Chapters 5 and 6 explored the 4th Amendment subjects of arrests and searches both with and without warrants. With these course readings in mind consider and respond to the following questions:
In Atwater, 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?
What was the rationale given by the Supreme Court in Chimel 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, how do you think arrests of occupants of cars should be treated?
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). How do you personally feel about the lawfulness of third party consent searches? Do you think it is appropriate, under the rule of joint authority, for another person to be permitted to give consent for you?
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois v. Rodriguez? Do you think it was correctly decided? Why or why not?
Sample Answer
Full Custodial Arrests for Minor Offenses (Atwater)
The Supreme Court's 2001 decision in $Atwater$ v. $City$ $of$ $Lago$ $Vista$ held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a full custodial arrest for a fine-only misdemeanor. The rationale was based on a historical analysis showing that such arrests were common practice at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted.
My Personal Opinion: I disagree with the decision in $Atwater$.
Rationale for Disagreement:
Proportionality and Reasonableness: The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures to be reasonable. Conducting a full custodial arrest, which involves physical seizure, handcuffing, transport to jail, booking, and often strip searches, for an offense punishable only by a small fine (like a seatbelt violation) is disproportionate and therefore, arguably, unreasonable. A citation or summons serves the government's interest without violating the individual's liberty interests so severely.
Discrimination and Abuse: Granting police blanket authority to conduct full arrests for minor offenses creates a vast potential for abuse and discriminatory enforcement, especially against minority communities. The decision to arrest versus issue a citation is left entirely to officer discretion, which can lead to selective and biased application of the law.
Public Safety: Jailing individuals for minor, non-violent offenses diverts limited law enforcement resources away from serious crimes and overcrowds jails, potentially impacting overall public safety.
While the historical argument is valid, the current interpretation of the Fourth Amendment requires a consideration of modern notions of reasonableness and the impact on civil liberties.
🚗 Searches Incident to Arrest (Chimel and Car Occupants)
Rationale in $Chimel$
In $Chimel$ v. $California$ (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest (SITA) without a warrant, but strictly limited the scope of the search.
The rationale for this exception is two-fold:
Officer Safety: To enable the arresting officer to remove any weapons the arrestee might use to resist arrest or effect an escape.