Reconciling Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: Incorporating Privacy into the Test for Valid Consent Searches

By Housholder, David John | Vanderbilt Law Review, May 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Reconciling Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: Incorporating Privacy into the Test for Valid Consent Searches


Housholder, David John, Vanderbilt Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

The Fourth Amendment states:

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.1

Perhaps the most significant exception to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment is the consent search,2 which requires no warrant, exigent circumstances, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.3

Some scholars have suggested that the Supreme Court's voluntariness standard4 for determining consensual searches misperceives the level of coercion inherent in almost any encounter with the police.5 Certain state courts have taken measures beyond those mandated by the Supreme Court to try to ensure that the consent given is truly the product of the person's free will and not due to any coercion.6 Some courts, legislatures, and police departments have limited or banned consent searches following traffic stops, mainly due to concerns over racial profiling.7

This Note argues that an element of privacy should be considered in determining the validity of the consent given to a search request. The element of privacy would be based on a person's expectation of privacy in a particular location as determined by Fourth Amendment case law. This change is necessary to bring the law of consent searches into congruence with the hierarchy of privacy protections that are evident in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.8

Part II of this Note describes the primary cases determining whether a search has occurred and how federal courts analyze consent search cases. Part III describes state approaches to the different contexts in which consent search issues arise. Part IV presents and analyzes possible doctrinal bases for consent searches, and considers aspects of the concept of voluntariness through reference to psychological research. Part V argues in favor of considering privacy in determining the validity of consent to search.

II. SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND CONSENT SEARCHES

This Part provides background information on the fundamentals of the law of consent and searches. The first section briefly traces the history of the law of searches. The second section analyzes the landmark case of Katz v. United States.9 The third section describes how the Court used the Katz framework to decide cases presenting a variety of factual settings. The fourth section analyzes a recent case, Kyllo v. United States,10 which may alter the Katz framework. The final two sections analyze, respectively, the basis of consent searches, including the landmark Supreme Court case Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,11 and the factors that courts use to determine voluntariness.

A. Common Law Trespass Test

The Supreme Court used a physical invasion test,12 also referred to as the trespass test, to decide early search cases.13 In the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, the Court held that wiretapping did not amount to a search or seizure.14 To reach this result, the Court focused on the absence of physical entry onto the defendant's property. The Court stated, "The evidence was secured by the use of the sense of hearing and that only. There was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants."15 The Court stated that no cases it cited or that had been brought to its attention held the Fourth Amendment to be violated unless there was "an official search and seizure of his person or such a seizure of his papers or his tangible material effects or an actual physical invasion of his house 'or curtilage.' "16

B. Katz: The Demise of the Trespass Test?

Katz v. United States, decided in 1967, rejected the trespass test and articulated a different analysis for search cases.17 Katz was convicted for transmitting wagering information by telephone in violation of a federal statute.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Reconciling Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence: Incorporating Privacy into the Test for Valid Consent Searches
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?