Reference no: EM133770102

Case: The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", guaranteeing the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".1 Seeking a search warrant is a cumbersome and sometimes lengthy process. Consent searches are an immediate and less formal option. However, the Supreme Court has maintained that consent must be voluntary and without coercion.2

In this example, Dave was coerced into allowing the officer to search his house. The officer threatened to obtain a warrant if Dave refused the search. This was an intimidation tactic on the part of the officer, which is impermissible.3 Thus, he cannot be considered to have given consent voluntarily.4

Since consent cannot now be established, the encounter with the officer became a "seizure" and Dave's Fourth Amendment rights were violated.5 Furthermore, the mere rumor that Dave was selling illegal drugs does not justify a seizure. Accordingly, the drugs that were found are not admissible at trial.

Mary ann
I could see this being a very good argument between the defense and prosecuting attorney. The defense could argue the search was illegal due to being intimidated by the police officer and Dave felt pressured to agree to the search of his home. However, the prosecutor could argue that the officer was not "intimidating" Dave, he was just letting him know his next steps if Dave did not give consent. It would be up to the court to decide whether or not Dave was coerced, and fully understood the conversation between him and the officer, because things such as intelligence and age are taken into consideration. If the court finds the search lawful, then the drugs will be admissible in court. If the court finds the search unlawful, the drugs are inadmissible. Personally, I think the defense has a better case for the courts.