Hippocampus American Government: Reasonable Searches and Seizures

[Print]

In colonial America, the English rulers were not required to obtain search warrants targeted at specific individuals or locations. Beginning in 1751, English soldiers and customs officers would write broad writs of assistance that would allow them to freely search for any sort of contraband. The English imposed heavy taxes on colonists, and many American merchants resorted to smuggling to circumvent the tax laws. Writs of assistance were intended to discourage or eliminate smuggling, but instead served to further alienate the colonists from the English government.

American merchants and lawyers began to officially challenge the writs in 1761. James Otis led a formal protest and legal challenge of the writs in court. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, the campaign broadened public awareness and caused many Americans to become even more distrustful of their English rulers. By the 1770s, although the writs were still on the books, very few English officials had the courage to enforce them against an increasingly resistant American public.

Many early colonists had come to America to escape oppression in England. One notorious example of English oppression was the Star Chamber, an organization that instituted its own searches and confiscated property it found suspect. The Chamber would also pass sentence and carry out punishment on commoners they believed to be guilty. In certain cases, the Chamber would even carry out capital punishment. The Chamber answered to no higher authority, and many commoners lived in fear of its searches.

The Framers of the Constitution, well aware of the American public's fear of government tyranny, constructed the Fourth Amendment that guarantees protection for all citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, each state has adopted similar protections in their own Constitutions. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment strengthens the Fourth Amendment and gives citizens even greater protection from illegal searches and seizures.

Although well intentioned, the Fourth Amendment is vague and ambiguous. The Framers were explicit in their desire to protect the rights of citizens, but they did not provide a clear framework for what is considered a "reasonable" search or seizure. Police procedure revealed inconsistencies and raised many questions, but the Supreme Court did not play a major role in interpreting the Fourth Amendment until the late twentieth century.

It is difficult to define what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure, but the most important criterion is probable cause. Probable cause requires police agencies to have reasonable suspicion that a person or place is involved in illegal activities. Identifying probable cause gives police the authority to search and investigate suspicious persons or places, while still protecting the rights of citizens. Police departments are not able to search a person or property based solely on an unfounded hunch or suspicion.

To further protect citizens against abuses, police are generally required to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a search or seizure in a home or business. A warrant is a legal document, signed by a judge, authorizing authorities to conduct a lawful search or seizure. A judge will only issue a warrant if the police are able to prove probable cause. A warrant must identify a specific person or place that may be searched. It will also dictate exactly what the police are allowed to look for and the process they can follow when searching. Police must search in likely places and are prohibited from causing undue injury to occupants, other people, or the property itself.

In Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court helped define exactly what is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Katz was accused of violating federal gambling regulations by conducting an interstate gambling operation. Prosecutors used as evidence against him conversations that were recorded by eavesdropping equipment placed outside of a public phone booth he often used. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the recordings violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court sided with Katz and ruled that the Fourth Amendment is designed to protect people not places. The Court also introduced the concept that citizens have a reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.

In Katz, the Court also extended the zone of privacy for searches and seizures. Before this decision, search and seizure protection was reserved for the home. This ruling broadened the scope of the Fourth Amendment, and it now includes the home, office, person, and immediate public area.

An exception to reasonable expectation is the plain view rule. A police officer stopped a student who was carrying an open container of alcohol and asked him for identification. The student asked the officer to accompany him to his dorm room to retrieve his driver's license. While in the room, the police officer noticed that the student's roommate had marijuana and LSD clearly displayed on his desk. In Washington v. Chrisman (1982), the Court ruled that the officer conducted a legal search and seizure and upheld Chrisman's conviction. The Court stated that the officer had legal access to the room and any evidence in plain view could be used against a defendant in court.

Terry v. Ohio (1968) broadened law enforcement officers' rights to conduct preemptive searches and seize evidence. An undercover police officer observed three men "casing" a business in order to rob it. Based on their suspicious behavior, the officer frisked the three men and discovered concealed weapons on two of them. One of the men, Terry, was sentenced to three years, and his appeal eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Court upheld his conviction stating that the officer acted reasonably in searching the men. The Court further argued that the search was limited in scope and intended to protect the officer's personal safety during the course of the investigation. The Terry case allows officers to conduct preemptive searches such as DUI checkpoints, border patrol searches, and airport screenings.

The Supreme Court has ruled that students at public schools are not entitled to the same Fourth Amendment rights as other citizens. A high school student, "TLO," was accused of smoking in the restroom at her school. The principal of her school questioned her and searched her purse, which contained marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. In New Jersey v. TLO (1985), the Supreme Court determined that school searches do not require probable cause, but must show "reasonableness," a much less stringent criterion. Although school officials do not need probable cause to conduct a reasonable search, police or outside authorities are required to have a warrant to enter a school and search a student.

Automobiles and other vehicles are usually not afforded the same protection as homes or offices. A man named Acevedo was observed by police leaving a known marijuana distributor's house carrying paper bags that he placed in his trunk. The police pulled over Acevedo and searched his trunk without a warrant. They found the marijuana, and Acevedo was convicted and sentenced. In California v. Avecedo (1991), the Court rejected Acevedo's appeal, stating that vehicles are "movable crime scenes" and that the time required to obtain a warrant would allow an individual to remove evidence. They further stated that police are allowed to search any part of a vehicle as long as they have reasonable suspicion. The Court affirmed this ruling in Wyoming v. Houghton (1999).