Debunking Pre-Arrest Incident Searches

Debunking Pre-Arrest Incident Searches

The “search incident to arrest” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement permits officers to search a suspect upon making an arrest. It is the most commonly invoked justification for unconsented-to searches; indeed, incident searches far exceed searches conducted with a warrant. This seemingly straightforward exception has wilted in recent years as courts have done away with the prerequisite of an arrest, permitting incident searches so long as there is pre-search probable cause to arrest. The result has been to grant authority to search any person engaged in the most minor of offenses—e.g., speeding, littering, jaywalking—even absent an arrest, injecting routine warrantless searches into this most common form of police-citizen encounter.

This Article takes aim at pre-arrest incident searches and diagnoses two doctrinal missteps courts make in permitting them. The first is ignoring that Fourth Amendment intrusions must be judged “at their inception,” a maxim that dictates any post-search arrest is irrelevant to the constitutional calculus (except as evidence of some pre-search fact). The second is that they interpret Whren v. United States—in which the Supreme Court held that a seizure supported by probable cause was valid without regard to whether it was pretextual—as an evidentiary bar to considering officer intentions in Fourth Amendment inquiries. That is wrong too: Whren is not an evidentiary bar at all. While officer intentions are irrelevant to certain objective questions (like probable cause), they matter when discerning whether a custodial arrest is under way. Once these two mistakes are corrected, a straightforward rule emerges: incident searches are permitted only if there is a custodial arrest (be it completed or in-progress) at a search’s inception.

Correcting the two missteps above has broad implications. Reinvigorating the principle that intrusions must be judged at their inception has reverberations in all manner of Fourth Amendment analyses. Likewise, treating Whren as a broad evidentiary bar to considering officer intentions is a pervasive yet ultimately mistaken approach. This Article offers a course correction on an issue that has deeply divided appellate courts and is likely to soon receive Supreme Court consideration.

 

PDF

More in this Issue

The Changemaker Lawyer: Innovating the Legal Profession for Social Change

As lawyers today confront existential challenges to their profession, from globalization to technological change, they face demands to innovate. In a world of rapid change, individuals must have certain skills to succeed; they must be “changemakers.” Changemakers are individuals who harness innovation to solve social challenges, a notion arising from the global movement of social […]

Presidential Obstruction of Justice

Federal obstruction of justice statutes bar anyone from interfering with official legal proceedings based on a “corrupt” motive. But what about the president of the United States? The president is vested with “executive power” which includes the power to control federal law enforcement. A possible view is that the statutes do not apply to the […]

Trademark’s Judicial De-Evolution: Why Courts Get Trademark Cases Wrong Repeatedly

Trademark law has de-evolved. It has transitioned from an efficient mechanism for ensuring competition into an inefficient regime for capturing economic rents. In this Article, I focus on the role that party self-interest has played in biasing the evolution of trademark law. This self-interest tends to lead parties to (1) challenge efficient legal rules and […]

Patriotic Philanthropy? Financing the State with Gifts to Government

This Article offers a positive and normative account of an important and growing trend: wealthy individuals are increasingly giving their money to the government to encourage the government to fund particular projects that these individuals want the government to pursue. Such gifts—dubbed “patriotic philanthropy” by one prominent donor—raise fundamental questions about the role that private […]

Procedural Experimentation and National Security in the Courts

In the last fifteen years, individuals have brought hundreds of cases challenging government national security practices for violating human rights or civil liberties. Courts have reviewed relatively few of these cases on the merits, often deferring broadly to the executive branch on the grounds that they lack expertise, political accountability, or the ability to protect […]