Class Thirteen: Warrant Exceptions; Race and Cultural Factors

1
Class Thirteen Warrant Exceptions Race and
Cultural Factors
2
Probation and parole searches

• Probation post-conviction but before prison
  suspended sentence
• Parole post-prison
• Probation and parole search conditions
• RS of crime or violation of probation/parole
  sufficient for search of person, vehicle, or home

3
Inventory Searches

• To protect owners property, avoid lawsuits,
  protect public from dangerous instrumentalities
• Cars (SD v. Opperman CO v. Bertine)
• Individuals (IL v. Lafayette)
• Broad limitations on discretion enough (CO v.
  Bertine FL v. Wells)

4
Problem 4-23

• Was the inventory search pretextual?
• If so, does it matter? (US v.Whren)
• Adequate limits on police officer discretion?
• What kinds of evidence (formal discovery,
  depositions, subpoenas, investigation and
  interviewing other arrestees)?

5
Consent

• What is a valid consent? (Schneckloth v.
  Bustamonte)
• Who may grant consent? (US v. Matlock IL v.
  Rodriguez)
• What is the scope of a consent search? (FL v.
  Jimeno)
• Refusal or withdrawal of consent?

6
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

• Voluntary consent authorizes a search of a
  person, place, or vehicle
• Officers do not need to admonish re right to
  refuse (cf. Ferguson)
• Voluntariness judged case-by-case , totality of
  circumstances (interrogation cases)
  coercionthreats or promises, but only from police

7
Determining voluntariness?

• Case-by-case, totality of circumstances
• Was the individuals will overcome by police
  action?
• Coercion threats or promises
• Objective factors considered force, verbal
  intimidation, length and place of detention, etc.
• Fundamentally subjective inquiry (age, education,
  race, experience, physical state, right to refuse)

8
US v. Matlock (1974)

• A warrantless search is valid if police gain
  consent of a person who possesses common
  authority over the premises, and the evidence is
  admissible against an absent, non-consenting
  party
• Any cohabitant has the right to permit inspection
  of common areas others assume the risk

9
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

• Would the facts available to the officer at the
  moment warrant a person of reasonable caution in
  the belief that the consenting party had
  authority over the premises? (Apparent
  authority)
• The reasonableness requirement demands not that
  police always be correct, but reasonable

10
Florida v. Jimeno (1991)

• Scope of consent search is measured by what a
  typical, reasonable person would have understood
  by the exchange
• Scope is defined by its espressed object

11
Race and the Fourth Amendment

• Disparate impact of law enforcement on minorities
  
• Intentional or conscious racial discrimination
• Institutional racism (profiling)
• Classism

12
Next time

• Terrorism, Surveillance, etc. 461-507