Warrant Exception for Searches Incident to Arrest Flashcards
Chimel v. California (SCOTUS 1969)
Holding: when the police arrest a person (probable cause) they can automatically search the person’s “grab area”—the area within a person’s immediate control—and seize weapons and evidence. The grab area include the room where the person was arrested.
Counter argument: an arrest can be an “exigent circumstance” that justifies an officer’s search of a person’s entire home. It is unreasonable to require the police to leave the scene of an arrest, get a warrant, and come back. They are already in the home and, in the interim, the arrestee’s associates could come to the house and seize evidence.
United States v. Robinson (SCOTUS 1973)
Holding: the police have the automatic right to search a person incident to their arrest (probable cause). During an arrest, an officer is close to a person for an extended period of time, therefore it is important to make sure that the person is not armed and dangerous.
Rule: a police can search a person incident to arrest to uncover evidence and ensure the suspect is not armed and dangerous.
Counter argument: this may result in the police making more arrests because they know that they can do an extensive search. The police may also make pretextual arrests.
New York v. Belton (SCOTUS 1981)
Holding: the police can search the passenger apartment of a person’s car incident to arrest (probable cause), but may not search the trunk unless it is attached to the passenger compartment.
Note: most lower courts thought that Belton held that the search of a person’s car incident to arrest was an automatic right, but this is incorrect and was clarified in Gant.
Thorton v. United States (SCOTUS 2004)
Holding: the police have right to search a car incident to a recent occupant’s arrest.
Note: most lower courts thought that Belton/Thorton held that the search of a car incident to arrest was an automatic right, but this is incorrect and was clarified in Gant.
Arizona v. Gant (SCOTUS 2009)
Holding: the police do not have an automatic right to search a car incident to a recent passenger/driver’s arrest. They may only search a car incident to arrest if…
1. The passenger compartment is in the suspect’s grab area
2. The police have reason to believe that the passenger compartment contains evidence relevant to the crime for which the driver or passenger was arrested.
Counterargument: this is a bad idea because it would discourage the police from securing an arrestee so that the car in still in their grab area and they can search it. There should be a clear automatic rule. ALSO WHAT DOES REASON TO BELIEVE MEAN.
Riley v. California (SCOTUS 2014)
Holding: the police do not have the right to search a person’s cellphone incident to arrest without a warrant, regardless of whether it is a flip phone or a smart phone.
Reasoning:
1. Phones are basically part of our anatomy, they have extensive personal information and this privacy interest cannot be overcome by the reduced expectation of privacy individuals have upon arrest large storage capacity, different pieces of information from different facets of a person’s life, you can reconstruct their past and learn about their interests, you can also access data stored elsewhere.
2. Digital data cannot be used to harm officers (the idea that others may be on their way to harm the police is related to dangers posed by third parties, not the arrestee, so officer safety argument does not hold water)
3. There is no risk of destruction of evidence once the police have a phone (can prevent data wiping by disconnecting the phone and prevent encryption by placing the phones in a Faraday bag)
Note: the police can search a cellphone under exigent circumstances or if they have a warrant!
Facts (two cases):
The police a defendant, searched his phone, and found contacts, pictures, and photos that they thought indicated he was affiliated with the bloods.
The police arrested a defendant (Wurie) and took him to the station and took his flip phone from him. They saw the phone kept receiving calls from “My House” and saw a picture of a woman and baby set as the wallpaper. The police traced the phone number to an apartment building, saw the defendant’s name on the mailbox, and saw a woman with a baby inside. They proceeded to get a warrant, searched the house, and found drugs.
Birchfield v. North Dakota (SCOTUS 2016)
This case held that the police do not need a warrant to make someone take a breath test incident to arrest.
Reasoning: here the Court used a reasonableness balancing test between the government interest (safety re drunk driving, BAC could dissipate) and individual interest (the intrusion is negligible, people do not have a possessory interest in their breath).
Note: in this case the court held that you do need a warrant for blood!
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)
This case held that a person can be arrested (and thus searched under Robinson) regardless of whether they are stopped for a jailable or finable offense.
As long as an officer has probable cause to support the arrest, arresting someone for a minor, fineable, criminal offense is constitutional.
Facts: here, Atwater was driving without a seatbelt. She was arrested in front of her children and taken to jail.
O’Connor’s dissent: tries to do a reasonableness analysis. The government interests include flight risk, identification, ensuring the person comes to court, making sure the person is not dangerous. The majority is discounting the plaintiff’s individual interest in this case.
Whren v. United States (SCOTUS 1996)
This case held that pretextual arrests are permissible. If the police want to stop and search someone they can follow them until they commit a traffic violation and then they can conduct a search incident to arrest.
Horton v. California (SCOTUS 1990)
This case affirmed the plain view doctrine, holding that the police can seize evidence that is in plain view as long as:
1. The incriminating nature of the item is immediately apparent (i.e. as soon as the officer sees something they have to know that it is incriminating)
2. The officer’s precence where the thing is found is lawful.
It also added:
1. that the discovery of the “plain view” evidence does not have to be inadvertant. The police can have an interest in searching for immediately incriminating evidence, and can seize it if they find it, even though it is not in their warrant.
2. However, as soon as they find what they are looking for in the warrant, the search is over and they have to leave.
Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
This case held that to be within the plain view doctrine, the incriminating nature of the item has to be immediately apparent. There can be no question and the police are not allowed to touch/manipulate the item to find out if it is incriminating.
Facts: the police saw a stereo during a search and picked it up to look at its serial number, then searched the number and found that the stereo had been reported stolen. This was too much manipulation. Not plain view.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (SCOTUS 1993)
This case affirmed the plain touch doctrine. To seize an item during the frisk of a person, the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent. The officer cannot poke and prod at it to try and figure out what it is. This applies to incriminating evidence and weapons!!
