Reasonableness: Street Policing and Administrative Searches

Question 1

Frank v. Maryland

Answer 1

held that for public safety reasons, a warrantless admin search was OK - no warrant required for fire, health, and housing code inspections – Frank court held that this type of search was not w/in bounds of the 4th amend

Question 2

Camara v. Municipal Court of City & County of San Fran

Answer 2

• Camara court REJECTS Frank and holds that admin searches DO implicate 4th amend concerns  BUT question is not whether the PUBLIC INTEREST justifies the type of search in question, but whether the authority to search should be evidenced by a warrant - it has never been argued that fire, health, housing code inspection programs could not achieve their goals within the confines of a reasonable search warrant requirement

ordinances may permit consented warrantless searches in non-emergency situations, BUT if the property owner refuses, a warrant is required.
* And the warrant, like the search, is always a question of reasonableness—the PC required to conduct a property inspection isn’t PC that the property violates code, but rather the reasonableness to appraise conditions of the area as a whole.
* Still, warrantless inspections are permitted in emergency situations

Reasonableness Balancing:
- To determine reasonableness → must BALANCE the need to search against the invasion which the search entails - a number of persuasive factors combine to support the reasonableness of area code-enforcement inspections: (1) these inspections have a long history of judicial and public acceptance, (2) the public interest demands that all dangerous conditions be prevented or abated (many conditions are not observable without doing a search), and (3) the inspections are neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of a crime - very limited invasion of the citizens privacy
- THESE SEARCHES ARE REASONABLE
- Most citizens allow inspections of their property w/out a warrant - consent - therefore, warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry

Takeaways:
1. There are ranges of law enforcement activity that implicate the 4th amend that have nothing to do w/ Probable Cause
2. In the reasonableness sphere – gov purpose for the activity is important

REASONABLENESS IS ULTIMATE STANDARD
- BEFORE: PC defined a reasonable search
- NOW: reasonableness (balance) defines PC

Question 3

Terry v. Ohio

Answer 3

cop saw suspicious people at 2am while on a beat. they were looking in windows and stuff. stopped them, asked for ID, and then patted them down. Found gun.

Stop is clearly a seizure, frisk is clearly a search. But whether 4A was violated turns on reasonableness.

• This conduct is NOT governed by warrant requirement - governed by 4th amend’s general proscription against UNREASONABLE searches/seizures
• Court applies Camara’s balancing test for reasonableness: were officer’s actions based on a good enough gov interest? Did officer identify specific and articulable facts which, taken together w/ rational inferences from those facts, possibly drawn from past experiences, suggest to the officer of reasonable caution that crime is afoot?

Gov interests? Crime Prevention and Public Safety.

More narrow question is whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is PC for an arrest?

an officer may, consistent w/ 4A, conduct a brief, investigatory stop (stop) when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot;
- “reasonable suspicion” is a considerably less demanding standard than PC; only asks for a minimal level of objective justification in making the stop.

• IL v. Wardlaw – the lower reasonable suspicion standard accepts that innocent people will be stopped from time to time… innocent activity + other circumstances could provide the basis for reasonable suspicion. (being present in an area known for crime isn’t alone enough, nor is fleeing alone enough, but together they are suggestive of criminal activity and meet the standard)
• Considerations include: geographical location; the nature of the criminal activity and the degree of danger; the time of day; and other indicia of criminal activity. (Navarette)

: When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior, he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or others, it would appear CLEARLY REASONABLE to PERMIT officer power to take necessary measures to determine if a weapon is there/going to be used

Specific and Articulable Facts + Rational Inferences

The Terry Standard:
- “In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be ablet to point to specific and articulable facts which, take together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”
- “would the facts available to the officer in the moment of the seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action was appropriate?”

Terry progression: [applies to intrusions that fall short of “formal arrest”]
- Unusual activity + experience
o Inference that crime is afoot
 Persons may be armed and dangerous (= licenses the stop)
* STOP [seizure]
o Reasonable inquiries (either confirm or dispel suspicion)
 Still has fear for personal or other’s safety based on specific facts + rational inferences
* FRISK [search]

Question 4

Terry Extensions: Balancing Standards

Answer 4

• Terry stops can be justified if specific and articulable facts exist for a non-violent crime, Florida v. Royer, (1983). –> Thus, Terry can be used to carry out preemptive drug investigation activity
• Terry can apply to the temporary detention of property, US v. Place, (1983)
• But court has scrutinized subsequent searches under the scope prong of Terry, paying close attention to the nature of the intrusion, Place held that while temporary detention of a piece of luggage was permissible, doing so for 90 min required probable cause
• Later, court held that courts should determine whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation to determine whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause was necessary for a length detention

Question 5

Terry Progeny: Bright Line rules when Officer Safety Prioritized

Answer 5

-The court has permitted Terry analysis where the court views the needs of officer safety as particularly high
o Frisk of driver during traffic stop after noticing bulge in clothing was permissible. PA v Mimms (1977)
o Police may frisk driver or passenger during lawful traffic stop when reasonable suspicion of weapons and danger exists, even if no belief that either occupant is involved in criminal activity. Arizona v Johnson (2009)
o Frisk of a car (not as in depth like a search, such as scanning the car where a weapon might be hidden) is also permitted upon concern for safety, but is restricted to areas within reach of the occupant and capable of hiding a weapon Michigan v Long (1983)
o Terry frisks that yield PC for a weapon authorize seizure of the weapon (plain feel seizure)
o But a terry frisk that suggests item is NOT a weapon or contraband does not permit addtl investigation, unless there is PC for such investigation. Minnesota v Dickerson (1993) (manipulation of item after initial conclusion was not supported by PC)