Everything about Consent Searches totally explained
Consent searches are searches made by
United States law enforcement personnel based on the consent of the individual whose person or property is being searched.
Overview
In the U.S., the simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. No
warrant or
probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search.
A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her
Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search. In addition, the prosecution in any trial using the search results as evidence is required to prove that the consent was voluntary and not a result of coercion.
However, in contrast to
Miranda rights, officers conducting a consent search are not required to warn people of their right to withhold consent in order for consent to be valid, as determined by the
U.S. Supreme Court in
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte.
Nor are they required to conduct a search in a way that gives the individual an opportunity to revoke consent, as determined in
United States v. Dominguez, where the court rejected the argument that “officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect, and in a manner slowly enough that he may withdraw or delimit his consent at any time during the search.”
Other Parties
The person conducting the consent search doesn't necessarily have to be identified as a law enforcement officer, and the person granting consent need not be the person police suspect or ultimately charge.
In cases such as
Lee v. United States,
Lopez v. United States, and
Hoffa v. United States, the courts have ruled that evidence found in searches based on consent obtained by an
undercover officer or as an informer to be admissible.
And a third party can in some limited cases grant consent. The person needs to possess or be believed by the searching officer to possess “common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.”
Revoking Consent and Exceptions
Consent can be revoked at almost any time during a consent-based search. If consent is revoked, the officer or officers performing the search are required to immediately stop searching. However, the right to revoke consent isn't recognized in two cases: airport passenger screening and prison visitation.
Revoking Consent
Once consent to search is given, an individual may withdraw consent with an “unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal.” Consent may be withdrawn by statements, actions, or a combination of statements and actions. In
United States v. Bily, the court found that Bily's statement to the agents of “That’s enough, I want you to stop,” was a revocation of consent. And in
United States v. Ho, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Ho's attempts to retrieve his portfolio from the officer during a search constituted a revocation of his earlier consent to search. In this decision the court recognized his acts constituted a valid revocation of consent.
However, the revocation of consent must clearly be a statement revoking consent: an expression of impatience or dislike isn't sufficient to terminate consent.
For example, in
United States v. Gray, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that Gray didn't revoke consent with the statements “[t]his is ridiculous,” and “how long [is] the search going to take.” The district court found that while Gray and his passenger had made “protests to leave,” “there was no specific request to leave, and under the circumstance,... [theofficer] was reasonable in continuing the search.”
Exceptions to Revoking Consent
Most courts have found the right to revoke consent is removed once a passenger has begun
X-ray screening. In
United States v. Herzbrun, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found Herzbrun “had no
constitutional right to revoke his consent to a search of his bag once it entered the
X-ray machine and he walked through the
magnetometer.” And in
United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, the court explained that “[a] rule allowing a passenger to leave without a search after an inconclusive X-ray scan would encourage airline
terrorism by providing a secure exit where detection was threatened.”
A similar argument is applied to searches of prison visitors in
United States v. Spriggs. As long as a prison visitor is warned that all visitors will be searched and consents to the search, consent can not be revoked once the search has begun. Allowing consent to be withdrawn, the court reasoned, would encourage the smuggling of contraband into prisons by providing a secure escape to the smuggler.
During the course of a search an officer may develop
reasonable suspicion or probable cause; once this has been developed the individual loses the right to revoke consent. However, in
United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search doesn't give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”
Further Information
Get more info on 'Consent Searches'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://consent_searches.totallyexplained.com">Consent searches Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
