Two recent United States Supreme Court Search and Seizure cases impact law enforcement and I am issuing this bulletin to alert you about these cases.

    In Minnesota v. Carter, ___ U.S. ___ (No. 97-1147 filed 12/1/98), the United States Supreme Court revisited whether guests in someone else's home can object to what they claim is an unconstitutional search. In the past, the Court has held that an overnight guest in someone else's home can object to an unconstitutional entry into the home.

    The Carter case involved a Minnesota police officer who peered into a ground floor apartment window after getting a confidential informant tip that persons in the apartment were bagging cocaine. The officer looked through a gap in the closed blinds on the window for several minutes and observed three persons bagging cocaine. He then notified headquarters, which began preparing affidavits for a search warrant. Officers later executed the warrant and discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. The defendants (the two guests) argued that the officer's act of peering in the window was an unconstitutional search. After arresting the defendants, police learned the two defendants lived in a different city and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine. They had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 22 hours. They gave the tenant of the apartment one-eighth of an ounce of the cocaine for letting them bag their drugs there.

    The Court basically held that even if a search occurred, it did not violate the guests' Fourth Amendment rights. It held that based on the purely commercial nature of the transaction, the relatively short period of time on the premises, and the lack of any previous connection between the guests and the tenant, the guests could not claim a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises.

    In Knowles v. Iowa, ___ U.S. ___ (No. 97-7597 12/8/98), the Court unanimously struck down an Iowa statute allowing search of persons and vehicles "incident to citation."

    The officer stopped the defendant, Knowles, for speeding 43 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone. The officer issued Knowles a citation, although under Iowa law he could have arrested him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, and under the driver's seat he found a bag of marijuana and a "pot pipe." Knowles was then arrested and charged with violation of state laws dealing with controlled substances. The officer admitted he had neither Knowles' consent nor probable cause to conduct the search.

    The Iowa statute stated the issuance of a citation in lieu of an arrest "does not affect the officer's authority to conduct an otherwise lawful search." The Iowa Supreme Court had interpreted this provision as providing authority to officers to conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver in those cases where police elect not to make a custodial arrest and instead issue a citation -- that is, a search incident to citation.

    The United States Supreme Court held that searches incident to citation are inconsistent with the two historical rationales for the "search incident to arrest" exception to the warrant requirement: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial. The court pointed out that since Knowles would not be taken into custody, the officer safety concerns were substantially diminished and, once Knowles was stopped and issued the citation, the state had all the evidence it needed to prove the speeding charge so there was no concern about the disappearance of evidence.

    The Court pointed out that its decision was not meant to diminish the importance of officer safety patdowns or searches, but reiterated that there must be reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous before such a search is allowed. In appropriate cases, officers may continue ordering a driver and passengers out of the car. The Court also pointed out that if a police officer is not satisfied with the identification furnished by the driver, this may be a basis for arresting him rather than merely issuing a citation

    Please advise if you have any questions about these decisions and their impact on law enforcement.
 

BY ORDER OF
CHIEF OF POLICE