The U.S. Supreme Court has crafted a number of judicially [judge made] recognized exceptions to the legal requirement to obtain a warrant based on balancing a citizen’s right to privacy against the state's legitimate goal to prevent crime and enforce the law. The exceptions to the warrant requirement are called “warrantless” searches and seizures, and some exceptions dispense with the probable cause or reasonable suspicion requirements, such as drug interdiction sweeps on public conveyances like buses, trains, and airport luggage storage areas or roadblocks to catch drivers who are intoxicated. Consent must be voluntary to be legal and is not to be confused with submission to authority where officers imply they have a warrant on the way and it is futile for the suspect to resist (pp. 227–228). Cotenants have a right to refuse consent to search, but if the objecting tenant leaves the premises, the “no” travels with him (pp. 228–229); probationers have no right to refuse consent to search (p. 229); search incident to arrest is covered (pp. 229–230) including in automobiles (pp. 230–231) an inventory search (pp. 231–232); searches of closed containers dependent on where found (pp. 232–233); dog sniffs, common enterprise and driving checkpoints (pp. 233–235), the Maryland v. Buie (1990) case excerpt which establishes, contrary to popular belief, officers need specific and articulable facts there are armed people on the premises to conduct a protective sweep (taken as a given in some drug investigations) (pp. 235–237); plain view and open fields (p. 237). Plain feel is explained with the Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) excerpt; the High Court held a man who surely had crack cocaine in his pocket was unlawfully searched when officers had to manipulate the rock of crack to determine its identity before removing it from the suspect’s pocket (pp. 238–240); hot pursuit (p. 240), exigent circumstances and the distinction between Breathalyzer (no warrant) but warrant required for blood in driving under the influence cases (pp. 241–242). Making the Courtroom Connection explains for students how the burden of proof works in court when a suspect claims government misconduct in a pretrial motion where courts allow suspects to testify freely about police misconduct in conducting searches, seizures, arrests, and interrogations. Should the suspect become a defendant at trial, his pretrial testimony cannot be used against him. The freedom to testify at a pretrial hearing, for example, if a defendant testified, “Yes, I was dealing drugs but officers beat me until I confessed.”
Also discussed are body cavity searches and DNA collection (pp. 243–244); special needs searches such as drug testing in schools (pp. 244–245); and for government employees (p. 245); airports and subways (p. 246); border searches with the case excerpt of U.S. v. Cotterman (2013) where images of child pornography held lawfully seized by border agents and searched (at a facility hundreds of miles away) the laptop of a man known for crimes against children (pp. 246–248). A more thorough analysis of the exclusionary rule and good faith exception, particularly with mistakes about the law supporting an arrest, whether probable cause exists to arrest and mistakes in databases leading to an arrest (pp. 249–252).