Last week we ended our conversation with an understanding of how American search and seizure law is formed. This week I’d like to start talking about the criteria the Supreme Court has said should be used when any of our nation’s courts are analyzing search and seizure situations.
When the Supreme Court hears a case with a fact situation and issues upon which it has not before ruled (a “case of first impression”), it establishes a framework by which to analyze future similar cases. That framework is called “precedent”. The next time the Court hears a case like one it has already ruled upon, it relies on precedent to decide it. Courts throughout the nation use Supreme Court precedent to decide cases that come before them. Precedent is the vehicle by which courts strive to achieve consistency in the application of law to a wide variety of situations. If the Supreme Court has made precedent on a particular issue, that precedent applies to the courts of all 50 States. If the Supreme Court has not yet made a decision about a particular issue, state courts rely on precedent from the highest court of that particular state to decide an issue.
Johnny’s story from last week’s post lends itself perfectly for an example here. Johnny’s attorney believes the search of Johnny’s van was illegal. As Johnny’s attorney begins to research the issue, he’ll soon find that many, many people have had this happen to them, and that a good number of those people have tried to make the same claim Johnny is trying to make – that is, that many of those people have gone through the appeal process we discussed that week, claiming that the search which found evidence that eventually led to their conviction was unconstitutional. Johnny’s attorney can look to Supreme Court precedent or precedent from the highest court of his state to have a good idea whether or not the court in Johnny’s case is going to find that the search was unconstitutional.
As it turns out, search and seizure is a hotly litigated area of the law – a lot of appeals have been based on search and seizure issues. As such, the Supreme Court has made plenty of precedent from which perspective litigants can draw to have a good idea how their cases will be decided.
Today let’s discuss the first question a court will ask when deciding if a search was illegal:
Was the Government involved in the search?
The Supreme Court has held that, unless a government official (i.e. police officer, sheriff’s deputy, teacher/principal in a school setting, etc.) conducted the search, the search cannot be unconstitutional. If your mom goes into your bedroom while you’re at school, finds something illegal, subsequently takes it to the police station and gets charges pressed against you, you simply cannot claim your mom’s search of your room violated your 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure – your mom is not a government official. To be fair, it is not always so easy to determine whether the Government was involved in the search. Is an off-duty cop providing security at your local grocery store acting as a government official? How about the private security hired by your subdivision? What about the loss prevention officer at the department store?
The above questions illustrate that the answer to whether or not the Government was involved in the search is not always an easy one. You should seek the advice of counsel if you have a question about Government involvement in your specific case. If you are ever in a situation where you believe your 4th Amendment rights have been violated, ask yourself, “Was the Government involved in the search?" If the answer is "no", you’re out of luck. If, however, the answer is "yes" (or at least you think you can make the argument for “yes”), you don’t automatically win. Not by a long shot. All a "yes” to this question gets you is a chance to proceed to the next question the court will ask – which question we’ll get to next week.
Until then…
No comments:
Post a Comment