Kaupp v. Texas: breathing life into the Fourth Amendment.

• Author: Robinson, Denise

1. INTRODUCTION

   In Kaupp v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment was violated when police officers, without probable cause, went to Robert Kaupp's house in the middle of the night, awakened him, handcuffed him, and brought him to the police station for questioning. (1) The Court found that a reasonable person in Kaupp's position would not have believed he was free to leave, or otherwise terminate the police encounter. (2) Thus, based on the record before the Court, the Court would have suppressed a confession made as a result of this illegal seizure, thereby reaffirming Fourth Amendment jurisprudence protecting citizens from unreasonable search or seizure. (3)

   This Note argues that the Supreme Court correctly decided Kaupp v. Texas. The circumstances surrounding Kaupp's seizure and subsequent confession exceed the boundaries set by the Supreme Court of a reasonable seizure. While the Fourth Amendment applies to both searches and seizures, this Note will focus on seizures only. This Note first examines the history of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and some recent developments in the Supreme Court's interpretation of seizures. Using these standards, this Note will argue that the Court's finding that a seizure occurred was correct, and the Court properly concluded that Kaupp's confession should have been suppressed because a blatant Fourth Amendment violation had occurred. Finally, this Note will discuss how the Kaupp decision has affected lower courts' Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

2. BACKGROUND

   1. THE MAKING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

      The Fourth Amendment was the colonists' response to the unlimited intrusions by the British government into their privacy in the 1700s. (4) Using a Writ of Assistance, British customs officials were able to enter any home and search the premises for evidence of customs violations. (5) These officials did not need "to have particularized suspicions about any person or place before searching, nor were they required to justify their actions to any authority after the search." (6) The Framers found these unchecked governmental actions by the British unacceptable. (7) To ensure that their new government would not have this type of arbitrary power, and to protect against the recurrence of these unchecked governmental actions, the Framers included the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, granting the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. (8) The Fourth Amendment provides:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, hall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (9) B. REMEDIES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

      The Supreme Court has interpreted the purpose of the Fourth Amendment in preventing unreasonable seizures not as doing away with all police contact with the citizenry, but as prohibiting arbitrary police interference into a citizen's privacy and personal security. (10) If a Fourth Amendment violation occurs, the person subjected to the unreasonable search or seizure is entitled to a remedy. Historically, the remedy existed in the world of tort, and any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure was still admissible. (11) Other remedies were also available, including bringing an action for civil trespass. (12)

      The exclusionary rule, which suppresses evidence unlawfully obtained, began with Boyd v. United States (13) and was the result of the Court's rule-blending--the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of illegal seizures and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of compelled self-incrimination. (14) In Boyd, the Court held that illegally seized evidence could not be used in a criminal trial. (15) While later Courts did not accept this fusion of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the exclusionary rule remained as a remedy to a Fourth Amendment violation. (16) Courts, however, are sometimes hesitant to use this rule in cases where the evidence illegally obtained is "inherently trustworthy." (17)

   3. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TODAY

      The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule continue to serve legitimate purposes today. To allow police officers or other government officials to conduct searches and seizures at their own discretion would result in the arbitrary and unjustified intrusions that the Framers feared. (18) The exclusionary rule also serves to preserve judicial integrity and to deter illegal police activity. (19) By keeping evidence obtained as a result of a constitutional violation out of the courtroom, the integrity of the courts will not be harmed. (20) Further, assuming police officers desire criminal convictions, if they know that any unconstitutional activity that occurs while acquiring evidence prevents that evidence from reaching the courtroom, then they will be less likely to commit these constitutional violations. (21) The following cases serve to illustrate the evolution of Fourth Amendment law and the suppression of resulting confessions as related to unreasonable seizures.

      1. Determining Whether a Seizure of a Person is Unlawful

         The Supreme Court has looked to various factors to determine whether an illegal, or unreasonable, seizure has occurred. The Court has balanced several considerations, such as probable cause, the location of the arrest, and whether one would feel free to leave the police encounter, in order to determine whether a seizure was reasonable. Further, the Court has considered whether the situation also requires the balancing of exigent circumstances such that an otherwise unreasonable seizure should be deemed reasonable. Examples of circumstances the Court has recognized as exigent include being under life-threatening circumstances, being in hot pursuit of a suspect by the police, and having the need to preserve evidence. (22)

         1. Requirement of Probable Cause

            In order for a police officer to seize a person without violating the Fourth Amendment, the officer must have probable cause. "For there to be probable cause, the facts must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable man." (23) To make such a determination, courts should consider the detaining officer's expertise and experience. (24) Detaining a person without probable cause for a custodial interrogation "intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest." (25)

            The analysis of probable cause involves considering the totality of the circumstances. (26) In Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court recognized that in the past it had allowed a warrantless arrest where police relied on an informant's tip that was reasonably corroborated through the police's own work. (27) The Court looked to the veracity, reliability of the informant as well as the informant's basis of knowledge to determine whether or not probable cause was present, (28) The presence of probable cause would indicate that a search or seizure was reasonable. (29) The Court favored the totality of the circumstances test because it was consistent with the process of obtaining a warrant. (30)

            In Dunaway v. New York, the Supreme Court found a Fourth Amendment violation where probable cause did not support the defendant's detention. (31) In Dunaway, police officers could not get a warrant to arrest the defendant. (32) Nevertheless, the officers located him, took him into custody, and brought him to the police station for questioning about a recent murder. (33) The officers did not tell Dunaway that he was under arrest, but would have physically restrained him if he had tried to leave. (34) He was given his Miranda warnings after being put in an interrogation room. (35) After questioning, he made some incriminating statements and sketches. (36) The Supreme Court, in deciding Dunaway, made an effort to point out the special circumstances that led to the departure from traditional Fourth Amendment analysis articulated in Terry v. Ohio as the stop-and-frisk exception. (37) In Terry, the Court allowed a police officer to stop a suspect and frisk him for weapons with only reasonable suspicion and no probable cause. (38) In a stop-and-frisk situation like the one in Terry, the Court felt that the degree of police intrusion was a great deal less severe than the degree of police intrusion associated with a traditional arrest. (39) Thus, the Court did not deem the stop-and-frisk an arrest and did not require a showing of probable cause for such an encounter. (40) The Court recognized that a seizure occurs "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away" and that such a seizure "may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment" on the person being seized. (41) However, in determining the reasonableness of a seizure, the Court balanced the need for the governmental intrusion against the suspect's privacy rights. (42) In the case of a stop-and-frisk, the governmental interests of preventing and detecting crime outweighed the limited privacy invasion of the suspect. (43) Therefore, in Terry, the officer's seizure of the suspect was reasonable as long as he had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed. (44) The Court in Dunaway held that, unlike the stop-and-frisk situation of Terry, Dunaway's detention was a traditional arrest. (45) Thus, probable cause was required and its absence indicated that the Fourth Amendment had been violated. (46)

            In some cases, a warrant is not necessary if both probable cause and exigent circumstances are present at the time of the seizure. (47) Courts have found such a seizure reasonable even though the police did not have a warrant. (48) In Illinois v. McArthur, the Supreme Court held that where probable cause existed, the police did not violate the...