SA

Competence to Consent to a Search and Seizure

Competence to Consent to a Search and Seizure

Introduction

This discussion covers the competence to consent to a search and seizure, including:

  • The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • Adjudicative versus decisional competence.
  • The impact of mental health on competency for consent.
  • Research studies by Cage Hero, Lichenberg, and Nadler.
  • Key cases: Schneckloff v. Bamante, Keniglia v. Storm, and State v. Finchure.
  • Discussion questions and references.

The Fourth Amendment

  • Statement: "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."
  • Purpose: Protects individuals from arbitrary government intrusion into their privacy and property.

Adjudicative vs. Decisional Competence

  • Adjudicative Competence:
    • Definition: A legal standard determining if a defendant has the mental capacity to understand the legal proceedings against them and to participate in their own defense.
  • Decisional Competence:
    • Definition: The ability to make an informed, rational decision by understanding relevant information, appreciating the situation and its consequences, and reasoning through options to communicate a choice.

Mental Health and Competency for Consent

  • Vulnerability: Legal and mental health professionals agree that individuals with mental illnesses are more prone to involuntary consent to searches and seizures.
  • Underlying Factors:
    • Accustomed to Authority: Individuals may be accustomed to complying with authority figures due to reliance on supervisory roles.
    • People-Pleasing: Some may seek to please others and be unequipped to process confrontation.
    • Deception/Coercion: Depending on their disability, individuals may be easily deceived or coerced.
  • Supreme Court Policy: The validity of a search relies on whether an officer would have believed the individual was capable of voluntarily consenting, based on the information the officer possessed at the time.
    • Problematic Aspect: Officers are usually untrained and inexperienced in identifying and communicating with individuals suffering from mental illnesses and impairments.
  • Impact on Rights: According to B.L. Hernandez (2014), this Supreme Court policy leaves the Fourth Amendment rights of many defendants with mental illnesses unprotected, contributing to their overrepresentation in incarcerated populations.

Research Studies on Consent

Dorothy K. Cage Hero Study

  • Methodology: Simulated search scenarios using two approaches to obtain voluntary consent from a legal official.
    • Interrogatory Method Example: "Would you mind if I conducted a search of your house, car, or person?"
    • Declarative Method Example: "I would like to conduct a search of your house, car, or person."
  • Conclusions:
    • Consent was given more freely when using an interrogatory method compared to a declarative method.
    • The more information offered by the legal official, or the better they explained the situation, the higher the probability of voluntary consent.

Dr. Peter Lichenberg Study

  • Methodology: Surveyed 54 individuals who reportedly consented to legal officials.
  • Key Finding: The primary reason for consent was a fear of what would happen if they refused.
  • Perceived Risks: Individuals felt the law would not be followed, nor would their rights be protected if they refused.
  • Contributing Factors (Melton et al., 2018):
    • The number of questions asked by the legal official.
    • The feeling of being rushed.
    • The individual's education or employment level.

Janice Nadler Study

  • Focus: Consent cases, considering two main factors:
    • Did the consent to search lack sufficient volunteerism?
    • Was it given under duress?
    • Had the individual who consented been seized unlawfully?
  • Multifaceted Answer: Relies on:
    • The demeanor and language of the officer.
    • The circumstances of the situation (e.g., traffic stop, bus/building sweep).
    • The individual's knowledge of their ability to refuse a search or terminate the encounter.
  • Conclusion: Many individuals did not feel free to decline search requests or terminate encounters due to fear of negative consequences.

Key Cases Surrounding Consent for Search and Seizure

Schneckloff v. Bamante (1973)

  • Facts: Albert Bamonte, a passenger, was in a car pulled over for a missing headlight. He was the only passenger with identification. Officers asked for consent to search the vehicle, to which he agreed. Stolen checks were found. Bamonte was charged, despite the vehicle not being his.
  • Respondent's Argument: The search and seizure were involuntary because he was not made aware of his right to refuse.
  • Supreme Court Ruling (May 29, 1973):
    • Ruled 5-4 (with Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting) that the consent was voluntary, based on a "review of the totality of the circumstances."
    • No constitutional rights were violated.
    • Knowledge of the ability to refuse a search is to be considered but is not required and does not invalidate voluntary consent.

Keniglia v. Storm

  • Facts: Officers visited Edward Keniglia after his wife expressed concern he might commit suicide. They found him well but convinced him to go to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation. After he was taken, a ranking officer confiscated two firearms from his residence without consent, citing "community caretaking." Keniglia was not admitted to the hospital. He later sued after failed attempts to retrieve his firearms, alleging violations of his Second and Fourth Amendment rights.
  • Supreme Court Ruling: Agreed with Mr. Keniglia.
  • New Precedent: Private homes require more in terms of consent than a vehicle or person regarding "community caretaking" searches.

State v. Finchure

  • Facts: A 17-year-old defendant with an IQ of 50 to 65 (suffering from mild mental retardation, schizophrenia, and hallucinations) was told by 10 police officers that if he didn't give consent to search his room, they would return with a warrant.
  • North Carolina Supreme Court Ruling: Initially ruled the defendant was competent to give consent.
  • Psychiatric Testimony: Stated that Finchure, like many with mental illness, was more susceptible to fear and, given the circumstances, less likely to decline consent.
  • Outcome Implication: The psychiatric testimony suggested the search was invalid due to the Fourth Amendment, demonstrating how mental state can undermine voluntary consent when coercion is present.

Discussion Questions

After watching a brief video on the Fourth Amendment:

  • Do you feel a legal official should be required to state your right to refusal when requesting consent to a search and seizure? Why or why not?
  • Do you think there should be a field competency test, similar to a field sobriety test, given when requesting consent to a search and seizure? Why and why not?

Conclusion

This presentation provided an overview of the competency to consent to searches and seizures, highlighting constitutional protections, legal standards, mental health considerations, research findings, and notable legal cases.