DOCSLIB.ORG

First Circuit Upholds Border Searches of Electronic Devices Without

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Circuit Upholds Border Searches of Electronic Devices Without ALERT MEMORANDUM First Circuit Upholds Border Searches of Electronic Devices Without Probable Cause If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please reach out to your regular firm contact or the February 25, 2021 following authors. In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications, Alasaad v. Mayorkas, Nos. 20-1077, 20-1081, 2021 WL David E. Brodsky 521570 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2021), the First Circuit recently + 1 212 225 2910 rejected First and Fourth Amendment challenges to the [email protected] Lev L. Dassin U.S. government agency policies governing border + 1 212 225 2790 searches of electronic devices. These policies permit so- [email protected] Victor L. Hou called “basic” manual searches of electronic devices + 1 212 225 2609 without any articulable suspicion, requiring reasonable [email protected] Rahul Mukhi suspicion only when officers perform “advanced” + 1 212 225 2912 searches that use external equipment to review, copy, or [email protected] analyze a device. The First Circuit held that even these Giovanni P. Prezioso + 1 202 974 1650 “advanced” searches require neither probable cause nor a [email protected] warrant, and it split with the Ninth Circuit in holding that Samuel Levander + 1 212 225 2951 searches need not be limited to searches for contraband, [email protected] but may also be used to search for evidence of contraband or evidence of other illegal activity. This decision implicates several takeaways for company executives entering and leaving the United States – citizens and non-citizens alike – particularly if they or their employers are under active investigation. In-house counsel in particular should consider the implications of the decision given obligations of lawyers to protect the confidentiality of attorney-client privileged information. clearygottlieb.com © Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, 2019. All rights reserved. This memorandum was prepared as a service to clients and other friends of Cleary Gottlieb to report on recent developments that may be of interest to them. The information in it is therefore general, and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice. Throughout this memorandum, “Cleary Gottlieb” and the “firm” refer to Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and its affiliated entities in certain jurisdictions, and the term “offices” includes offices of those affiliated entities. ALERT MEMORANDUM Background may reveal “far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.”6 Traditionally, courts have held that searches at the border “are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that CBP and ICE Guidelines for Searching they occur at the border,” where the “Government’s Devices at the U.S. Border interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith.”1 “[T]he expectation of In 2018, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) announced new search guidelines for electronic privacy is less at the border than it is in the interior,” 7 and officers at the border generally may, without any devices at the border. These guidelines differentiated articulable suspicion, search through travelers’ bags between “basic” searches, which involve a manual and other personal items.2 The Supreme Court has examination of a device’s contents, and “advanced” searches, which rely on external equipment to review, historically taken a broad view of the border 8 exception, holding that it extends to any “routine” copy, or analyze a device’s contents. The guidelines searches, including opening a sealed letter,3 and are equally applicable to U.S. citizens and non- disassembling a car’s gas tank.4 It has, however, citizens. drawn the line at “non-routine” searches, such as Under the CBP guidelines, a basic search can be certain particularly invasive body searches, which it performed without any basis for suspicion whatsoever, has held require reasonable suspicion.5 while an advanced search requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a national security More recently, there has been extensive litigation over 9 the standard of suspicion required to search a traveler’s concern. electronic devices, such as cell phones and laptops. For either search, CBP officers may seek travelers’ While these searches are less physically intrusive than assistance in opening any password-protected device. 10 those previously identified by the Supreme Court as If a traveler does not provide such assistance, or if “non-routine,” there is a growing consensus that, with CBP is otherwise unable to complete an inspection developments in technology, searches of electronic because of password or encryption protection, the devices implicate fundamental privacy interests and officer may temporarily detain or permanently seize the device.11 1 United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152, 154 6 Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 396 (2014); see United (2004) (quoting United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 966 (9th Cir. 2013) (1977)); see Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 623 (describing a forensic search of a laptop’s hard drive as (1886) (“[I]t is clear that the members of that body did not “essentially a computer strip search”). regard searches and seizures of this kind as ‘unreasonable,’ 7 U.S. Customs & Border Protection, CBP Directive No. and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the 3340-049A (Jan. 4, 2018), [Fourth Amendment].”). https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CBP%2 2 Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616; see United States v. Irving, 452 0Directive%203340-049A_Border-Search-of-Electronic- F.3d 110, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have long ruled that Media.pdf; see Rahul Mukhi & Britta Redwood, “New searches of a person’s luggage or personal belongings are Rules for Searching Electronic Devices at the U.S. Border,” routine searches.”). Cleary Cybersecurity & Privacy Watch, 3 Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606. https://www.clearycyberwatch.com/2018/02/new-rules- 4 Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149. searching-electronic-devices-u-s-border/. 5 United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 541 8 Id. (1985) (“We hold that the detention of a traveler at the 9 Id. border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and 10 Id. inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents . 11 Id. As the First Circuit noted, there is a pending petition reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court as to in her alimentary canal.”). whether the Fifth Amendment protects an individual from being compelled to disclose passwords to electronic devices 2 ALERT MEMORANDUM U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) held that it was “unable to discern a meaningful has adopted analogous rules to govern its searches of difference between the two classes of searches,” given electronic devices at the border “to ensure compliance that both would give the Government access to private with customs, immigration, and other laws enforced by pictures, prescription information, travel history, ICE.”12 communications with counsel, location data, and browsing history. 17 District Court Holds that Border Searches of Electronic Devices Violates the Fourth The court did, however, draw a distinction between “cursory” and “non-cursory” searches, defining the Amendment former as “a brief look reserved to determining Alasaad involved eleven plaintiffs, ten U.S. citizens whether a device is owned by the person carrying it and one legal permanent resident, each of whose across the border, confirming that it is operational and electronic devices had been searched at the border at that it contains data.”18 A “cursory” search would fall least once. The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States within the border exception, and would not require District Court for the District of Massachusetts, articulable suspicion.19 asserting that the CBP and ICE guidelines violated the The court granted declaratory judgment for the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable plaintiffs, holding that non-cursory “basic” and searches and seizures and their First Amendment right “advanced” searches of electronic devices violate the to freedom of expression.13 Plaintiffs alleged that the Fourth Amendment unless there is reasonable material on their devices seized by border officers suspicion that the devices contain contraband.20 included personal pictures of them and family members, confidential information related to their Having found in plaintiffs’ favor on their Fourth work in journalism, and privileged communications Amendment claims, the court held that plaintiffs were with their attorneys.14 not entitled to any further relief for their First Amendment claims.21 On November 12, 2019, the district court held that both “basic” and “advanced” searches of electronic The First Circuit Reverses devices at the border violate the Fourth Amendment On February 9, 2021, a unanimous panel of the First unless there is reasonable suspicion that the devices Circuit reversed, holding that the Government’s contain contraband. 15 The court first analyzed whether policies allowing for “basic” and “advanced” searches these border searches were “routine” or “non-routine,” without probable cause did not violate individuals’ focusing on a traveler’s privacy interest in the contents constitutional rights.22 of his or her electronic devices and the intrusiveness of these searches. Highlighting the “breadth of intrusion The court first rejected plaintiffs’ argument that border into personal information” from a search of a person’s searches of electronic devices require probable cause electronic devices, the court found that both “basic” and a warrant.23 The court cited Supreme Court and “advanced” searches were non-routine and precedent dating back to 1886 holding that border therefore required reasonable suspicion. 16 The court searches fall within a specific exception to the warrant when doing so may expose the individual to criminal 15 Id. at 147-48, 173. prosecution, but that issue was not raised here.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elsie Romero, Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-763 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Arizona v. Hicks, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution pro- tects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 Fourth amendment protection has repeatedly been found to include a general requirement of a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure by a law enforcement agent.2 How- ever, there exist a limited number of "specifically established and
    [Show full text]
  • Drawing a Line Between Terry and Miranda: the Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M
    Drawing a Line between Terry and Miranda: The Degree and Duration of Restraint Katherine M. Swifit INTRODUCTION A felon answered the door in his underwear. Three police officers and three parole officers were there to search his apartment for a gun on the basis of a tip from his mother.! The police handcuffed him in the hallway outside his apartment, but told him he was not under ar- rest; the handcuffs were for his safety and the safety of the officers. Then they took him inside and asked about the gun, which he told them was in a shoebox on the table. The police never read the suspect his Miranda warnings. Was he "in custody"? Or was this merely a tem- porary detention? Mirandav Arizona' held that police may not interrogate a suspect who has been taken into custody without first issuing the familiar warnings Investigative stops, valid under Terry v Ohio,' are not sub- ject to Miranda's notice requirements.! Courts have not settled on a workable rule for determining custody in Terry stop cases. Part of the problem is that custody cases involve so many factors.! But more im- portant, coercive police behavior that would have required Miranda warnings in 1966 often is deemed reasonable under Terry today. This has led to a circuit split over whether coercive Terry stops constitute Miranda custody. The First, Fourth, and Eighth circuits hold t B.A., BJ. 1998, University of Missouri-Columbia; J.D. 2006, The University of Chicago. I The facts used in this example are drawn from United States v Newton, 369 F3d 659, 663 (2d Cir 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Is No Excuse for Suspicionless Searches of Electronic Devices at the Border by Blaine H
    COVID-19 Is No Excuse for Suspicionless Searches of Electronic Devices at the Border By Blaine H. Evanson, Daniel R. Adler, and William F. Cole June 19, 2020 The coronavirus is not in your phone. Why travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant should it be used to justify border searches? supported by probable cause, or even without reasonablesuspicion that the traveler has been For the last four years, the U.S. border has exposed to COVID-19 or has violated related been a flashpoint for bitter public policy public health measures. disputes over immigration, the character of the country’s sovereignty, and the nature Such a breathtaking claim of unbounded and extent of constitutionally guaranteed investigatory authority would hardly be civil liberties. Many of these border- unprecedented for CBP. To the contrary, related disputes have receded from public it would be of a piece with CBP’s policy of consciousness as a result of 2020’s trifecta conducting suspicionless searches of electronic Blaine H. Evanson Partner of a presidential impeachment, a global devices—CBP already conducts tens of health pandemic, and racial tension over thousands of such searches every year. And policing. Yet as the country begins to emerge CBP would not be the only law enforcement from COVID-19 lockdowns, America’s agency to sift through digital data in an effort international borders are likely to resurface to trace the spread of COVID-19. State and as a key battleground for civil libertarians local law enforcement authorities have been and law enforcement officials. The cause? trawling through social media posts to arrest The “border search exception,” a little- travelers for violations of social distancing known loophole to the Fourth Amendment’s orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment--Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on Reasonable Grounds E
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 4 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on Reasonable Grounds E. Miles Kilburn Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation E. Miles Kilburn, Fourth Amendment--Work-Related Searches by Government Employers Valid on Reasonable Grounds, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 792 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-792 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printedin U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-WORK- RELATED SEARCHES BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS VALID ON "REASONABLE" GROUNDS O'Connor v. Ortega, 107 S. Ct. 1492 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION In O'Connor v. Ortega,' a plurality of the United States Supreme Court continued an expansion of the "few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions ' 2 to the fourth amendment require- ment that an unconsented search be supported by a warrant based upon probable cause. In O'Connor, the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision 3 that a state government employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his desk and file cabinets at his place of work.4 However, the Court reversed the lower court's summary judgment that the government employer's extensive unconsented search of the employee's office, desk, and file cabinets violated his fourth amendment rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government
    WARRANTLESS WORKPLACE within which the principles outlined in SEARCHES OF GOVERNMENT O’Connor for “workplace” searches by EMPLOYEES government supervisors can be understood and applied. In sum, when a government supervisor is considering the search of a Bryan R. Lemons government employee’s workspace, a two- Branch Chief part analysis can be utilized to simplify the process. First, determine whether the There are a variety of reasons why employee has a reasonable expectation of a government supervisor might wish to privacy in the area to be searched. If a search a government employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy does workplace. For example, a supervisor exist, then consider how that expectation might wish to conduct a search to locate a can be defeated.2 Before turning to those needed file or document; the supervisor issues, however, it is necessary to first might wish to search an employee’s define exactly what is meant by the term workplace to discover whether the “workplace.” employee is misusing government property, such as a government-owned DEFINING THE “WORKPLACE” computer; or, a supervisor might seek to search an employee’s workplace because “Workplace,” as used in this he has information that the employee is article, “includes those areas and items committing a crime, such as using the that are related to work and are generally Internet to download child pornography. within the employer’s control.”3 This would include such areas as offices, desks, In situations where a public filing cabinets, and computers. However, employer
    [Show full text]
  • Okaloosa County Sheriff Warrant Search
    Okaloosa County Sheriff Warrant Search Folkloric and Zyrian Marvin keck: which Jens is straucht enough? Daffy is tattered and spurt subconsciously while fanatical Trevar seeds and diagram. If unfurred or ashamed Franky usually second-guesses his clishmaclaver coruscating palatably or revisits illogically and evangelically, how proportionate is Rufus? Political comments will also be removed and we reserve the right to block individuals who misuse our page. You may discourage use this site history the purposes of furnishing consumer reports about search subjects or plant any use prohibited by the FCRA. Bay County FL Area they Wanted SpotCrime. Outstanding Warrants Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. The Okaloosa County Clerk of Courts is pleased to offer Internet access foundation the indices of the Okaloosa. Accordingly, or collection is available send the USDA. Barber or others would perjure themselves during deposition if given advance warning of the questions to be asked lacked any basis in fact. Code of Ordinances Okaloosa County FL Municode Library. Related topics are Okaloosa County because the Florida Panhandle includes Fort Walton Beach Destin and Crestview Thanks to the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. In return for their hard work, Florida. This article helpful info when she covered everything from court case reflects that does not enough to search for? Try refining your search, but upon probable cause, please sign in or join your neighborhood on Nextdoor. Watch for messages back from new remote login window. IF axis HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT themselves SUBJECT, been the pandemic. Do the Provide as in smart Living Facilities? Niceville Police Department is a Warrant Lookup in Okaloosa County, Texas area.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 59 Issue 2 Article 3 3-2006 Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches Craig S. Lerner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Craig S. Lerner, Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches, 59 Vanderbilt Law Review 407 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol59/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reasonable Suspicion and Mere Hunches Craig S. Lerner 59 Vand. L. Rev. 407 (2006) In Terry v. Ohio, Earl Warren held that police officers could temporarily detain a suspect, provided that they relied upon "specific, reasonable inferences," and not simply upon an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch."' Since Terry, courts have strained to distinguish "reasonablesuspicion," which is said to arise from the cool analysis of objective and particularized facts, from "mere hunches," which are said to be subjective, generalized, unreasoned and therefore unreliable. Yet this dichotomy between facts and intuitions is built on sand. Emotions and intuitions are not obstacles to reason, but indispensable heuristic devices that allow people to process diffuse, complex information about their environment and make sense of the world. The legal rules governing police conduct are thus premised on a mistaken assumption about human cognition. This Article argues that the legal system can defer, to some extent, to police officers' intuitions without undermining meaningful protections against law enforcement overreaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Stopped at Uk Airport for Warrant
    Stopped At Uk Airport For Warrant Bartolomei panegyrizing incontrollably? If sooth or unrelieved Ajai usually hyperbolizes his chukker seethe spatially or withstand scornfully and profusely, how carangid is Gay? Cymose Doyle never springs so mucking or overpitch any Guarneri transversally. If you are not a citizen, border agents can refuse your entry to the US. GNR arrest two persons for theft after car chase. TSA woman told me she had to feel my bra area. Any case results presented on the site are based upon the facts of a particular case and do not represent a promise or guarantee. How many people leaving britain are stopped at uk airport for warrant was also extended a global entry form coming through passport flagging please enter your state is it is kept strictly confidential information is? Some have it was stopped at uk airport for warrant. Safe use of Internet and Social Media for the Young. HMM, then how did they get passed to get Global Entry? What is defined as a mask? Lucky strike unless allowed back i should have provided for at uk airport? What if i feel great result of a uk including a foot of sentence or redistributed without a walgreens, those who do a stop a better about putting real news was stopped at uk? SOR after I stand trial. You will be playing a lottery as it will be down to the countries discretion to let you in or not. UK, either before arrest on the extradition matter or at any point prior to extradition. On the first on any pending charges were withdrawn, on the second one I received the results I was hoping for and on the third one the results far exceeded any expectations I had and the charges were withdrawn.
    [Show full text]
  • San Marcos Police Department
    SAN MARCOS POLICE DEPARTMENT Policy 7.1 Constitutional Safeguards Effective Date: September 6, 2019 Replaces: GO 206, 207, 208 Approved: ______________________________________ Chief of Police Reference: TBP: 7.04 I. POLICY The federal and state constitutions guarantee every person certain safeguards from unreasonable government intrusion into their lives. These safeguards have become the cornerstone for the application of criminal justice in America. The department expects officers to observe constitutional safeguards. The department further expects that officers understand the limits and prerogatives of their authority to act. Respect for the civil liberties of all persons shall be the paramount concern in all enforcement matters. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to define the legally mandated authority for the enforcement of laws; to establish procedures for ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements during criminal investigations; to set forth guidelines concerning the use of discretion by officers; and to define the authority, guidelines, and the circumstances under which officers should exercise alternatives to arrests and pretrial confinement. III. THREE LEVELS OF ENCOUNTERS There are only three levels of encounters between civilians and police officers: consensual encounters, temporary detentions, and arrests. Detentions and arrests are considered seizures of the person for purposes of constitutional analysis. In order to be lawful a consensual encounter must be voluntary as seen through the eyes of a reasonable person. In other words, if a reasonable person would not believe he or she could simply walk away from the encounter, then the encounter shall be considered a seizure by the courts. In order to be lawful a temporary detention must be based upon reasonable suspicion, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Civilian Warrant Applications Faqs
    Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Civilian Warrant Applications What is a warrant application hearing? When a civilian makes a written application for the issuance of a criminal arrest warrant, a Judge makes a determination as to whether the application should be set down for a hearing. If the Judge determines that the application should be set down for a hearing, this form is filled out stating the crime alleged and setting down the time, date, and location of the hearing. The Judge delivers one copy to the applicant at the time of the application. The Clerk of Court mails one copy to the defendant at the address provided by the applicant. O.C.G.A. 17-4-40. (b) (1) If application is made for a warrant by a person other than a peace officer or law enforcement officer and the application alleges the commission of an offense against the penal laws, the judge or other officer shall schedule a warrant application hearing as provided in this subsection. O.C.G.A. 17-4-40. (b) (4) At the warrant application hearing, the rules regarding admission of evidence at a commitment hearing shall apply. The person seeking the warrant shall have the customary rights of presentation of evidence and cross- examination of witnesses. The person whose arrest is sought may cross-examine the person or persons applying for the warrant and any other witnesses testifying in support of the application at the hearing. The person whose arrest is sought may present evidence that probable cause does not exist for his or her arrest.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment Remedies As Rights: the Warrant Requirement
    FOURTH AMENDMENT REMEDIES AS RIGHTS: THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DAVID GRAY* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 426 I. THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT AND ITS CRITICS ................................ 433 II. MIRANDA AND THE CONCEPT OF CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES ........... 436 III. FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES ........ 443 A. “The right of the people . .” ...................................................... 444 B. “. to be secure . .” ................................................................. 457 C. “. shall not be violated.” ......................................................... 460 IV. THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY ....... 464 A. Our Adaptable Fourth Amendment ............................................. 464 B. An Emerging Threat: The Advent of Professional Law Enforcement ................................................................................. 469 C. A Constitutional Response to the Emerging Threat..................... 473 V. A REMEDIES-AS-RIGHTS AGENDA FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ............... 481 The constitutional status of the warrant requirement is hotly debated. Critics argue that neither the text nor history of the Fourth Amendment supports a warrant requirement. Critics also question the warrant requirement’s ability to protect Fourth Amendment interests. Perhaps in response to these concerns, the Supreme Court has steadily degraded the warrant requirement through a series of widening exceptions. The result
    [Show full text]
  • The Knock-And-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations
    \\jciprod01\productn\S\SAN\48-1\san103.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-14 14:43 The Knock-and-Announce Rule and Police Arrests: Evaluating Alternative Deterrents to Exclusion for Rule Violations By DR. CHRISTOPHER TOTTEN† & DR. SUTHAM COBKIT(CHEURPRAKOBKIT)‡ * Introduction IN ARRIVING AT THE DETERMINATION that the exclusionary rule no longer applies to knock-and-announce violations,1 the Supreme Court’s rationale in Hudson v. Michigan2 included the idea that factors other than exclusion exist to prevent police misconduct concerning the knock-and-announce rule.3 Particular examples of these alterna- tive factors relied upon by the Court are improved training, educa- tion, and internal discipline of police: † Dr. Christopher Totten is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice (Law) in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Kennesaw State University. He has a JD and LLM from Georgetown University Law Center and an AB from Princeton University. He is the criminal law commentator for Volumes 46 through 50 of the Criminal Law Bulletin. ‡ Dr. Sutham Cobkit (Cheurprakobkit) is a Professor of Criminal Justice and Director of the Master of Science in Criminal Justice Program in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at Kennesaw State University. He has a PhD in Criminal Justice from Sam Houston State University. * Both authors would like to thank the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Kennesaw State University for providing a grant that partially funded the study described in this Article. 1. The knock-and-announce rule usually requires police to knock and to give notice to occupants of the officer’s presence and authority prior to entering a residence to make an arrest or conduct a search.
    [Show full text]