Warrantless Searches

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

“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 . . . and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Over the years, court rulings have interpreted the exact meaning of those words. One of the landmark cases is called Mapp v. Ohio which laid the ground work for the exclusionary rule. Fruits of the poison tree. In Mapp v Ohio officers searched a residence without a warrant and found evidence of pornography. 

Facts - Mapp v Ohio:

On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”

Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the suitcase to a boarder at one time and that the contents were not her property. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for possession of pornographic material. No search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Tom Clark declared: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in a state court…. Were it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].”

Since then, 1957, the times have changed and so have the courts. Subsequent court decisions have eroded the absoluteness of the exclusionary rule, creating exceptions such as Nix v. Williams, 1984 (inevitable discovery rule), and U.S. v. Leon, 1984 (“good faith” exception)

In general a warrantless search must be a consent search. If there is no search warrant and no consent from someone with proper authority to consent, then the search is an illegal search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the context of automobile searches, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.  

First, police do not need to obtain a warrant where it is shown that there are exigent circumstances excusing the need to obtain the warrant.

"Exigent circumstances" in this context are defined as follows: A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

However, even if there are exigent circumstances, the police must still have probable cause to undertake the search.  Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93 (1978).  

Second, police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.  Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009).

Third, under the “automobile exception,” law enforcement officers may undertake a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity that the officers are entitled to seize.  See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).  Thus, in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) and in California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), the Supreme Court held that, under the automobile exception, police officers may undertake a warrantless search of a closed container found in a vehicle when the officers have probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity will be found in the container.  

In a recent Florida Supreme Court case, Florida vs. Thomas, 00-391, the court held that because Thomas had gotten out of the car before he had any contact with police, the officers could not automatically search his car after arresting him. Instead, the court said police must show the search was necessary to protect officers’ safety or to preserve evidence.

In that case, Thomas had arrived at a house where officers were present, and got out of his vehicle. An officer met him and asked to see his driver’s license. A license check showed an arrest warrant for a probation violation. The officer arrested Thomas, and a search of his car shortly afterward found plastic bags containing a substance that police said tested positive as methamphetamine.

There is recent and ample case law that addresses exactly how consent can be given, by whom; whether or not consent was coerced; and the validity of probable cause because of a K-9 alerting to a scent.

Our Bill of Rights is still in place, and it is our duty to know and fight for our rights, lest we lose them all.