I ended my post last week with a promise to talk about the foundation of our rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I also said I would talk about how rules are made relating to what’s right and wrong in search and seizure situations. Let’s get started.
Our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is based in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It reads:
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.
Notice that the founding fathers did not include a definition of what would be classified as an “unreasonable” search and seizure. The lack of a contextual definition begs the question: Who can say what is and is not an unreasonable search and seizure?
The answer is simple enough: The Supreme Court of the United States. How are those decisions made? The answer to that question is a little more complex. Perhaps a story will help:
Johnny is on his way home from school in his parents’ mini-van. As he approaches the street on which he lives, Johnny looks in his rear-view mirror to see that a police officer has turned on his lights indicating that he wants Johnny to pull over.
After Johnny pulls over, the police officer approaches the driver-side window, asks for license and registration, and then asks,
“Do you know why I pulled you over, son?”
Johnny, who at this point is on the verge of tears, timidly responds,
“N-n-n-no.”
The officer tells Johnny that the tags on the license plate of the van are expired. “I’m going to have to write you a ticket,” the officer says.
The officer turns to walk back to the squad car, but stops short, and coming back to the window he asks,
“Have you got anything in the van I should be concerned about, son?”
Johnny, who’s never done anything illegal in his life, says, “No, sir.”
The officer smiles and says, “In that case, I guess you wouldn’t mind if I take a look inside, would you?”
“I – I guess not, sir,” Johnny squeaks.
With that, the officer asks Johnny to exit the vehicle. He escorts Johnny back near the hood of his squad car and asks him to wait. The officer returns to the vehicle and begins to search the interior of the van. As he opens the glove compartment, a small baggie falls onto the floor. In it is a green substance he quickly identifies as marijuana. He exits the vehicle, walks back to Johnny and places him under arrest for Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Johnny hires an attorney. Johnny’s attorney claims the officer’s search of Johnny vehicle was unreasonable, and that the evidence seized from the vehicle as a consequence of the search must therefore be excluded from the trial. If the evidence is excluded, the prosecutor won’t be able to tell a jury that marijuana was found in Johnny’s van. If the prosecutor can’t tell the jury that marijuana was found in Johnny’s van, the jury will be unable to convict Johnny of Possession of a Controlled Substance.
The judge in Johnny’s case holds a hearing to determine if the search of the van was unreasonable. The judge decides that the search was valid. Johnny goes to trial and is convicted. Johnny appeals his conviction to his state's Supreme Court, claiming that the judge at the trial level was wrong in deciding the search was okay. State Supreme Court decides that the judge was right, and affirms his conviction. Johnny appeals to the United States Supreme Court. . .
Whether or not the search was legal is not really the issue at this point, although we will get there eventually. The point of the above story is to illustrate the process of how the word “unreasonable” develops meaning as it relates to the 4th Amendment. A defendant who is convicted of a crime based on the use of evidence he believes is the fruit of an unreasonable search appeals his conviction. An appeal works its way up through the court system until it lands on steps of the United States Supreme Court. The Court uses a variety of analyses (which we will discuss in later installments) to determine whether or not a search was reasonable. Once the Supreme Court has made a decision in a particular search and seizure situation, that decision is used by all the other courts in the nation to analyze all future similar situations arising in their respective states.
Note that the Supreme Court’s definition of unreasonable represents only the minimum protections necessary under the Constitution. No state can provide less protection, but states are free to provide more. Thus, what may be considered an unreasonable search in one state may be okay in another state, but nothing the Supreme Court has declared as an unreasonable search will be okay in any state.
Next week we’ll revisit Johnny’s story as we begin talking about ground rules the Supreme Court has said must be used when any court analyzes the reasonableness of a search.
Until next week.
