Abstract
In simple terms, the Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be conducted only with a valid warrant that is based on probable cause unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is consent. Police officers may conduct a search without a warrant if the individual voluntarily consents to the search. However, for consent to be valid, it must be given voluntarily and knowingly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 231 (1973) (“it would be thoroughly impractical to impose on the normal consent search the detailed requirements of an effective warning”); United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 207 (2002) (“knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account[, but] the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent” (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 227)). In the same vein that Miranda rights are required before seeking waivers from arrestees of their rights to silence and counsel, no less warning and knowledge should be required before seeking consent from one who may have no idea of the right to withhold, refuse, or limit consent to search.
- 2.
Empirical research has demonstrated that most people are unaware they have the right to refuse consent (Chanenson, 2004, p. 454).
References
Appellate Cases Cited
Burke, A. S. (2016). Consent searches and Fourth Amendment reasonableness. Florida Law Review, 67(2), 509–563.
Chanenson, S. L. (2004). Get the facts, Jack! Empirical research and the changing constitutional landscape of consent searches. Tennessee Law Review, 71, 399–470.
Connelly, F. (n.d.). Consent to enter or search by deception. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/ConsenttoEnterorSearchbyDeception.pdf
Gardiner, T. G. (1980). Consent to search in response to police threats to seek or obtain a search warrant: Some alternatives. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71, 163–172.
Gau, J. M. (2013). Consent searches as a threat to procedural justice and police legitimacy: An analysis of consent requests during traffic stops. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 759–777.
Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). “One question before you get gone …”: Consent search requests as a threat to perceived stop legitimacy. Race and Justice, 2(4), 250–273.
Gould, J. B., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2004). Suspect searches: Assessing police behavior under the U.S. Constitution. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 315–362.
Joh, E. E. (2015). Bait, mask, and ruse: Technology and police deception. Harvard Law Review Forum, 128, 246–252.
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948).
Jones, D. (2003). When is consent really consent? An analysis of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte and its progeny. Criminal Justice Studies, 16, 205–216.
Maclin, T. (2008). The good and bad news about consent searches in the Supreme Court. McGeorge Law Review, 39, 27–82.
Myers, A. G. (2018). Casenote: To deceive or not to deceive: Law enforcement officers gain broader approval to use deceptive tactics to obtain voluntary consent. Mercer Law Review, 69, 627–650.
Nadler, J. (2002). No need to shout: Bus sweeps and the psychology of coercion. Supreme Court Review, 2002, 153–222.
Sauls, J. G. (FBI Special Agent). (1994, January). Obtaining consent to enter by deception. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63(1), 28–32. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/146538NCJRS.pdf
Schulhofer, S. J., Tyler, T. R., & Huq, A. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101, 335–374.
Schwartz, A. (2021, January 14). So-called “consent searches” harm our digital rights. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/so-called-consent-searches-harm-our-digital-rights
Spivey v. United States. (2018). No. 17-7046, Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation and Restore the Fourth, Inc. as Amicus Curiae. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-7046.html
Strauss, M. (2002a). Reconstructing consent. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92, 211–272.
Strauss, R. (2002b). We can do this the easy way or the hard way: The use of deceit to induce consent searches. Michigan Law Review, 100, 868–888.
Underwood, W. E. (2011). A little white lie: The dangers of allowing police officers to stretch the truth as a means to gain a suspect’s consent to search. Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 18, 167–210.
Warner, R. E. (1979). Governmental deception in consent searches. University of Miami Law Review, 34, 57–98.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977).
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968).
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970).
Elgersma v. City of St. Paul, No. 21-cv-1792 (KMM/DJF), 2023 WL 359600 (D. Minn. 2023, January 23).
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013).
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983).
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966).
Hrubec v. United States, 734 F. Supp. 60 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).
Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (2020).
Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009).
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996).
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959).
State v. Robinette, 653 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1995).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
United States v. Contreras-Cebalos, 999 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002).
United States v. Lyons, 706 F.2d 321 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
United States v. Paul, 808 F.2d 645 (7th Cir. 1986).
United States v. Raines, 536 F.2d 796 (8th Cir. 1976).
United States v. Robinson, 720 F.2d 18 (8th Cir. 1983).
United States v. Salter, 815 F.2d 1150 (7th Cir. 1987).
United States v. Scherer, 673 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Shigemura, 682 F.2d 699 (8th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Spivey, 861 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2017), cert denied. 138 S. Ct. 2620 (June 11, 2018).
United States v. Syler, 430 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1970).
United States v. Wright, 641 F.2d 602 (8th Cir. 1981).
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
MacLean, C.E., Densley, J.A. (2023). Court-Approved Police Deception in Obtaining Consent to Search. In: Police, Prosecutors, Courts, and the Constitution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39082-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39082-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-39081-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-39082-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)