. The case of United States v. Grubbs (2006) validated the legality of these warrants under specific circumstances. Additionally, sneak & peek warrants allow for covert searches with delayed notification in situations where immediate notice could jeopardize police safety or the investigation. Key cases, including United States v. Freitas (1986), mandate that a notification must occur within seven days post-search unless justified otherwise. The USA PATRIOT Act has further introduced procedural modifications emphasizing national security and the urgency of executing search warrants.

Search & Seizure Without Warrant – Exceptions to The Warrant Requirement

Certain exceptions to the warrant requirement permit searches without a warrant. One prevalent exception is searches incident to lawful arrests, allowing police to immediately search an arrested individual to ensure officer safety, prevent escape, and avoid evidence concealment. Established case law, such as Chadwick (1977), specifies that these searches must follow arrests immediately to maintain their legality.

Additionally, searches can occur with voluntary and knowledgeable consent from the individual, provided that consent is explicitly articulated; silence cannot be construed as consent. Consent can also be revoked at any time before the search begins. In certain circumstances known as special needs searches, warrantless searches may be justified without probable cause, often associated with public safety, such as drug testing in schools. These searches extend to closely regulated businesses where stricter public oversight renders warrants unnecessary.

Exigent circumstances constitutes another critical exception, characterized by emergency situations where imminent danger necessitates warrantless searches. Legal precedents, exemplified in cases like Vale v. Louisiana (1970) and Cupp v. Murphy (1973), support the legality of searches conducted during emergencies.

In California, implied consent applies to DUI blood tests, presuming consent upon lawful arrests. However, exigent circumstances can compel officers to secure warrants for blood tests when necessary for evidence collection. It's also noteworthy that police are prohibited from searching cell phone contents without a search warrant or explicit consent from the owner. The landmark ruling in Riley v. California (2014) underscored the heightened protections for cell phones under the 4th Amendment, given their capacity to store vast amounts of personal data.

Other Search & Seizure Issues

Lastly, the 4th Amendment does not extend protections against searches conducted by private individuals, as civilian searches are exempt from warrant requirements. Moreover, utilizing police dogs for detection does not constitute a search if the dogs indicate the presence of drugs in containers in public areas. The United States v. Place (1983) decision set forth the limitations regarding how long individuals may be detained while awaiting search warrants, ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld during such processes.