Border Searches Flashcards
Under the Fourth Amendment, can mail entering the country be searched without probable cause or a warrant?
Yes. Mail entering the country may be searched without probable cause or a warrant. Postal regulations permit government officials to search mail if there is “reasonable cause to suspect” that the mail contains contraband. The “reasonable cause” standard is not as rigorous as the probable cause standard required under the Fourth Amendment.
Under the Fourth Amendment, is reasonable suspicion required to search the gas tank of a vehicle entering the United States?
No. The government may search people or property entering the United States without probable cause, a warrant, or even reasonable suspicion. Under United States v. Ramsay, 431 U.S. 606 (1977), this type of search is reasonable simply because it is performed at the border. This authority is derived from the United States’ sovereign right to territorial integrity. Congress granted this authority to the Executive to ensure duties are collected and contraband is not brought into the country.
Must the court look at the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether consent to a warrantless search absent probable cause was freely and voluntarily given?
Although knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent is one factor of many to consider, it is not a prerequisite to proving that consent was given voluntarily. The definition of “voluntary” has been developed throughout the case law focusing on the voluntariness of confessions. In that respect, it has come to mean a confession made absent police coercion. This line of cases focus on the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there was implied or express coercion that made the confession not truly voluntary. There is no reason why “voluntary” should be defined differently for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Under the Fourth Amendment, may police conduct a warrantless search of a home when one occupant gives consent to search the premises while another occupant is present and is expressly refusing to consent to the search?
No. The holding in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S 164 (1974), that the police may search a home with consent of a co-occupant even when another occupant later objects, is premised on social expectations and commonly held assumptions about people sharing a home. In Matlock, the primary assumptions at issue involved the equal authority of all of the occupants and the assumption of risk when living with others. Here, the primary assumptions again include the equal authority of all of the occupants but also assumptions about how people act in light of this equal authority: a guest is unlikely to enter when invited by one occupant but expressly told to stay away by another.
Is one occupant’s consent to search a premises effective under the Fourth Amendment as long as no other occupant who objects to the search is physically present?
Yes. A single occupant has the authority to invite guests into the home and, therefore, has the authority to consent to a search by law enforcement. However, there is an exception to this rule. If another occupant is physically present and unequivocally objects to the search, the other occupant cannot effectively consent to a search.
on whom is the burden to prove valid consent placed?
the government
Does a wiretap violate the Fourth Amendment if its authorization is not based on a detailed factual affidavit alleging the commission of a specific crime, or is not for the limited purpose of ascertaining the truth of the affidavit’s allegations?
Yes. Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and particularity. Given the heightened privacy invasion of electronic surveillance, the particularity of a wiretap warrant must be both precise and discriminate.
