Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Article Reviews

Eligon, J. (2011). Police sergeant to get jail term for perjury and illegal searches. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/nyregion/nyc-police- sergeant-admits-illegal-searches-and-perjury.html

This article highlights the problem of officers conducting illegal searches when they strongly suspect a suspect is guilty, even though they have no legally valid form of probable cause or a warrant to conduct such a search. These types of egregious actions are a source of mistrust and friction between members of the police force and the public. The officer’s lawyer, in an appeal for clemency, stated that the offending officer never arrested anyone who had not committed a crime after he had conducted further investigation and found incriminating evidence. Still, the officer’s actions call into question the constitutional protections accorded to suspects and the fact that the officer was able to get away with his actions for so long demonstrates the difficulty of contesting the word of an officer in a court of law.

Greenhouse, L. (2014). The Supreme Court Justices have cellphones, too. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/opinion/linda-greenhouse- the-supreme-court-justices-have-cellphones-too.html

This article suggests that while the US Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the law, their own personal biases and experiences may influence them. Author Greenhouse (2014) notes that one reason the Court may have drawn the line permitting luggage to be squeezed without probable cause is that as passengers they may have found such practices personally distasteful and intrusive—and thus were motivated to see such actions as a violation against the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Similarly, a ban against the warrantless search of cellphones was found to be overly intrusive, given that the justices likely have such devices themselves. However, Greenhouse also suggests that interactions with police more common to persons of color, such as that of a man who ran away from the sight of police cars in broad daylight are less apt to be viewed as benign given that they do not conform to the justices’ framework of personal experiences. Legal ideology is inevitably affected by the personal perspective of the justices. The ability to empathize with the situation affects legal interpretations.

Liptak, A. (2011). Judges allow search if police hear evidence being destroyed. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

According to an 8-1 US Supreme Court decision, police may enter a home if they have convincing evidence that evidence is being destroyed; in the case of this particular decision the officers were alerted by the smell of burning marijuana. While supporters of the action saw it as not a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, Ruth Bader Ginsberg worried that this would give the police a new tool to lie and wait, looking for an excuse to enter a home without consulting with a judge and obtaining a warrant as the law required. The case arose as a result of an incident in which a police officer accidentally entered an apartment in pursuit of a criminal suspected of drug offenses; however, the inhabitants were still smoking marijuana which the officer could smell from the exterior of the apartment door. Justice Alito ruled that warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence was a reasonable action on the part of law enforcement. The ruling of exigent circumstances or an emergency that waived the warrant requirement was not applicable in this particular case.