The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Do Fourth Amendment Protections Change When Property Is Moved?
A new lecture on a recurring topic.
This past fall, I had the pleasure of being the Michael A. Doyle '62 and Bunny Winter Distinguished Visiting Professor at Yale Law School. As part of that appointment, I recently delivered a lecture on a topic that is the subject of my most recent (as-yet-unavailable) draft article: What happens to Fourth Amendment protection when property is moved? Three quick examples from recent cases give you a flavor of the problem:
- Officers arrest a man who is carrying a backpack. For their own safety, officers initially remove the backpack, place it twenty feet away. They return to the backpark and search it later. The Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of property on the person incident to his arrest, but it does not allow a search outside the person's area of immediate control. Did the officers' placing the backpack outside the area of immediate control mean the government could no longer search it?
- Officers want to arrest a suspect at home, but they lack the arrest warrant needed to enter the home to make the arrest. From their position outside, officers point their guns at the suspect inside and order him to exit the house. The man complies with the order, leaves his house, and he is arrested outside. Was a warrant needed?
- Fourth Amendment protections are weak at the international border. Officials seize a suspect's computer at the border, but they lack the expertise to search it there. Officials bring the computer a few hundred miles inland to a computer forensics expert who searches the computer there. Is the search governed by the weak rules of searches at the border or the strong rules of searches inland?
The lecture, "Searching, Seizing, and Moving," is available below, preceded by an overly kind introduction by Dean Heather Gerken:
I plan to finish the draft of this article over the summer, and I'll post it when it's available. In the meantime, comments on the lecture version are very welcome.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I guess my copy of the constitution is defective.
It doesn't say a thing about relative distances or which side of the door is involved. It just says
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
First case: No warrant, no search.
Second case: No warrant, no arrest.
Third case: No warrant, no search.
It ain't that hard.
If Prof. Kerr is reading the comment threads, this is just Kerrbait. He just loves when people decide that constitutional questions based on doctrines that have evolved over decades (if not centuries) just "ain't that hard."
Also, you did not actually read the constitution correctly; it doesn't say that warrants are required for searches or arrests. So maybe it is that hard.
Shucks, courts should just ask me, because I'm a reliable judge of what constitutes reasonable government action! Super easy.
YOU didn't read the Constitution at all. Longtobefree read it EXACTLY as intended by those that wrote it. Warrants are the legal determination that a search/arrest is reasonable.
So if a police officer sees someone in the process of murdering so one in the middle of the street, they can’t do anything about it?
Law is never hard! It's just that you're a lot smarter than anyone else who has ever thought about these issues. I call this the "Longtobefree" Principle.
It's a ""border". not "order..."
Sounds like Prof. Kerr reads Volokh Conspiracy comments.
But never has a word to say about this blog's daily stream of conservative bigotry.
Interesting.
I always thought that the oft-repeated phrase that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places" was a fallacy.
It's not as cut and dried as you'd like to make it. "Unreasonable" searches are banned. There's a lot of room for consideration in what's reasonable.
Warrantless searches ought to be presumptively unreasonable and exceptions to that ought to be few and extremely narrow.
Warrantless searches ARE considered unreasonable by default by the ACTUAL LANGUAGE of the 4th amendment.
The problem is attorney's are taught NOT to care about the actual meaning of terms. They are trained to TWIST the law to suit their predetermined position.
What language is that?
For each example one might ask more specifically,
1. Must evidence be suppressed?
2. Must wrongfully seized property be returned?
3. Are the officers liable for violation of civil rights?
Is the answer the same?
"The man complies with the order, leaves his house, and he is arrested outside. Was a warrant needed?"
Seriously? We're actually going to pretend that he wasn't arrested when they pointed guns at him and threatened to shoot him if he didn't do as they said?
Why should we humor such an absurd fiction?
Because Eugene Volokh is wrong; lawyers' true superpower is quibbling.
Brett -- he tells them to go to hell, they shoot him, and then enter the house to render medical aid...
That's certainly my initial take. Threatening deadly force unless there is compliance seems like an arrest to me. I don't think the law should reward this kind of behavior by law enforcement.
And, after listening to that portion of the lecture, yeah, the courts are sane and there is no surprising wrinkle of the law that makes that okay. No, the police cannot point their weapons at you and order you out of the house and thereby avoid the warrant requirement to enter your house.
I'm not so sure it is an "arrest". Arrest is not synonymous with seizure and/or custody and/or detained. And I don't think there is enough information in that hypo to know if he is any. Did they just go up to the house and do this? Was there a standoff? Hostage situation? That all affects the analysis. In the end though I can't see calling it an arrest. A seizure is quite possible. This of course doesn't necessarily obviate the need for a warrant to maybe even do that, nor does it mean that the method was reasonable, but I think it is questionable if that is actually an arrest.
"Arrest is not synonymous with seizure and/or custody and/or detained."
Why not? Seriously, why not?
If you bring someone in for questioning they've been detained, their in custody, it qualifies as a seizure, but you haven't been arrested.
Terry stops. Detention and therefore seizure but definitely not arrest and usually not custody.
It is because arrest is a specific thing. Not all seizures are an arrest. That doesn't mean there is no constitutional protections of them, but they are still slightly different.
As far as I can tell, these distinctions were created specifically so that they could arrest you and pretend they hadn't, nothing more complicated than that.
I also do not like our messy 4A jurisprudence, but calling it all in bad faith is very Brett.
So simple! So unsupported!
Just so I'm clear, then do you think every traffic stop they should be bringing in the driver for processing since he was arrested? So you really think that even in early America and even before in Britain that all forms of detention were arrests?
Arrests require probable cause and an arrest without it (or an arrest warrant) can be quashed.
To detain someone, you need only reasonable suspicion -which is less than probable cause.
Both detention and arrest are 4th amendment seizures. So for example, when a cop conducts a traffic stop, they need reasonable suspicion to do so and the cop has 'seized' everybody in the vehicle for the duration of the stop. There are TONS of cases looking at the scope of how long a 'detention' can be before it becomes a de facto 'arrest.' There are also cases looking at 'how' someone is detained. Are they handcuffed and thrown in a police cruiser? I would argue that is an arrest. Are they asked to step outside the car and stand by the bumper but are not handcuffed? Etc... etc... There is lots and lots of nuance made worse by the Courts bending over backwards over decades in the name of enforcing the war on drugs or alcohol to reach where are now.
The legal test for an arrest used to be 'whether a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would feel free to terminate the encounter with the police and leave.' If the answer is no, then it was an arrest. But now its not so clear. A cop who has your drivers license or other property, who asks you out of the car to stand at its rear bumper, while the cop does whatever else... is that person free to leave? Most likely not. But do the cases allow for the officer time to conduct whatever investigation their doing? Yes. So these are often held to be mere detentions where only reasonable suspicion is required.
There are also cases of cops ordering people out and handcuffing them where its been held they weren't under arrest. Usually if its one or two officer and multiple people. 'Officer safety' gets lot of mileage in the 4th amend case law. See also, "pat down."
The facts are that they did, in fact, arrest the man when he left the home. I think it’s an angels on a pinhead to say that, although they essentially placed him under their control in the couple minutes or less when he complied, he wasn’t under arrest with guns pointed at him with threats to shoot unless he let them handcuff him outside until, in fact, they handcuffed him outside. He was merely detained for a few seconds and then arrested? This is just the sort of mischief Prof. Kerr’s lecture discusses and which courts often rightly scoff at.
If you’re arresting him, then you’re arresting him. This wasn’t the ordered him out of the house and questioned him but without an intent to arrest or prosecute. That would maybe be a closer question, but their intent when bringing him under control was to arrest him. It was an arrest.
1. Just because someone isn't arrested doesn't mean they don't have the right against unreasonable seizures. If he was simply in his hose eating dinner and they did that, then it is unconstitutional whether it is an arrest or not. That is why the amendment is unreasonable seizures, not unreasonable arrests. Because there are seizures that are not arrests.
2. We can, of course, change the hypo a bit. A suspect in an armed robbery runs into his house baracading the door. Police responding have guns on him and order him to put his weapon down and come outside. No one would consider him to be arrested until he exits the house and is put in cuffs. He almost certainly wouldn't even be considered to be seized until then. That was why I was saying there are possible surrounding facts that do change the answer.
If he was simply in his hose eating dinner and they did that, then it is unconstitutional whether it is an arrest or not.
If you could see that from outside the house, maybe they could arrest him for indecent exposure.
fat finger on the auto complete. But yes that would add a different...wrinkle
1. Nobody said otherwise.
2. We can change the hypo in all sorts of ways to raise different issues and get different results.
But your broader point is valid that the Constitution deals with unlawful searches and seizures, and not arrests, which means it's largely irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes (at least on these facts) at what moment he was merely seized versus seized and arrested. If that is your point. I agree.
In the original hypo, the guy was seized at the moment the guns were pointed at him and he was told they would shoot unless he complied. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980) (“a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave”). He clearly didn't believe he was free to leave (or perhaps stay, in this case), but instead a reasonable person would have believed he had to comply or die.
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980):
“Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.”
The hypo includes the threatening presence of several officers, the display of multiple weapons by the officers, and the use of language and tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request was compelled, anyone one of which could be enough to constitute a seizure. It’s a seizure. A seizure with intent to arrest is an arrest. The facts given in the hypo involved an arrest which was accomplished when the officers obtained compliance through the show of force, i.e., at the moment they seized him, which was when he was still in his house.
There are probably lots of arguments about what the law is but it's unambiguous that the law should be yes, yes and strong.
The alleged justification for search-incident-to-arrest is to ensure officer safety (that the arrestee isn't carrying a weapon). Once the backpack has been removed, the officers' safety is no longer in any reasonable danger, thus the justification for the search is no longer applicable.
The threaten-into-compliance tactic is an egregious violation and utterly unnecessary. If you know he's in the house, just wait outside until either a) he comes out or b) your partner comes back with a warrant. Anything else is mere pretext.
And the whole 4thA-doesn't-apply-at-the-border has a long precedent but no constitutional or moral justification. That entire body of precedent is built on less than sand.
Why do you say this? = And the whole 4thA-doesn’t-apply-at-the-border has a long precedent but no constitutional or moral justification. That entire body of precedent is built on less than sand.
Agreed with first two, but wondered about this.
Where in the Constitution or Founding-era source documents do you find anything to suggest that the 4th Amendment does not apply at the border?
Armchair law is fun.
1. Searches which occur as part of an arrest are due to two primary reasons. a. Ensuring the safety of the officer. b. Preservation of evidence.
-Once the officer has removed the backpack from the individual, the safety of the officers has been ensured and the evidence has been preserved. There should not be authority to search the backpack without a warrant. An analogy can be made to a phone or computer a suspect has on them. Once separated and isolated, one should require a warrant to search the phone.
2. Really? They lack an arrest warrant, so they make an arrest by pointing guns at him till he leaves his house? No. May result in civil (if not criminal) charges against the cops.
3. Strong rules of searches inland. Once the item is removed from the international border, regardless of the reason, the strong rules take priority. Otherwise anyone and anything that has gone through an international border would be potentially subject to the weakened provisions at any time.
On 3, I’m not so sure of your proposed consequence. A possibly key factor is that in the case in question the item to be searched was seized at the border. Most things that cross the border and reach the interior were not seized at the border. The undesired consequence occurs only if the principle is that warrantless searches are permitted of anything that has crossed a border. If the principle is that they are permitted when the government action takes place at the border, the free-for-all does not take place.
Consider another situation. An agent at the border suspects that a person trying to enter is wanted. He arrests that person on the basis of information from a facial recognition system located in Kansas, Do we really want to say that he needed a warrant? Same for a fingerprint matching system, or a human being who knows the wanted person.
"Consider another situation"
There's a difference between non-border information being used to support an arrest/search at the border versus an arrest/search being done in the interior because the person/item crossed the border.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone commenting on the subject of the lecture actually watched the lecture.
I have actually been watching it, but haven't finished, came here to say that I did not think the Legal Academy was allowed to discuss such practical things, especially at Yale of all places!
(The joke being what it is, i hope it is not necessary that I finished the lecture first, which I plant to come back to)
I watched and enjoyed it. I do not believe the Volokh Conspiracy is the place at which to discuss substance.
Well, not for you to do so, anyway. Because that would interrupt your trolling. But, then, it's implausible that you discuss substance anywhere ele, either.
Which do you enjoy most, Mr. Nieporent,
(1) the elevated nature of legal discussion found at this blog every day
or
(2) the remarkable number of vile racial slurs you find in this white, male blog's everyday stream of multihued right-wing bigotry?
Do you actually have any uncertainty about whether any of the commenters above watched the lecture?
I started a comment, but then did watch the lecture before I finished the comment. Kind of a parlor game, do my instincts match what the law is? If so, pat on the back. If not, why not.
The lecture was very interesting.
Thanks for watching, Robert, Nova, and Arthur. I appreciate it.
And yes, Robert, I thought of beginning by joking that my addition to the ideological diversity of Yale Law, as is the goal of the Doyle-Winter position, was by talking about cases. 🙂
I mean, no offense, but it's a 49 minute video, with some interesting hypotheticals that can be read 1 minute.
If you post a transcript, I'd read it. Time commitment would be much shorter.
I don't have a transcript to post.
In the spirit of the Volokh Conspiracy's stable of legal analysts:
"Make one and bring it to us! Now!"
I have captured for this week's podcast bounty
I will note that for those who want to just read, Vimeo has a transcript function that seems to work well for this vidwo:
https://vimeo.com/935088325
Also will plug Will Baude's podcast this week:
Radical Agreement
After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII).
I think I generally agree with the good Professor's thoughts. The default for searching or seizeing is a warrant (I know some don't agree that is correct, but that is long standing law). The things at issue are exceptions to that rule that have specific reasons behind it. These reasons are what make it not unreasonable (the true requirement). Therefore courts should look to those reasons and see if they are actually applicable. If not then the rationale making it not unreasonable doesn't hold, and the exception shouldn't apply.
And in general it should be fairly understood why an artificially created exigency by law enforcement shouldn't be allowed. If the government can create the exigency then the exigency swallows the rule.
I hope he continues to talk about people with homes that can move. I spent 12 years living on a sailboat, not at a marina but anchored out, and I migrated north/south with the seasons. Although the boat was our home, it could not be our castle in legal terms because it could be mobile. We were boarded and searched several times without regard to the fourth amendment.
7 years ago we moved from a boat to an RV, and history repeats.
There are
Between the comments and the lecture there’s an interesting meta-narrative here about the ways in which different levels of knowledge and reasoning match up with judicial outcomes.
We have three basic levels here: the comments’ uninformed declarations and gut reasoning, the professors’s informed intuition, and finally the professors’s/the courts’ engaging in legal reasoning from established principles and doctrine. All three approaches seemed to arrive at pretty much the same place on most of the issues presented.
The meta-narrative raises some interesting questions:
Is the consistency in predicting outcomes between uninformed popular understanding and the expert understanding/reasoning unique here? Is it common for the Fourth Amendment? Or is it very common in other areas of law?
Can doctrine have predictive power over other predictors like partisanship?
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is often seen as particularly convoluted; it has a lot of rules, tests, and exceptions that are very fact dependent. Despite this, is the jurisprudence actually good law in the sense that its meaning and expected application can be understood by people who don’t necessarily have a lot of knowledge of the particulars almost as well as experts, as post demonstrates?
Very interesting points! I've wondered a bit about that. I think it's partly because the ultimate question is reasonableness, and judges are people, too; their intuitions about what seems like foul play, or unfair, or out of bounds, will often match our own.
I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet — as Armchair says above, I'd much rather read a transcript than watch a video — but aren't there other ways for the police to get at the backpack than search incident to arrest? One possible occurrence is that there's no p.c. to believe there's evidence in the backpack and a companion of the arrestee takes the bag away; if that happens, the cops can't do anything. But if that doesn't happen — perhaps he's alone? — then the cops either have to leave it over on the ground where they tossed it, or they have to take it with them. I can't see them doing the former, and if they do the latter, wouldn’t the search be justified under the inventory search exception?
Probably! (But perhaps controversially!)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/04/01/21-30251.pdf
Since there was a request for comments by people who watched:
A third of the way in I'm dubious about the taxonomy (who moved the property and why). I would think about the supposed reason for the exception to the warrant requirement without indulging often pretextual motives of law enforcement officers.
Let's say I throw my weapon away with the specific purpose of having it not be detected when the officer frisks me. The alleged motive for a frisk is officer safety. If the weapon is out of my reach for any reason the officer is safe. He should have to make up another reason to look for it. Same if I threw a bag away innocently or an officer took it away. The reason does not matter. "Officer safety" no longer justifies a search. (As an aside, my state's Supreme Court has restricted the "officer safety" justification for ordering passengers out of a car. There needs to be a specific reason to feel unsafe during the traffic stop in question.)
If my home is supposed to be inviolate, the constitutional violation should be considered to have occurred when my home was violated by aimed guns. Torres v. Madrid doesn't go this far, but I would.
I will try to get through the rest of the video later today.
Thanks. I'll be interested to see if you see your approach as different from mine (with apologies that it comes later in the video!)
The end of the talk gets closer to how I think. If police cause persons or property to be moved they consent to the added risk (summoned homeowner freaks out), inconvenience (need to get a warrant for the fanny pack), or loss of evidence (car drives away).
There is a tendency for rules to come loose from their original mooring. "You can detain people while executing a search warrant when necessary for officer safety" becomes "You can detain everybody at the scene." But if officer safety is really the rule, residents should be able to ask "am I free to go?" and then go. The threatened return with a posse is too hypothetical. If police are that scared they will already have a team instead of a pair doing the search.
The border search reminded me of a case out of Massachusetts around 15 years ago. I remember it because a state official had justified searches of bags on subways saying you can just walk away and not take the subway. A man ran away from a security screening at the entrance to a government building. Officers chased him down on the street and beat him into submission. The court ruled for the government, saying you can not flee an administrative search. As I see it, if the search is to keep John Doe from bringing a gun into a courthouse it's fine if he runs away. In the court's view the search is also to instill terror in the population.
I resumed watching and just got to the "constructive entry" finding on the forced exit case (around 23:00). That strikes me as the right ruling, focusing on the purpose of the rule rather than geography. It's odd to see "constructive" working to the detriment of the government. It's more often a doctrine to expand government authority. Police arrive at a house party and charge all the minors with constructive possession of alcohol.
In United States v. Ramirez, the search warrant ruse case, the expression "abuse of process" comes to mind.
Professor Kerr, I wonder if you're familiar with the case of Maine v. Pagnani, 2018 ME 129. It may be that rare case in which the suspect is actually moving the object (in this case, her drug-laden jacket) in order to put herself into the better 4th Amendment position (she seemed quite familiar with the criminal justice system). A rare 4-3 split from the Maine Law Court (against her).
And also, thank you for all your guidance on the 4th Amendment. When I taught Criminal Law, you were always my best source for thinking through how to organize and think about the labyrinth.
I hadn't seen that, but I will check it out. Thanks!
Under a literal reading of the 4th amendment, all 3 of the cases cited in the opening paragraphs are illegal, regardless of location.
I don't see how. The text of the Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures must be reasonable. But the text does not require warrants.