respond to the following discussion posts:
**1 – 1) In Atwater v City of Lago Vista, the Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment does not prohibit law enforcement from conducting full custodial arrests for minor criminal offenses which, at a maximum, can only be punished by a fine. Do you agree with this opinion? Why or why not?
I have gone back and forth on this question. My final answer is that I do not agree that full custodial arrest should be allowed for minor criminal offenses unless there is something else that occurs during the encounter that would warrant an arrest or there just needs to be either an in between option or clearer, more defined criteria. I understand that on the whole one cannot completely limit an officer’s ability to arrest someone for a minor criminal offence, but there has to be some sort of rule or policy in place. In this scenario, arresting a mother with her kids for not wearing a seat belt is extremely overkill and has both psychological and financial implications. However, in the example given in the book, if there were drugs present and the officer was not sure if the amount would be ruled as a fine or jail time, then they need to have the option to arrest the person. Just as there an “objective standard of reasonable force with arrests”, there should be something similar in these cases to deter officers from just arresting anyone just because they feel like it.
2. What was the rationale given by the Supreme Court in Chimel v. California for permitting searches without a warrant when they are made incident to arrest? Also, given the rationale of the Court in Chimel for this warrant exception, do you think arrests of occupants of cars should be treated in a different manner?
The Supreme Court states that it is reasonable to search and seize anything that is on the person being arrested or within reach of that individual for the safety of the officers present and for the protection of possible evidence. If one is going based on this justification and interpretation, then I believe that arrestees and their cars should be treated in the same manner.
3) One of the numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement is “consent.” Read U.S. v Matlock at: United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). Do you personally believe third-party consent searches are lawful? Do you think it is appropriate, under the rule of joint authority, for another person to be permitted to given consent for you?
I do believe there are certain scenarios in which third-party consents are lawful, but the majority of the time I do not find them to be lawful. The situations I find them to be lawful are when it pertains to a minor or legal guardian or if when someone is the owner of the building or house that someone is renting a room from. I realize that this latter situation is a Constitutional issue given one’s expectation to privacy and the current law and many people will probably disagree with me on this point. However, the building/house and everything in it is the responsibility of the owner, therefore it should be the right of that owner to give consent to the police to search. Other than these situations, I do not believe that anyone should be able to give consent to search my property without my consent. For example, if I owned my house, I do not think my husband should be able to give consent to search my property since I am the one who rightfully owns it.
4) Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. Rodriguez? Why or why not?
In this particular case, I do not agree that this search was legal. Yes, she has a key to the apartment which would have led the officers to believe that there was “common authority” and “mutual use of the property”. However, if the person is not the one who physically owns or rents the property on paperwork, I do not believe that they should have the right to a third-party consent. There are too many people that could have keys to someone’s place for various reasons or they could have made a copy illegally. That alone does not give them the right to give the police permission to search. Also, given their past history, one could argue that this consent was given out of spite. If they were going there to arrest him for abusing her and then found the cocaine, then that would be a different story.
**2 – I do agree with this opinion because even though the punishments differ between a typical custodial or non-custodial arrest police still have the right to temporarily detain and question anyone who has committed a crime. This allows them a chance to look up if they have a prior criminal history, if they are a suspect of any other crimes committed in the area recently, and then they can make a judgment call of whether to release them with a simple fine or progress into taking them into confinement. Police have a unique profession where although they work within the confines of the law and their own jurisdiction much of their day to day decision making is based off of their own personal discretion. What this means is that although it is technically within their right to detrain someone for a minor crime that would typically only warrant a fine; it is unlikely that this will happen very often.
The Chimel Rule refers to the process of conducting searches incident to a lawful arrest and refers to the aforementioned Supreme Court case where police may not search an entire home without a warrant but may investigate the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule allows police to perform a warrantless search of the arrested suspect and everything within their immediate control in an attempt to prevent escape, protect the officers, and preserve evidence. In Chimel’s case the police went too far and searched beyond the immediate area and even instructed his wife to open up drawers around the home and remove items. The Supreme Court argued that warrants and probable cause are placeholders to protect people from abuse of governmental powers and that in this case much of the evidence would not be able to be used. In regards to the arrest of occupants within a vehicle, I believe the same rules should apply. A vehicle is a very small area of space and an officer should have every right to search both the person and their vehicle if probable cause exists. This is for the officer’s safety against other occupants, potential weapons, and damage that could be caused by exposure to certain drug paraphernalia.
I do not believe a third party should be able to grant consent for you. Regardless of if it is a spouse, family member, etc. consent and privacy are constitutional rights that are unique to each individual and can only be altered if that person has some kind of agreement in writing similar to a power of attorney. In 2014, Fernandez v. California the court continued to hold that if the co-resident is removed from the premises for valid reasons such as an arrest, the remaining resident can consent to a search. In Georgia v. Randolph however, it was determined that a third party cannot consent to a search if it goes against the wishes of their other co-habitant. With these cases in mind, I still disagree that a co-resident should be able to grant consent. I know that this is a common practice among police and investigators because sometimes when they show up in large groups it is easy to intimidate a criminals co-habitant into opening the door which grants them permission to search the premises. Conversely, this can be useful in capturing criminals who are smart enough to know their rights and the processes that police have to go through to obtain an official warrant.
In Illinois v. Rodriguez held that a third party member which does not possess common authority over the premises can still grant authority to a search if the police had a reasonable suspicion that they did in fact have some kind of authority over the location. As with the previous question I still maintain that consent should only be given by the primary person in question.
