Articles Tagged with “search warrant”

Today marks the 41st anniversary of the landmark decision of South Dakota v. Opperman[1][2] in which the Supreme Court laid out the basis for what would be known as the Inventory search exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. This decision has allowed for a dramatic expansion in the number of warrantless searches the State can conduct.

car-1450553-300x225
The Case

The case that made up the basis of Opperman was surprisingly mundane, and yet indicative of the kind of cases that would be affected by this landmark ruling. In the early morning hours of December 10th, 1973, Mr. Opperman’s car was found illegally parked in downtown Vermillion, South Dakota. Pursuant to police procedures, the officers impounded the vehicle. However, as the officers impounded the car, they noticed a number of valuable items strewn about the interior of the vehicle. The officers, fearing that the items could be stolen opened the vehicle and inventoried the items inside of it. While searching the interior of the vehicle, the officers found a small amount of marijuana located in the glovebox. When Mr. Opperman came to the police station to retrieve his vehicle the following day, he was arrested on the spot for possession of marijuana.

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the landmark decision in Riley v California in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that a warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of cell phones during an arrest is unconstitutional.

washington-dc-6-1235114-300x202
The Cases

The cases that eventually became the basis of the decision in Riley v. California[1] are interesting to say the least, and highlight why a Supreme Court decision on the matter was vital in settling the question of the constitutionality of these warrantless searches.

iStock_000009680929XSmall.jpgPolice officers cannot bring drug dogs onto a person’s property to search for evidence without first obtaining a warrant to conduct the search, according to a recent Supreme Court decision. Though this decision strengthens one’s fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches, one should still know how officers could find a constitutional exception to the warrant requirement, allowing police to search the home. Even with a warrant or warrant-exception, the constitution places certain limitations upon the police’s search of a suspect’s home, which the police must not exceed.

A common way police are able to search the home without a warrant is through consent of the homeowner. Consent acts as an exception to both the probable cause and warrant requirements of a search, thus one must be aware that, when she consents to a search, she is relieving the police of their duty to follow constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches. When requesting consent, the police are not obligated to tell the suspect he has the right to decline the police’s request. The police could even threaten the suspect in order to obtain consent, and such threats are lawful as long as the police can legally carry the threat out. For instance, a police officer could tell a homeowner if the homeowner doesn’t concede to a search, the officer may go to a magistrate judge to obtain a warrant for the search. However, if the threat to obtain consent is illegal for the police to follow through on, such as threatening to come back with drug dogs to conduct a warrantless search of the home, then the consent obtained would be invalid.

When a homeowner does decide to concede to a police search, he is able to limit the search to wherever he wants, such as conceding search of the living room, but not allowing search of the bedroom. The item or person the police are searching for can also limit the consent-based search. For example, if police get consent to search for an escaped prisoner, the police can only search where a person could be hiding like closets, but not drawers or small containers. However, if police obtain consent to search for marijuana, then police have free reign to search virtually everywhere in the house where marijuana could be hidden. A police officer may also get consent to search your home from another person who jointly controls the living area. If the other person does not actually jointly control the living area, but a reasonable officer would have (in good faith) believed the other person had joint control, then an officer could still obtain valid consent (to search the home) from the other person. In the circumstance where one homeowner objects to a search but another homeowner agrees to the search, a officer would have to yield to the objecting homeowner, and could not conduct the search without a warrant or warrant-exception besides consent. If you are involved in a criminal case where search or seizure is an issue, it is imperative that you contact a criminal defense attorney who can ensure that the courts will fully respect your fourth amendment rights.