search incident Flashcards
Is a warrantless search of an entire home permissible when the search is incident to a lawful arrest that takes place in the home?
No. A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest can only cover the area in possession or control of the person being arrested. When an arrest occurs, it is reasonable for the police to search the person being arrested to insure he is not armed and to ensure no evidence is destroyed.
This rule is easily extended to include a search of the area that the person under arrest may access. However, a search of the area outside of the suspect’s immediate control cannot be similarly justified and is therefore not reasonable.
Is it unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer, as a matter of routine, to monitor the movements of an arrested person, as his judgment dictates, following the arrest?
No. It is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer, as a matter of routine, to monitor the movements of an arrested person, as his judgment dictates, following the arrest.
First, every arrest involves a certain amount of risk to the arresting officer.
Second, there is always a possibility that an arrestee will try to escape if not supervised. It is thus appropriate for the arresting officer to stay within eyesight of the arrestee at all times. This type of monitoring does not violate the arrestee’s liberty or privacy interests.
Does an arrest on the street generally provide justification for a warrantless search of the arrestee’s house?
No. There are only “a few specifically established and well delineated” situations where law enforcement may conduct a warrantless search of a house and the prosecution has the burden to prove the necessity. An arrest on the street, without more, does not provide its own exigent circumstance to justify such a search
During a lawful arrest, is it reasonable to conduct a full search of the person being arrested?
Yes. The authority to search an arrestee arises when the police make a custodial arrest.
The police must ensure their own safety by checking for weapons, and they must preserve the integrity of the case by ensuring the arrestee does not have any evidence on his person that he may destroy.
The precedent of the Court does not require a case-by-case determination to establish whether the arrestee likely possessed evidence related to the crime or whether he was likely to have been armed. Therefore, under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable to search a person under custodial arrest
Where an officer has instructed the occupant of a car to step out of the automobile and has placed the occupant under arrest, is the passenger compartment of the car part of the area in the arrestee’s immediate control and therefore subject to search?
Yes. The passenger area of the car is under the immediate control of a recent occupant now under arrest, and is subject to lawful search by the arresting officer. Furthermore, if the passenger area can be reached by the arrestee then so can those containers in the area and therefore, containers in the passenger area are subject to search as well.
The Court comes to this bright-line rule because it recognizes the inconsistency of recent lower court decisions regarding this issue, and it emphasizes the importance of the police knowing the extent of their authority and of people knowing the extent of their rights.
May police undertake a search of an individual’s vehicle when the arrestee is not within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search?
No. Police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that crime-related evidence is located in the vehicle.
Despite others’ interpretation of Belton, our decision in Belton does not authorize a vehicle search after a recent arrest, for to do so would undermine the logic of Chimel. Considering Chimel and Belton together, we hold that police can search a vehicle after the occupant’s recent arrest only when arrestee is unrestrained and within reach of the passenger compartment, and objects within it. Following Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), we also affirm that police, having stopped a vehicle, can search for evidence only when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.”
Under the Fourth Amendment, may the government conduct a warrantless search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest absent exigent circumstances?
No. Police officers generally must secure a warrant before conducting a search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest. The search of a person incident to an arrest is a valid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This exception is permitted for the safety of the arresting officer and to prevent destruction of evidence. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
There is no safety risk posed to an officer by a cell phone beyond a preliminary search to make sure the phone does not house a blade or other small weapon.
To the extent that a search of the contents of a cell phone might indirectly affect officer safety by alerting of potential danger, the separate exigent-circumstances warrant exception may apply.
Once officers have secured a cell phone, there is little risk of destruction of evidence stored on the phone. The government concerns of destruction of evidence via remote wiping or data encryption goes beyond the concern in Chimel that a defendant can destroy that which is within reach.
Does a law requiring a motorist to submit to a blood-alcohol-concentration breath test after being lawfully arrested for driving while impaired violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches?
No. A breath test is minimally intrusive on an individual’s privacy. A breath test involves very little physical intrusion and does not reveal any personal information other than the individual’s blood-alcohol concentration. Additionally, undergoing a breath test will not increase the embarrassment already inherent in an arrest for driving while impaired. In sum, the privacy intrusion of a breath test is minimal, particularly when compared to the government’s compelling interest in protecting the safety of people on the roadways.
May police almost always obtain warrantless blood tests of an unconscious drunk-driving suspect?
Yes. Yes. Police may almost always obtain warrantless blood tests of an unconscious drunk-driving suspect. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because a blood test is a search for incriminating evidence, it requires a warrant or consent. Exceptions apply under the exigent-circumstances rule and for searches performed incident to arrest. The exigent-circumstances rule almost always allows warrantless blood testing of unconscious drivers. Enforcing drunk-driving laws depends on administering blood testing if a breath test is impossible. Police often deal with circumstances that take priority over obtaining a warrant. An unconscious driver is usually taken to the hospital and blood-tested for diagnostic purposes anyway. Like most states, Wisconsin has an implied-consent law that deems drivers to have consented to testing if police suspect impaired driving. Police must read a standard statement explaining the right to withdraw consent for blood testing. Unconscious drivers are considered to have not withdrawn that consent.
Does a warrantless arrest for a minor offense violate the Fourth Amendment?
No. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless arrests for minor offenses. It is unclear whether the Framers of the amendment intended to prohibit warrantless arrests for misdemeanors that did not constitute a breach of the peace.
Does the “search incident to arrest” exception to the Fourth Amendment authorize the full search of a car, without probable cause or a warrant, after the issuance of citation?
No. Under United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), an arresting officer is authorized to perform a search without probable cause or a warrant that would otherwise be prohibited under the Fourth Amendment.
This exception…
(1) protects officer safety by ensuring that the suspect is disarmed and
(2) preserves evidence.
Does a police search based on probable cause violate the Fourth Amendment when the search is conducted subsequent to an arrest that is not authorized by state law?
No. A police search based on probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when the search occurs after an arrest not sanctioned by state law. State law provides that operating a vehicle while suspended is an arrestable offense only under certain circumstances.
The test of Fourth Amendment reasonableness of a search or seizure requires comparison of the scope of intrusion upon individual privacy against governmental interests promoted by the search. We have consistently held that when probable cause exists to believe that a person has committed even a minor crime, the person’s arrest is constitutionally valid.
Under the plain view doctrine, must the discovery of an item be inadvertent for police to make a warrantless seizure of the item?
No. Under the Fourth Amendment the police can seize an item that is in plain view without a warrant, even if finding the item was not inadvertent, so long as the police have the legal right to be where the item is found.
