How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

"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."

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Herring v. U.S. provides yet another opportunity for us to put a bad ruling in perspective. Like most recent 4th Amendment cases decided by the Court, Herring is an unfortunate finding, but it’s not going to change our advice on handling police encounters.

Bennie Dean Herring was known to local police, who spotted him at the impound lot where he was retrieving an item from his impounded truck. An officer confirmed that Herring had a warrant in a neighboring county and arrested him, in the process discovering methamphetamine and a gun. Moments later, the officer learned that the warrant was erroneous, thus the arrest and subsequent search were invalid.

The Supreme Court found that because officers legitimately believed a warrant existed for Herring’s arrest, their actions were justified and not subject to the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. This is called the "good faith" doctrine, wherein police actions are upheld if officers believed they were acting legally (even if they were not).

The "good faith" doctrine is nothing new, so the Court’s decision isn’t particularly shocking. The Court argues that the exclusionary rule is intended to deter police misconduct and shouldn’t be applied here because the officers didn’t willfully do anything wrong. The dissent argues, and I agree, that the exclusionary rule is a perfectly appropriate means of deterring police agencies from keeping bad records that cause illegal arrests. If there’s no penalty for using bad information, then police have no incentive to keep their books in order. Worse yet, I could envision situations in which police manufacture "good faith" circumstances by preemptively withholding relevant facts from the arresting officers.

The exclusionary rule is vital to the interests of justice and we regret any ruling that reduces the citizen’s protection against illegally obtained evidence. That said, we hope the public will recognize that today’s decision is based on a specific set of circumstances and does not mean that police can now perform illegal arrests at will. The 4th Amendment continues to protect citizens against illegal searches, particularly in common scenarios such as searches that follow a refusal of consent. There’s no question that the Supreme Court is disturbingly reluctant to uphold 4th Amendment rights, but our right against unreasonable searches and seizures is still relevant in the vast majority of common police encounters. Knowing these rights remains your best and only defense when confronted by law enforcement.

Being on the blunt edge of technology, I've just subscribed to my first podcast. Created by rockstar attorney, David Clark (AKA: Smoove D.), the show celebrates the myriad reasons why the 4th Amendment, um, rocks. Enjoy!

In response to the random search program announced yesterday by the Metro Transit Police, we've prepared this handy guide to protecting your rights when using public transportation in the Washington, D.C. area. We'll also be organizing some volunteers to help distribute flyers about the program at various Metro stations. Please contact us if you're interested in helping out.

Alas, the looming specter of subway searches has finally descended on our nation's capital. We've long assumed it was just a matter of time, but as time came and went, it seemed the tragic fad of frivolous subway searches would elude us. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

People who’ve had bad experiences with police have sometimes responded negatively to our materials, arguing that police will simply take things to the next level if you refuse a search. Here’s an interesting example from Florida, in which police were forced to drop the charges after wrongfully arresting a suspect who refused a search:

Constitution Day is an opportunity to celebrate the fundamental rights and freedoms we enjoy as Americans. But for many, it also provides an occasion to take note of all the ways in which the promise of liberty handed down by our forefathers has been broken time and again as our criminal justice system grows sufficiently enormous to terrify even the best-behaved among us.

This story from New Orleans shows how great the stakes can be during even the most routine encounter with police. Suppose a friend carelessly leaves a little pot in your car…

Since many of our supporters may be skeptical of NYPD when it comes to matters of search and seizure, I'd like to clarify that this is a very good thing:

The New York City Police Department wants suspects to sign a consent form before searching their homes or cars, a move that eliminates the need for a warrant and is meant to provide police a layer of legal protection, Newsday has learned.

The initiative was put in place because consent searches are often challenged at trial - and jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said.

At the same time, sources said, there has been concern within the NYPD about a handful of cases in which an officer's truthfulness was recently called into question. [Newsday]

Written consent policies are a win-win situation for police and the public. When consent is given in writing, police have an easier time demonstrating in court that consent was given voluntarily. Since evidence seized during a consent search is almost always legally admissible, defendants challenging such evidence must argue that consent was given involuntarily or not at all. As a result, police spend a considerable amount of time in court defending the manner in which consent was obtained. A written form goes a long way towards resolving such conflicts.

For the citizen, written consent provides a quick reminder that permitting searches is optional, while simultaneously creating an added layer of protection in disputes over whether consent was given voluntarily. The form will go a long way towards resolving widespread concerns about police erroneously claiming to have received consent before conducting a search.

Finally, there's an additional important point illustrated here. As Newsday reports, "jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said." For anyone questioning the viability of refusing consent during a police encounter, this should go a long way towards explaining how asserting 4th Amendment rights can help citizens achieve a more desirable outcome. It serves as a helpful reminder that, even if police violate your rights and search despite your refusal, any evidence they discover can be effectively challenged in court. Obviously, this is a frequent occurrence if NYPD cites such outcomes as a reason for moving towards a written consent policy.

Given the significance of the citizen's decision whether or not to permit police to look through his/her belongings, a written form is just the obvious, common sense approach to establishing whether consent was given.

Update: Pete Guither at DrugWarRant has a good post discussing the NYPD policy and explaining why it is never in the citizen's interest to consent to a police search.

Check out this comment on our blog, which accuses Flex Your Rights of compromising police work by helping serious criminals evade prosecution: