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
That's a thought-provoking set of questions covering several critical aspects of Fourth Amendment law.
1. The Atwater Decision on Custodial Arrests
The Supreme Court's decision in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) upheld that the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to make a full custodial arrest for any crime committed in the officer's presence, even if the crime is a very minor, fine-only misdemeanor (in Atwater's case, a seatbelt violation).
Agreement: I disagree with the Atwater decision, particularly when the crime is a non-jailable, fine-only offense.
Rationale:
Proportionality and Reasonableness: The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures (including arrests) to be reasonable. A full custodial arrest, which involves detention, booking, and often strip searches, is an extreme seizure. When the maximum penalty for the offense is only a minor fine, the seizure is wildly disproportionate to the offense committed. It fails the standard of reasonableness.
Police Discretion and Abuse: The ruling grants officers virtually unlimited discretion to arrest anyone for trivial offenses, opening the door to pretextual stops and arrests, where an officer uses a minor violation as a cover to search or harass an individual based on suspicion of a different, more serious crime. This discretion disproportionately affects minority communities and undermines public trust.
Alternative Measures: Less intrusive methods, such as issuing a citation (a "ticket") or issuing a warning, fully satisfy the state's interest in enforcement without imposing the heavy burden of a custodial arrest on the individual.
2. Rationale for Search Incident to Arrest (Chimel)
In Chimel v. California (1969), the Supreme Court established that a search made incident to a lawful custodial arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Court's Rationale: The exception is justified by two core exigent circumstances:
Officer Safety: To enable the arresting officer to remove any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use to resist arrest or effect an escape.
Preventing the Destruction of Evidence: To permit the officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person or within their immediate control that the arrestee could easily conceal or destroy.
The search is therefore limited to the arrestee's person and the area immediately within the arrestee's "immediate control" (often called the "wingspan" or "lunge area").
Treatment of Arrests of Occupants of Cars