Turn in any late work. Get a book. Other Exceptions Turn in any late work. Get a book.

“Searches conducted … without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Searches Incident to lawful arrest Chimel v. California (1969) “When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape [and to] seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” (Chimel searches) Everything within area of arrested person’s immediate control Searches and evidence with unlawful arrest are invalid

Reasonable search: If arrested for shoplifting outside the store, bags with arrestee are searched Unreasonable search: If arrested for shoplifting outside the store, police travel to her home, a block away, and search her bedroom. This search would not be a search “incident to the arrest.” Police must obtain a search warrant if they believe evidence of the shoplifting is in the arrestee’s home.

Consent Person must “knowingly and voluntarily” consent Not reasonable if police use deception or fraud to gain consent In certain circumstances, a person may consent to a search of someone else’s property. An example would be a husband consenting to a house search if the wife is gone, or vice versa. Supreme Court has ruled that, if both spouses are present, consent must be obtained from both spouses

Reasonable search: Traffic stop for defective brake light. They ask him to open his glove compartment. He does, and they see inside. Unreasonable search: Roommates share an apartment. Police ask roommate A if they can search roommate B’s bedroom and file cabinet. This is unreasonable because roommate A can only consent to his/her personal spaces and the shared spaces in the apartment (living room, kitchen)

Exigent Circumstances (events that require immediate action) Hot pursuit – police in hot pursuit of a fleeing criminal suspect do not need a warrant to enter a place they watched the suspect enter Hot pursuit means that the chase is occurring at that moment > not a day or even an hour ago

Reasonable search: A drug dealer runs inside her house when she sees police are going to arrest her. They enter and observe white powder on the ground, which turns out to be heroin. Police observe a suspect knock down and hit an old lady while taking her purse. They watch her run in a building and into apartment 10B. When she refuses to answer, they kick in the door.

Unreasonable search: Report of a theft of a Social Security check from a mailbox comes in. Police suspect a local criminal with a history of these crimes from the elderly. They follow her for a few days and decide to talk to her when she enters an apartment that she frequents. When they knock, she will not open the door. They kick it in. There is no hot pursuit. They were only following a lead and do not know if she committed this crime. They could have gotten a warrant.

Emergency situations Police do not need a warrant to search in emergencies. Reasonable search: Officers respond to a call of a loud party. Through the window, they observe a juvenile held by multiple adults. As they watch, the juvenile escapes and punches one of the adults. Police enter the house.

Reasonable search: An officer hears a scream and glass shattering in a trailer home. The officer stops only long enough to radio for backup and give an address, then opens the front door to assess the situation. Unreasonable search: Police are concerned about gang violence at a high school. 3 students have been killed. They hear a fight between 2 rival gangs is supposed to take place on Friday. Thursday, officers ask for an assembly in the auditorium. Without a warrant, they go through lockers looking for dangerous weapons.

Imminent destruction of evidence of a crime Police do not need a warrant when they REASONABLY believe evidence is about to be destroyed. Reasonable search: Officers chase a drug suspect and lose him in an apartment complex. Believing he entered one apartment, they knock on the door and hear movement. Believing the suspect is destroying evidence, they kick down the door and find others (suspect not there) with drugs.

Unreasonable search: Police knock on a door, hear nothing, and then break down the door. What evidence do they have to believe evidence is being destroyed if they hear nothing?

Additional exceptions to police obtaining a warrant are: Airline searches of passengers and carry-on baggage by means of metal detectors, physical pat- downs, or drug-sniffing dogs. Border searches by immigration control officers within areas reasonably close to U.S. international boundaries. Customs searches at borders, ports, and international airports by customs agents.

Searches in detention facilities (prisons and jails) – Courts will allow any search policy unless “substantial evidence” proves the policy is an “unnecessary or unjustified response to” security problems. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld a policy of conducting strip searches of everyone entering detention, including those charged with minor crimes.

What do you think should be on the checklist that determines if a search or seizure is legal? In partners, complete the activity on page 123 by analyzing the cases and applying the checklist to see if you believe a search or seizure occurred and if it was legal. Both write down answers and explain using justification from the checklist or if something is missing. If partners disagree, each write your own opinion.