« The Crying Game | Main | No Customer Left Behind Contest »

March 20, 2006

*Sigh*

Judge Richard Posner today in US v. Burton (CWCID, HBashman):

Contrary to popular belief, the Fourth Amendment does not require that a search be based on probable cause to believe that the search will yield contraband or evidence of crime. The amendment requires that warrants be based on probable cause, but forbids only unreasonable searches. What is unreasonable depends on circumstances, including how intrusive the search is—how costly, in other words, to the person searched.

There is a big difference between police ransacking a house in a search for evidence and stopping a pedestrian and asking him whether he’s seen a fleeing man in a Santa Claus costume. Even though “approaching a person on the street (or at work, or on a bus) to ask him a question causes him to stop for at least the time needed to hear the question and answer (or refuse to answer, the curtailment of the bystander’s mobility, privacy, and peace of mind is so slight that neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion is required to justify the police action. No suspicion at all is required in such a case, or is present if the person stopped really is a bystander—the police do not suspect the bystander of being the Santa Claus imposter. The intermediate case is the Terry stop, that is, a stop and frisk; since people are averse to being frisked, the courts require reasonable suspicion, except in special circumstances, such as airport searches.

The principle that emerges from the cases is that the less protracted and intrusive a search is, the less suspicion the police need in order to be authorized by the Fourth Amendment to conduct it, and vice versa. As we explained years ago in United States v. Chaivez, It is “common sense that if the Fourth Amendment is intended to strike a balance between the interest of the individual in being left alone by the police and the interest of the community in being free from the menace of crime, the less the interest of the individual is impaired the less the interest of the community need be impaired to justify the restraint.”

Consideration of the extent of intrusion abounds in modern Fourth Amendment doctrine. Stops that do not entail detention need not be justified by any suspicion. Searches incident to arrest may be justified by the reduced marginal intrusion of searching a defendant already in custody. The Court based Terry itself on the fact that a protective search is a “brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person.”

Recently the Court upheld automobile checkpoints where the police made stops without any individual suspicion, in part because of the minimal “intrusion resulting from the brief stop at the sobriety checkpoint.” . . . The scale extends in both directions. If an intrusion is greater than a traditional arrest, probable cause is not enough. These cases describe a continuum in which the necessary degree of confidence increases with the degree of intrusion. A “stop” without limiting the suspect’s freedom requires no suspicion; a brief detention calls for reasonable suspicion; an arrest requires probable cause; invasive techniques such as surgery require more.

What if the intrusion lies somewhere between Terry and arrest, neither a “brief, investigatory” stop nor a traditional arrest, where the defendant is handcuffed, trundled into a paddy wagon, carted to
the station, fingerprinted, and held in a 12’ x 8’ cell?

One answer would be to deny that there is a “between” —to insist that all encounters must be either Terry stops or arrests. Yet circumstances defy such simple categorization, and if a line must nonetheless be drawn it will be arbitrary, with nearly identical cases
on opposite sides. Trying to force a continuous world into two categories is not only impossible but also unnecessary when the text of the Constitution calls for inquiry into “reasonableness”. Why abandon the search for reasonableness when the intrusion falls between arrest and stop?

I can't help but contrast this with the words of Justice Black in Katz v. US:

The Fourth Amendment says that
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The first clause protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . ." These words connote the idea of tangible things with size, form, and weight, things capable of being searched, seized, or both. The second clause of the Amendment still further establishes its Framers' purpose to limit its protection to tangible things by providing that no warrants shall issue but those "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A conversation overheard by eavesdropping, whether by plain snooping or wiretapping, is not tangible and, under the normally accepted meanings of the words, can neither be searched nor seized. In addition the language of the second clause indicates that the Amendment refers not only to something tangible so it can be seized but to something already in existence so it can be described. Yet the Court's interpretation would have the Amendment apply to overhearing future conversations which by their very nature are nonexistent until they take place. How can one "describe" a future conversation, and, if one cannot, how can a magistrate issue a warrant to eavesdrop one in the future? It is argued that information showing what [389 U.S. 347, 366] is expected to be said is sufficient to limit the boundaries of what later can be admitted into evidence; but does such general information really meet the specific language of the Amendment which says "particularly describing"? Rather than using language in a completely artificial way, I must conclude that the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping.

...With this decision the Court has completed, I hope, its rewriting of the Fourth Amendment, which started only recently when the Court began referring incessantly to the Fourth Amendment not so much as a law against unreasonable searches and seizures as one to protect an individual's privacy. By clever word juggling the Court finds it plausible to argue that language aimed specifically at searches and seizures of things that can be searched and seized may, to protect privacy, be applied to eavesdropped evidence of conversations that can neither be searched nor seized.

Few things happen to an individual that do not affect his privacy in one way or another. Thus, by arbitrarily substituting the Court's language, designed to protect privacy, for the Constitution's language, designed to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court has made the Fourth Amendment its vehicle for holding all laws violative of the Constitution which offend the Court's broadest concept of privacy. As I said in Griswold v. Connecticut, "The Court talks about a constitutional `right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the `privacy' of individuals. But there is not." I made clear in that dissent my fear of the dangers involved when this Court uses the "broad, abstract and ambiguous concept" of "privacy" as a "comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against `unreasonable searches and seizures.'"

The Fourth Amendment protects privacy only to the extent that it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of "persons, houses, papers, and effects." No general right is created by the Amendment so as to give this Court the unlimited power to hold unconstitutional everything which affects privacy. Certainly the Framers, well acquainted as they were with the excesses of governmental power, did not intend to grant this Court such omnipotent lawmaking authority as that. The history of governments proves that it is dangerous to freedom to repose such powers in courts.

Yeah, I know. More flogging of dead equine flesh. Perhaps we should take the advice of Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg and adopt the enlightened law enforcement approaches of our cousins across the pond. After all, that original text is so dry and boring.

The Constitution is a living document and there is so much we can learn from each other if we just remain humble and above all, avoid being judgmental.

Posted by Cassandra at March 20, 2006 03:13 PM

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)