You can Judge a container by its cover: The single-purpose container exception and the fourth amendment

University of Chicago Law Review

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1809-1835

  Lucier, Allison M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950495045     PISSN: 00419494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (168)

1. US Const Amend IV.
2. Robbins v California, 453 US 420,438 (1981)
3. (Rehnquist dissenting), overruled on other grounds by United States v Ross, 456 US 798 (1982).
4. Katz v United States, 389 US 347, 357 (1967).
5. See United States v Jacobsen, 466 US 109, 113 (1984) ("A 'search' occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. A 'seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.").
6. See Katz, 389 US at 350-351
7. -389 US 347 (1967).
8. See California v Greenwood, 486 US 35, 39 (1988) (noting that "warrantless search and seizure ... would violate the Fourth Amendment only if respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy ... that society accepts as objectively reasonable").
9. See also Minnesota v Carter, 525 US 83, 97 (1998) (Scalia concurring) (noting that the "benchmark" Katz test "has come to mean the test enunciated by Justice [John Marshall] Harlan's separate concurrence in Katz"). It should also be noted that the subjective prong of the Katz formulation has faded away, since the defendant can always claim that he had a subjective expectation of privacy.
10. See, for example, Nickolas J. Bohl, Note, Unsheathing a Sharp Sword: Why National Security Letters are Permissible under the Fourth Amendment, 86 BU L Rev 443, 459 (2006).
11. See Katz, 389 US at 361.
12. Illinois v McArthur, 531 US 326, 331 (2001).
13. See, for example, Katz, 389 US at 357.
14. McArthur, 531 US at 330.
15. See, for example, Pennsylvania v Labron, 518 US 938, 940-41 (1996) (allowing a warrantless search of an automobile);
16. Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968) (permitting a warrantless search based on reasonable suspicion during a temporary stop);
17. Ker v California, 374 US 23, 40 (1963) (upholding a warrantless seizure to prevent imminent destruction of evidence).
18. See Horton v California, 496 US 128, 135 (1990) (discussing the scope and the limits of the plain view doctrine).
19. United States v Eschweiler, 745 F2d 435, 440 (7th Cir 1984).
20. Compare United States v Gust, 405 F3d 797, 803 (9th Cir 2005) (holding that "courts should assess the nature of a container primarily with reference to general social norms rather than solely ... by the experience and expertise of law enforcement officers")
21. (quotation marks omitted) with United States v Williams, 41 F3d 192, 196-197 (4th Cir 1994) (holding that a detective's experience could be used in assessing the character of a container).
22. Texas v Brown, 460 US 730, 738 (1983),
23. quoting Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 586-87 (1980).
24. Horton, 496 US at 133.
25. See Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321, 327 (1987).
26. Illinois v Andreas, 463 US 765, 770 (1983) (holding that a container that had been previously seized by a customs agent could lawfully be reseized by law enforcement officers).
27. Hicks, 480 US at 325.
28. See also Andreas, 463 US at 773;
29. Walter v United States, 447 US 649, 656 (1980) (holding that the officers overstepped the bounds of the plain view exception by viewing the film found inside a sealed container when the third party had only opened the container to reveal the film).
30. Horton, 496 US at 136-137 (quotation marks omitted).
31. Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466 (1971).
32. Id.
33. Horton, 496 US at 137.
34. Brown, 460 US at 738-739
35. For some examples of these exigent circumstances and legitimate reasons, see Payton, 445 US at 587 (holding that under the Fourth Amendment an officer may need no justification to access an item left in a public place);
36. Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499, 509 (1978) (holding that a burning building is a sufficiently exigent circumstance to support warrantless entry and the subsequent seizure of evidence found in plain view);
37. Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294, 310 (1967) (Fortas concurring) (holding that evidence found while in "hot pursuit" of the suspect did not violate the Fourth Amendment).
38. -403 US 443 (1971).
39. Id at 467.
40. Id at 468, 515.
41. Horton, 496 US at 137.
42. -403 US at 448.
43. Id at 472-473
44. -496 US 128 (1990).
45. Id at 137 ("Justice Harlan's vote in Coolidge may have rested on the fact that the seizure of the cars was accomplished by means of a warrantless trespass on the defendant's property.").
46. -403 US at 471.
47. -496 US at 138.
48. See id at 138-139
49. -480 US 321 (1987).
50. Id at 326.
51. Id at 327.
52. Orneias v United States, 517 US 690, 695 (1996),
53. quoting Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 231 (1983).
54. Brown, 460 US at 742,
55. quoting Carroll v United States, 267 US 132, 162 (1925).
56. Brown, 460 US at 742. ("A 'practical, nontechnical' probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.").
57. GaWi, 462 US at 231 (noting that probable cause is a difficult standard to define, and relies upon a common sense assessment based on the experience of an officer).
58. Ornelas, 517 US at 690.
59. -460 US 730 (1983).
60. Id at 733-735
61. Id.
62. Id at 743. See also Washington v Chrisman, 455 US 1, 4 (1982) (emphasizing the officer's "training and experience" in upholding the plain view seizure).
63. Brown, 460 US at 746 (Powell concurring).
64. Robbins, 453 US at 426 ("Once placed within such a container, a diary and a dishpan are equally protected by the Fourth Amendment.").
65. Id at 428.
66. overruled on other grounds by California v Acevedo, 500 US 565 (1991).
67. Sanders, 442 US at 764 n 13.
68. -453 US 420 (1981),
69. overruled on other grounds by Ross, 456 US at 798.
70. Robbins, 453 US at 427.
71. Id at 428.
72. Brown, 460 US at 743.
73. Id (emphasis added).
74. See, for example, United States v Banks, 514 F3d 769, 775 (8th Cir 2008);
75. United States v Meada, 408 F3d 14, 23 (1st Cir 2005).
76. See Acevedo, 500 US at 577 (overruling Sanders because "the Fourth Amendment does not compel separate treatment for an automobile search that extends only to a container within the vehicle");
77. Ross, 456 US at 824:
78. The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile thus is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.
79. See, for example, United States v Donnes, 947 F2d 1430, 1437 (10th Cir 1991) (noting that while Sanders and Robbins were overruled because they involved the searches of automobiles, the reasoning behind the cases remains compelling).
80. See, for example, id at 1438 (declining to extend the plain view container exception to a camera lens case).
81. See, for example, Banks, 514 F3d at 775 (holding that a gun case labeled "Phoenix Arms" "is obviously a gun case");
82. Meada, 408 F3d at 23 (holding that a search of a gun case labeled "Gun Guard" was constitutional under the single-purpose container exception);
83. Eschweiler, 745
84. F2d at 440 (holding that a warrantless search of an envelope containing the key to a safe-deposit box and labeled as such was constitutional).
85. Eschweiler, 745 F2d at 440.
86. Meada, 408 F3d at 24.
87. -408 F3d 14 (1st Cir 2005).
88. Id at 24.
89. Id.
90. -963 F2d 770 (5th Cir 1992).
91. Id at 776.
92. Id.
93. Compare United States v Gust, 405 F3d 797, 803 (9th Cir 2005) (holding that "courts should assess the nature of a container primarily with reference to general social norms rather than solely ... by the experience and expertise of law enforcement officers")
94. (quotation marks omitted), quoting United States v Miller, 769 F2d 554, 560 (9th Cir 1985)
95. with United. States v Williams, 41 F3d 192, 196-197 (4th Cir 1994) (holding that a detective's experience could be used in assessing the character of a container).
96. -769 F2d 554 (9th Cir 1985).
97. Id at 560.
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. Miller, 769 F2d at 559.
101. Id at 560.
102. Id.
103. See id at 559 ("The defendant in Brown challenged only the seizure ... and the Supreme Court addressed only the seizure issue .... Consequently, we do not apply the Brown rule here").
104. Id.
105. Miller, 769 F2d at 560.
106. Id. quoting Wayne R. LaFave, 2 Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 7.2(e) at 245 (Supp 1978 & 1985 Pocket Part).
107. -405 F3d 797 (9th Cir 2005).
108. Id at 802.
109. Id (quotation marks omitted).
110. Id.
111. See United States v Donnes, 947 F2d 1430,1438 (10th Cir 1991);
112. United States v Bonitz, 826 F2d 954,957 (10th Cir 1987).
113. -826 F2d 954 (10th Cir 1987).
114. Id at 955.
115. Id at 955-956
116. Id at 957.
117. Bonitz, 826 F2d at 956.
118. Id at 958 ("Deeply troubled by police searches of homes and offices, and realizing the inherent temptations and persistent dangers of abuse, the Founding Fathers placed the fourth amendment into the Constitution.").
119. -947 F2d 1430 (10th Cir 1991).
120. Id at 1433-1434
121. Id at 1438.
122. Id.
123. -41 F3d 192 (4th Cir 1994).
124. Id at 197 (quotation marks omitted).
125. Id at 194 (describing how a baggage service agent found the packages after opening a suitcase to match its contents with the contents described in a lost baggage report).
126. Williams, 41 F3d at 195.
127. Id at 198.
128. Id at 197-198
129. Id at 197.
130. Williams, 41 F3d at 198.
131. -460 US at 751 (Stevens concurring).
132. Id.
133. See United States v Tejada, 524 F3d 809,813 (7th Cir 2008).
134. See United States v Cardona-Rivera, 904 F2d 1149, 1156 (7th Cir 1990) (holding that while the "kilo brick of cocaine wrapped in plain brown paper fastened with tape is not as revealing of its contents as the examples [of a single-purpose container] we have given," the defendant's answer that cocaine was inside of the package "stripped the cloak of secrecy from the package").
135. Id at 1155 (emphasis added).
136. McArthur, 531 US at 331.
137. Sanders, 442 US at 764 n 13.
138. -389 US at 361 (Harlan concurring).
139. Williams, 41 F3d at 198.
140. Sanders, 442 US at 764 n 13.
141. -389 US at 361 (Harlan concurring).
142. See, for example, Florida v Riley, 488 US 445, 450 (1989) (holding that because the airways were open to the general public, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backyard greenhouse);
143. California v Greenwood, 486 US 35, 40 (1988) (holding that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage bags, as their contents are "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, [and] snoops").
144. Riley, 488 US at 451 (noting that the officer "did no more" than any member of the public could have done).
145. -389 US at 351 (emphasis added).
146. -41 F3d at 198.
147. See Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 815 (1996) (responding to the petitioners' arguments that a reasonable officer would not have made a stop by noting that the reasonable officer standard is difficult to define because police enforcement practices vary by locale and time).
148. Consider id (noting that determinations of how a "reasonable officer" would act based on police manuals and standard procedures would be "reduced to speculations] about the hypothetical reaction of a hypothetical constable-an exercise that might be called virtual subjectivity").
149. McDonald v United States, 335 US 451,456 (1948).
150. United States v Prandy-Binett, 995 F2d 1069,1074 (DC Cir 1993) (Edwards dissenting).
151. See, for example, Florida v White, 526 US 559,570 (1999) (Stevens dissenting).
152. -995 F2d 1069 (DC Cir 1993).
153. Id at 1071 (Edwards dissenting).
154. Id.
155. Brown, 460 US at 733-735
156. Id at 743.
157. See, for example, Williams, 41 F3d at 197.
158. -460 US at 734.
159. See Meada, 408 F3d at 24 (explaining that a search of a gun case was justified because the case reasonably appeared to contain a gun).
160. Consider Brown, 460 US at 734 (describing the officer's previous experience with how narcotics are packaged).
161. -41 F3d at 195.
162. Id.
163. Id at 198.
164. Miller, 769 F2d at 560.
165. Brown, 460 US at 751 n 5 (Stevens concurring) (using the example that a visible white powder may less clearly reveal drugs than a balloon filled with an invisible substance).
166. United States v Dunn, 480 US 294, 304 (1987) (holding that a barn sixty yards from a house was not within the curtilage).
167. Greenwood, 486 US at 37 (holding that under the third party doctrine, privacy is lost when information is exposed to any third party).
168. Donnes, 947 F2d at 1438.