EveryBody's Guide to the Law

for speeding, gave him a verbal warning, and returned his driver’s license. The deputy then
asked whether he was carrying any illegal contraband, weapons, or drugs in his car. The defendant
answered “No” and consented to a search of the car, which revealed a small amount of
marijuana and a pill that turned out to be methamphetamine. The defendant sought to have
the drugs excluded from the trial on the basis that, when he returned his driver’s license, the
officer should have informed him that he was “legally free to go.” The Supreme Court held
that the fourth amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant be advised that
he is “free to go” before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. Rather, the high
court stated that the question was one of reasonableness, noting that it would be unrealistic to
require police officers to always inform detainees that they are free to go before consent to
search may be deemed voluntary. The Supreme Court concluded that the fourth amendment
test for a valid consent to search is that the consent must be voluntary, and voluntariness is a
question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.
Suppose a city sets up random checkpoints to search vehicles for illegal aliens, drunk drivers,
to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations, or to search for drugs. Is that legal? All but the
checkpoints to search for drugs are legal, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court expressly has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes
of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court
also has suggested that a similar type of roadblock with the purpose of verifying drivers’
licenses and vehicle registrations would be permissible. However, the Supreme Court has held
that a checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal
narcotics violates the fourth amendment. The reason the Supreme Court makes the distinction
is that the search for drugs is not distinct from a general purpose of investigating crime.
When Can the Police Enter and Search a House?
The police almost always need a warrant to enter and search a house. (A mobile home that is
fixed to the ground is considered a “house,” since, unlike a motor home, it cannot be moved
readily.) One time the police do not need a search warrant to enter a house is when they are in
hot pursuit of a dangerous suspect, and there is reason to believe that the suspect is inside the
house. Once inside, the police can search anyone who could be a threat to them. If, while lawfully
inside the house, the police spot drugs, illegal weapons, or contraband from a burglary, it
is admissible in court.
Consider the following example: Responding to a call reporting an armed burglary at a
liquor store, the police arrive in time to see a man fleeing from the store with a gun in one
hand and a paper sack in the other. The suspect gets into a car and takes off, with the police
right behind. The suspect stops in front of a house and runs inside, followed by the police.
When they enter the house, the police officers see several guns and some packets that contain
a white substance on the coffee table. The suspect is found hiding in the upstairs bathroom
Crimes and Criminal Justice 563