How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

Flex Your Rights Hero Savana Redding

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Safford Unified School District #1 et al v. Redding that school officials violated the 4th Amendment when they strip searched a 13-year-old girl. Savana Redding was subjected to a strip search that included looking inside her underwear after the school principal received a tip that she might be in possession of prescription ibuprofen. None was found.

By a strong majority, the Court declared the search unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, finding that a full strip search was unjustified based on the nature of the drugs and in question and the absence of specific evidence that contraband would be found in her underwear.

For many years, the Supreme Court has permitted police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle any time an occupant of the car is arrested. These so-called "searches incident to arrest" were authorized in New York v. Belton (1981) based in large part on concerns about officer safety, namely that the suspect might dive for a weapon hidden in the car. As a result, police have grown accustomed to searching vehicles for "safety reasons" even after the suspect has been taken into custody. This doesn't protect officers, but it certainly encourages police to make more arrests so they can do more searches.

Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968,
20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

A police officer witnessed three men pacing in front of a jewelry store and suspected that a robbery was being planned. He approached the men and identified himself, then performed frisks of defendants Richard Chilton and John Terry and discovered illegal concealed weapons. Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures.

Whren v. U.S.
1996 WL 305735 (1996)

Plainclothes officers in an unmarked car spotted a suspicious SUV with young black occupants and temporary tags. The vehicle remained at a stop sign for an unusually long time, during which the driver appeared to be looking into the passenger's lap. When the officers made a U-turn in order to get a second look at the vehicle, it turned suddenly without signaling and reached an "unreasonable" speed. The officers caught up with the vehicle at a traffic light, and upon approaching the driver's side door spotted two large bags of crack in plain view. The defendants were convicted and appealed claiming that the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsupported belief that they were involved in drug dealing, rather than by a desire to warn them about traffic laws.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041,
36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)

Officer James Rand stopped a car with six occupants and received consent from the driver to search the vehicle. It was determined that the officer did not pressure the driver into consenting. In the back seat he found three checks which had been stolen from a car wash. Defendant Robert Bustamonte challenged his arrest, arguing that while he had consented voluntarily, he had not been informed of his right not to consent to the search.

In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, the Supreme Court ruled that consent is valid as long as it is voluntarily given. The ruling held that police may not use threats or coercion to obtain consent, but that they need not inform suspects of their right not to consent to a search. In reaching this decision, the Court rejected the stricter "waiver test," which holds that suspects must be fully informed of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures before they can give valid consent.

Florida v. Bostick
501 U.S. 429, 111 S. Ct. 2382,
115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)

Defendant Terrance Bostick boarded a bus from Miami to Atlanta. At a stopover in Ft. Lauderdale, the bus was boarded by two uniformed narcotics officers who were performing a routine inspection of the bus. Without reasonable suspicion, the officers approached Bostick in his seat and requested to see his ticket and identification. Finding nothing unusual, the officers proceeded to request consent to search his luggage. Bostick reportedly consented, at which point the officers performed a search and discovered cocaine. Bostick was subsequently convicted. He appealed claiming that due to his apparent inability to leave the bus, the encounter constituted an unlawful seizure. Consequently, he argued that the evidence obtained from his unlawful seizure must be suppressed.

Hudson v. Michigan
547 U. S. 586 (2006)

Police obtained a valid warrant to enter the home of Booker T. Hudson in search of drugs and weapons. When executing the search warrant, officers violated Michigan's "knock and announce" rule, which requires that they announce their presence and wait 15-20 seconds before making a forced entry. Following the search, Hudson was arrested for possessing cocaine and a gun. He argued that the evidence should be suppressed because officers violated his 4th Amendment rights by conducting an improper entry.

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence need not be suppressed if officers violate the "knock and announce" rule when executing a search warrant. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia, the Court ruled that exclusion of evidence is an inappropriately harsh remedy for entering a suspect’s home too hastily. In so doing, the Court overturned 4th Amendment precedent regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during the course of a "knock and announce" violation.

What you should know about Hudson:

These are some of most important U.S. Supreme Court cases that impact your rights during police encounters. Click on each case to get a brief description of the case and a practical explanation of how the ruling might impact how you should approach a given police encounter.

The Bill of Rights protections that matter most during police encounters are mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and all states must uphold them. States may offer more protection for these rights than the Supreme Court does, but not less. For that reason, our information is applicable to all 50 states in the U.S.

Dog Sniffs

Illinois v. Caballes

Exclusionary Rule

Mapp v. Ohio

Hudson v. Michigan

Self-incrimination

Miranda v. Arizona

I wrote recently about the pending Supreme Court case stemming from the strip search of a 13 year-old student. School officials suspected Savana Redding of possessing prescription ibuprofen, so they searched from head to toe, including her underwear. Nothing was found.