{"id":352377,"date":"2023-12-10T03:20:51","date_gmt":"2023-12-10T08:20:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/criminal\/criminal-rights\/sample-state-court-decisions-on-search-and-seizure.html"},"modified":"2023-12-10T03:20:51","modified_gmt":"2023-12-10T08:20:51","slug":"sample-state-court-decisions-on-search-and-seizure","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/criminal\/criminal-rights\/sample-state-court-decisions-on-search-and-seizure.html","title":{"rendered":"Sample State Court Decisions on Search and Seizure"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Sample State Court Decisions on Search and Seizure<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Christie Nicholson, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Rhonda Earhart, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n

State courts must abide by the protections delineated in the Fourth Amendment, but they can also expand a citizen’s legal rights. The state constitution and other state laws outline these rights. State court decisions further explain these rights.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Constitution establishes the minimum protections a state court must provide when interpreting the\u00a0Bill of Rights. Numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have explained how the\u00a0Fourth Amendment<\/a>\u00a0applies to criminal cases. The Court of Appeals of various circuits throughout the country has also handed down many decisions.<\/p>\n

The Fourth Amendment applies\u00a0to the states<\/a>\u00a0by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. State courts must strictly interpret and apply the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. This includes protections against unlawful search and seizure. These protections may provide more\u2014but not less\u2014protection than what is afforded by the federal Constitution.<\/p>\n

This article discusses pivotal state court decisions on search and seizure law. If you are facing a criminal charge, you can also talk to an attorney near you<\/a> for legal advice specific to your situation. A criminal law attorney can review the circumstances of your arrest and charges and\u00a0advise you on the best legal strategy to protect your rights.<\/p>\n

What Are the Basic Rights When It Comes to Search and Seizure Law?<\/h2>\n

According to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, criminal suspects and defendants are entitled to certain rights when dealing with the police.<\/p>\n

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court defined a search and seizure in\u00a0Katz v. United States<\/i><\/a>. One of the fundamental search and seizure rules is that the law enforcement officer must have a search warrant before entering a person’s home, motor vehicle, business, or other property where the suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy.<\/p>\n

There are times when the police may conduct a warrantless search. For example, they don’t need a warrant if they are conducting a search incident to a lawful arrest. The same is true when there are\u00a0exigent circumstances<\/a>. If the police risk public safety by waiting to obtain a valid warrant, they may use their discretion in conducting an immediate search.<\/p>\n

Another important exception to the warrant requirement is when the police officer is conducting a short\u00a0stop and frisk<\/a>. They can pat down a suspect if they believe they have weapons, contraband, or evidence of a crime hidden on their person.<\/p>\n

If a defendant believes that law enforcement violated their Fourth Amendment rights, they can ask the judge to exclude any evidence found during the unlawful search. In the cases below, the petitioners argued that law enforcement violated their constitutional rights due to an illegal search and seizure<\/a> and that the state denied them due process.<\/p>\n

Selected State Court Decisions on Search and Seizure Protections<\/h2>\n

Below is a sampling of state court decisions on search and seizure, some of which provide additional protection for citizens charged with criminal activity. The issue in each case is whether law enforcement violated a person’s constitutional rights. The case law established in the various states also helps determine whether law enforcement actions constitute an illegal search.<\/p>\n

In all these state court decisions, the judges considered the totality of the circumstances when making their final decisions. These include cases at the trial court level, district court level, the state court of appeals, and state supreme court cases.<\/p>\n

California<\/h3>\n

The lower courts in\u00a0Riley v. California\u00a0<\/i>reaffirmed a defendant’s assault conviction. The police found the evidence during the defendant’s alleged illegal search. The court held that the police may not seize a suspect’s cell phone during a lawful arrest without a valid warrant. A cell phone is not a dangerous weapon, and citizens have a higher expectation of privacy for cell phones. So, the cell phone search constituted an unreasonable search. (Riley v. California<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2014)).<\/p>\n

Florida<\/h3>\n

“Florida courts are constitutionally required to interpret search and seizure issues in conformity with federal law and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court” (State v. Hernandez<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1998)).<\/p>\n

Georgia<\/h3>\n

When a driver went through a poorly lit intersection without her headlights on, there was enough reasonable suspicion to justify a\u00a0traffic stop<\/a>\u00a0of the driver under the state constitution (State v. Hammang<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2001)).<\/p>\n

Idaho<\/h3>\n

“The term ‘exigent circumstances<\/a>‘ refers to a catalog of exceptional or compelling circumstances that allow police to enter, search, seize, and arrest without complying with the warrant requirements” of the federal or state constitutions. The court stated that this includes unannounced entries to searches made pursuant to the state and federal “knock and announce” statutes (State v. Rauch<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1978)).<\/p>\n

Illinois<\/h3>\n

Officers involved in the surveillance of an arranged drug purchase had sufficient probable cause to arrest both the driver and passenger of an unidentified vehicle the police observed during surveillance (People v. Ortiz<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2005)).<\/p>\n

Kansas<\/h3>\n

Even though police improperly searched a suspect’s pockets and found drugs, these drugs\u00a0inevitably would have been discovered<\/a>. Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the search was permissible. (State v. Ingram<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2005)).<\/p>\n

Louisiana<\/h3>\n

“Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable per se unless justified by one of the specific exceptions to warrant requirements of the federal and state constitutions” (State v. Manson<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2001)).<\/p>\n

Michigan<\/h3>\n

Enhanced search and seizure protection under Michigan’s Constitution is available only if the search or seizure occurs inside the house’s curtilage (Mich. Const. Art. 1, \u00a7 11<\/i><\/a>).<\/p>\n

Minnesota<\/h3>\n

The\u00a0exclusionary rule’s<\/a>\u00a0purpose is to deter police misconduct. Therefore, the Court found “no compelling reason to apply more stringent standards when applying the state exclusionary rule than when applying the federal exclusionary rule” (State v. Martin<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1999)).<\/p>\n

New Jersey<\/h3>\n

According to the state’s constitution, racial profiling constitutes an unlawful search and seizure (State v. Velez<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2000)).<\/p>\n

New Mexico<\/h3>\n

The state constitution allows a warrantless arrest only upon a showing of exigent circumstances (see\u00a0American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. City of Albuquerque<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1999);\u00a0N.M. Const. Art. 2, \u00a7 10<\/a>).<\/p>\n

New York<\/h3>\n

Liquor retailers had no legitimate\u00a0expectation of privacy<\/a>\u00a0in retail customer sales records maintained by liquor wholesalers with whom the retailer had business dealings.<\/p>\n

The retailer lacked\u00a0standing<\/a>\u00a0to challenge the use of these records as a violation of the U.S. and\u00a0New York Constitutions<\/a>. So, the Department of Taxation and Finance’s use of wholesalers’ sales records to investigate suspected underreporting of sales tax by liquor retailers was not improper. (see\u00a0Roebling Liquors Inc. v. Comm’r of Taxation & Finance<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2001)).<\/p>\n

North Carolina<\/h3>\n

Information the police received from an informant was sufficiently reliable to establish\u00a0probable cause<\/a>. The informant had more than 14 years of personal dealings with an officer, leading to more than 100 arrests. (see\u00a0State v. Stanley<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2005)).<\/p>\n

Ohio<\/h3>\n

An inventory search of a compartment of a lawfully impounded vehicle does not contradict the federal or state constitutions if the police administer the search in good faith and per reasonable police procedures or established routine (see\u00a0State v. Mesa<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1999)).<\/p>\n

The police may stop and frisk a suspect without a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime and is armed and dangerous. (see\u00a0Terry v. Ohio<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1968)).<\/p>\n

The court ruled that the state may not use evidence procured during an unlawful search and seizure. (Mapp v. Ohio<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(1961)).<\/p>\n

South Carolina<\/h3>\n

A court order violated a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by compelling a blood sample. But since there was other evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction for murder and first-degree burglary, the court determined that the error was harmless (State v. Baccus<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2006)).<\/p>\n

Washington<\/h3>\n

A municipal court clerk may not order the issuance of an arrest warrant in the absence of an authorizing statute, court rule, or ordinance. This is the case even if the law enforcement officer presents a valid affidavit (State v. Walker<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2000)).<\/p>\n

Wisconsin<\/h3>\n

There is a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. If police officers conduct a search pursuant to what appears to be a valid\u00a0search warrant<\/a>, the search will not be deemed illegal. (see\u00a0State v. Eason<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(2001)).<\/p>\n

Protect Your Search and Seizure Rights With Help From an Attorney<\/h2>\n

As you can see, in addition to search and seizure law based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions, state court decisions have also created legal precedents relating to the Fourth Amendment. These precedents have led to changes in the state’s criminal procedure rules.<\/p>\n

If the police charge you with a misdemeanor or felony, you have certain constitutional rights. Safeguards are in place to help protect citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. If you believe law enforcement violated your rights, contact an attorney immediately.<\/p>\n

If you have questions or a criminal case pending, your best bet is to speak with an expert\u00a0criminal defense attorney<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n