Do Clothing Pat-Downs Violate The Fourth Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of everyone to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. This has raised questions about the legality of pat-down searches, where an officer pats down the outer surfaces of an individual's clothing to detect weapons. Courts consider various factors when determining the legality of pat-down searches, including the evidence for the search, the item being sought, and the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. While pat-down searches are generally considered searches under the Fourth Amendment, they may be justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. However, the legality of pat-downs in schools is less clear, with successful challenges often involving groping or suspicionless searches that involve removing clothing.

Explore related products

The Fourth Amendment Handbook, Fourth Edition

$96

The Fourth Amendment in an Age of Surveillance

$33.24 $37

The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation

$160

The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning 602 - 1791

$262 $295

The Fourth Amendment in Flux: The Roberts Court, Crime Control, and Digital Privacy

$24.99 $29.99

Making Sense of Search and Seizure Law: A Fourth Amendment Handbook

$63.25 $115

The Fourth Amendment's 'unreasonable searches and seizures' clause

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that government institutions need a good reason to search or seize a person's belongings, and they must follow the proper procedure.

The Fourth Amendment applies to pat-down searches, which are considered a type of search under the Amendment. A pat-down search is when a police officer pats down the outer surfaces of a person's clothing to find weapons. These searches are usually conducted without a warrant and are justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. The reasonableness of the suspicion is reviewed based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer's subjective individual experience and objective factors at the time.

In the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court held that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that it cannot be unreasonable. A reasonable stop-and-frisk is one in which an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous.

Courts consider a variety of factors when determining whether a search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment, including the evidence for the search, the item being searched for, the nature of the search, and the person conducting the search. Objects obtained during a pat-down search must be immediately identifiable to be admissible as evidence. If an officer feels an object that may be a weapon, they may remove it.

The Fourth Amendment also applies to searches and seizures in schools. Courts have considered whether school searches violate the Amendment by examining factors such as the evidence for the search, the item being searched for, what is being searched, and who is conducting the search.

Pat-down searches without a warrant

The determination of "reasonable suspicion" is based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer's subjective individual experience and objective factors at the time. For example, if an officer observes suspicious behaviour, such as an individual repeatedly peering into a shop window and appearing nervous, they may suspect a robbery is being planned and conduct a pat-down search if they reasonably believe the person might be armed. Similarly, if an officer encounters an individual in an area known for drug trafficking exhibiting behaviour consistent with past criminal behaviour, they may conduct a pat-down search if they suspect the person may be armed.

However, it is important to note that an officer's mere hunch is not sufficient to meet the reasonable suspicion standard. The suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts. Additionally, the scope of the pat-down search is limited to ensuring the officer's safety. Officers are typically restricted to a brief frisk of the outer clothing and are not permitted to search pockets or personal items without further justification. If an officer exceeds the scope of the frisk, the search may be deemed unconstitutional, and any evidence obtained may be suppressed in court.

In terms of evidence obtained during a pat-down search, objects felt during the search must be immediately identifiable as weapons or contraband to be admissible in court. For example, in State v. Trine (1995), the court held that an officer could not seize contraband from a suspect's clothing during a pat-down search without a warrant, and such evidence would be inadmissible in a criminal case. On the other hand, in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), the court held that the Fourth Amendment permits officers to seize contraband without a warrant during a pat-down search if its identity is immediately apparent through the officer's sense of touch.

Pat-downs in schools

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Pat-downs in schools have been challenged by students and their families, leading to court cases that allege excessive force, racial profiling, or violation of privacy rights. Schools must balance the need for a safe environment with protecting students' constitutional rights.

Courts have generally upheld schools' authority to conduct reasonable pat-down searches. However, schools must follow strict guidelines to avoid legal challenges and ensure students' rights are not violated. For instance, the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals emphasises the importance of reasonable suspicion and limiting suspicionless searches to areas with reduced privacy expectations, such as lockers. They also recommend same-gender pat-downs to minimise potential embarrassment or trauma and advise conducting searches with sensitivity and respect for students' dignity.

To be considered reasonable, pat-down searches in schools should be based on specific, articulable facts and conducted in a minimally intrusive manner focusing on areas where contraband may be concealed. Factors such as the student's age, gender, and the nature of the suspected contraband are considered when determining the reasonableness of the search. Schools should document the basis for any search and follow established procedures to mitigate the risk of legal action.

In some cases, courts have ruled that pat-down searches in schools violated students' Fourth Amendment rights. For example, in Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools, a female student sued, claiming that a security officer violated her rights by cupping her breasts and touching her legs during a routine search. The federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, indicating that the pat-down search was likely too intrusive. Similarly, in Hough v. Shakopee Public Schools, a federal court held that daily searches of all special education students, which included pat-downs, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the students.

Explore related products

Search and Seizure, the Police Officer Patrolling within the Fourth Amendment

$67.97

Smart Surveillance: How to Interpret the Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century

$43 $124

More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century (Inalienable Rights)

$17 $31.49

Group Shot Boat Search Silhouette Women's Crop Top

$22.99

Womens Sherpa Fleece Jacket - Heavyweight Waffle Knit Hoodies for Women Warm Thermal Zip Up Womens Sweatshirt

$29.99

Ghillie Suit 3D Leafy Hunting Suits, Outdoor Hooded Camouflage Clothing for Man, Gilly Camo Suit with Jacket & Pants

$25.88

Evidence obtained during pat-downs

A pat-down search is defined as "a 'frisk' or external feeling of the outer garments of an individual for weapons only". The purpose of a pat-down search is to ensure the officer's safety, and the conduct should not exceed what is necessary to serve that purpose.

Pat-down searches, incident to investigatory stops, are usually made without a warrant and are justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. The reasonableness of suspicion is reviewed based on the totality of circumstances, including the subjective individual experience of the officer and the objective factors at the time. For example, in Rogue v. State, the court found that because the police lacked specific information about a vehicle passenger during a valid traffic stop, the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion that the passenger was armed and dangerous; therefore, the pat-down search of the passenger was not justified.

Objects obtained during a pat-down search should be immediately identifiable to be admissible as evidence. If, during a pat-down, the officer feels an object that they reasonably suspect may be a weapon by its contour, the officer may reach for and remove the object. The officer may also seize objects during a legitimate pat-down search if they reasonably believe it to be contraband by plain feel. Under certain circumstances, pat-down searches for weapons may be conducted without reasonable suspicion.

In the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to seize, without a warrant, contraband detected by an officer's sense of touch during a legal pat-down search of a suspect for weapons. This contraband can be used as evidence in the suspect's criminal prosecution. However, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that the state constitution does not permit an officer to seize, without a search warrant, contraband from a suspect's clothing based on the officer's sense of touch during a legal pat-down search for weapons. Thus, the evidence seized in such a manner could not be used against the defendant.

The 'plain feel' doctrine

Outer clothing pat-downs do constitute Fourth Amendment searches. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, under certain doctrines and circumstances, law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct pat-down searches without a warrant. This is often referred to as a "stop and frisk" or a "Terry Stop", derived from the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio (1968).

The plain feel doctrine is an important concept related to the Fourth Amendment and pat-down searches. This doctrine allows officers to seize objects that they reasonably believe to be contraband or weapons during a legitimate pat-down search. For example, if an officer feels an object with their hands and reasonably suspects, based on its contour or shape, that it may be a weapon, they are authorised to remove it. Similarly, if an officer feels an object and reasonably believes it to be contraband, they may seize it under the plain feel doctrine.

The plain feel doctrine is an extension of the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence or contraband that is in plain view during a lawful observation. The plain view doctrine was first articulated in Coolidge v. New Hampshire and was further clarified in Horton v. California, where the requirement for the discovery of evidence in plain view to be inadvertent was eliminated. Both the plain view and plain feel doctrines emphasise the importance of immediate apparent incriminating character for an officer to seize an object without a warrant.

It is worth noting that the plain feel doctrine does not eliminate the requirement for probable cause. Investigators must still possess evidence to meet this requirement, even if they are exempt from obtaining a warrant. Additionally, the doctrine only authorises the seizure of contraband or evidence and does not permit further searches or investigations based solely on the plain feel discovery.

In conclusion, the plain feel doctrine provides law enforcement officers with the authority to seize objects felt during a legitimate pat-down search if they have a reasonable suspicion that the objects are weapons or contraband. This doctrine is an important tool for ensuring officer safety and facilitating the lawful seizure of evidence during searches conducted within the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.

Frequently asked questions