Eva Lilienfeld & Kimberly Veklerov

Permission to Destroy: How a Historical Understanding of Property Rights can Reign in Consent Searches

Consent searches are by far the most common tool to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Though police officers have the property owner’s permission, the searches they conduct are not always harmless. Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, consent searches have justified officers’ destruction of car parts, electronics, and shoes. Are officers allowed to damage property after receiving consent to search a person’s belongings? In some jurisdictions, a consent search becomes unreasonable when officers destroy property, entitling the owner to money damages in civil litigation or the exclusion of evidence in criminal prosecutions. In other jurisdictions, an owner’s consent means she has forfeited the right to have her property stay intact. This Note’s first contribution is identifying and examining this consequential circuit split.

To resolve Fourth Amendment ambiguities, the Supreme Court has increasingly turned to the common law in place at the Founding. The mishandling and destruction of colonists’ personal property by British soldiers acting pursuant to general warrants and writs of assistance helped to spur the Revolutionary War. This Note’s second contribution applies Founding-era evidence to consent search doctrine. By drawing on colonial records, this Note offers an originalist argument for restraining consent searches.

Introduction

Just before daybreak on March 31, 2011, ten law enforcement officials arrived at the Chicago apartment where Jai Crutcher and Christopher Colbert, brothers by adoption, lived with their families.1 1.Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2017); id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).Show More The officers told Crutcher they were there to conduct a parole check, and Crutcher consented to the search.2 2.Id. at 652 & n.1 (majority opinion) (“The terms of Crutcher’s release required him to ‘refrain from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon,’ ‘consent to a search of [his] person, property, or residence under [his] control,’ and ‘comply with any additional conditions the Prisoner Review Board has or may set as a condition of [his] parole or mandatory supervised release including, but not limited to: ELECTRONIC MONITORING FOR DURATION.’” (alterations in original)).Show More As the police moved through the house, their search quickly turned destructive. In testimony that Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit called “disturbing,” the brothers described “the fright of their children as officers broke holes in the walls, cut open a couch, [and] tore doors off of cabinets.”3 3.Id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part). Both the majority and dissenting opinions recounted the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs because the case was on appeal from a grant of summary judgment for the defendants. Id. at 654 (majority opinion); id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part). Therefore, the account of property damage recited here came from the plaintiffs’ perspective. In the officers’ depositions, they “claimed they did not remember many of the events of March 31, 2011.” Id. at 662.Show More In total, the officers damaged, dismantled, or destroyed: a weight bench, clothing, the basement door, the stairs, bedroom dressers, an electronic tablet, a stereo, a television, photographs of Crutcher’s grandmother, wall insulation, a kitchen countertop, and shelf hinges.4 4.Id. at 661, n.1 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part); id. at 652–53 (majority opinion).Show More The officers tracked dog feces through the house during their search.5 5.Id. at 652 (majority opinion).Show More One officer allegedly “unholstered his firearm and threatened to shoot Crutcher’s six-week-old puppy before leaving the dog outside, where it was lost.”6 6.Id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part).Show More Crutcher and Colbert subsequently brought a § 1983 civil rights suit against the City of Chicago and four individual officers for violating their Fourth Amendment rights.7 7.Id. at 653–54, 656 (majority opinion).Show More The district court dismissed the complaint, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the brothers were left to foot the bill.8 8.Id. at 654, 661. Most courts have held that harms like these do not violate the Takings Clause or related provisions of state constitutions, making this Note’s proposal all the more important. See Lech v. Jackson, 791 Fed. App’x. 711, 719 (10th Cir. 2019); see also Maureen E. Brady, The Damagings Clauses, 104 Va. L. Rev. 341, 394–95 (2018) (describing several instances in which the government compensated property owners for police-inflicted damage).Show More

Whether, or how, property damage should affect the reasonableness of a consent search has divided the lower courts. In some jurisdictions, property damage has no effect on the legality of a consent search or potential remedies. In other jurisdictions, when police damage property, a search that began with the owner’s permission becomes per se unreasonable. In still others, officers may damage property so long as they do not render it unusable. Drawing on Founding-era evidence and the common law, this Note argues that mishandling and destroying property during consent searches would have been anathema to the Constitution’s Framers. This Note is the first to use the Fourth Amendment’s history to answer whether consent searches are constitutional when they involve property damage. Academics and advocates have frequently attacked the lax “voluntariness” requirement of consent searches, and they rightly note that many individuals agree to invasive searches without knowing they have the right to refuse.9 9.See, e.g., James C. McGlinchy, Note, “Was that a Yes or a No?” Reviewing Voluntariness in Consent Searches, 104 Va. L. Rev. 301, 303 (2018); Gerard E. Lynch, Why Not a Miranda for Searches?, 5 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 233, 237, 245 (2007); Marcy Strauss, Reconstructing Consent, 92 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 211, 212 (2001); Oren Bar-Gill & Barry Friedman, Taking Warrants Seriously, 106 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1609, 1661–62 (2012).Show More But the scope of consent searches is just as important and is more likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court.10 10.While the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected a requirement that consent be given knowingly or intelligently, the Court has said relatively little about the scope of consent searches. See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973). In addition, Justices on the Court today often find government overreach when private property is concerned. See, e.g., Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2072 (2021) (holding that a California regulation giving union organizers access to farm workers constitutes a per se physical taking); Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (per curiam) (concluding that a federal eviction moratorium intruded on property owners’ right to exclude).Show More

Part I introduces consent searches, explaining their significance and situating them in Fourth Amendment doctrine. Part II describes how different circuits have addressed the question of property damage during consent searches and dissects their underlying reasoning. Part III uses Founding-era evidence to advocate limitations on consent searches. Part III also offers a workable test—one in accord with the primacy of property rights during the Founding—for identifying property damage that exceeds the scope of consent searches. Finally, Part IV anticipates and responds to objections.

  1. Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2017); id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). ↑
  2. Id. at 652 & n.1 (majority opinion) (“The terms of Crutcher’s release required him to ‘refrain from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon,’ ‘consent to a search of [his] person, property, or residence under [his] control,’ and ‘comply with any additional conditions the Prisoner Review Board has or may set as a condition of [his] parole or mandatory supervised release including, but not limited to: ELECTRONIC MONITORING FOR DURATION.’” (alterations in original)). ↑
  3. Id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part). Both the majority and dissenting opinions recounted the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs because the case was on appeal from a grant of summary judgment for the defendants. Id. at 654 (majority opinion); id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part). Therefore, the account of property damage recited here came from the plaintiffs’ perspective. In the officers’ depositions, they “claimed they did not remember many of the events of March 31, 2011.” Id. at 662. ↑
  4. Id. at 661, n.1 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part); id. at 652–53 (majority opinion). ↑
  5. Id. at 652 (majority opinion). ↑
  6. Id. at 661 (Hamilton, J., dissenting in part). ↑
  7. Id. at 653–54, 656 (majority opinion). ↑
  8. Id. at 654, 661. Most courts have held that harms like these do not violate the Takings Clause or related provisions of state constitutions, making this Note’s proposal all the more important. See Lech v. Jackson, 791 Fed. App’x. 711, 719 (10th Cir. 2019); see also Maureen E. Brady, The Damagings Clauses, 104 Va. L. Rev. 341, 394–95 (2018) (describing several instances in which the government compensated property owners for police-inflicted damage). ↑
  9. See, e.g., James C. McGlinchy, Note, “Was that a Yes or a No?” Reviewing Voluntariness in Consent Searches, 104 Va. L. Rev. 301, 303 (2018); Gerard E. Lynch, Why Not a Miranda for Searches?, 5 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 233, 237, 245 (2007); Marcy Strauss, Reconstructing Consent, 92 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 211, 212 (2001); Oren Bar-Gill & Barry Friedman, Taking Warrants Seriously, 106 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1609, 1661–62 (2012). ↑

  10. While the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected a requirement that consent be given knowingly or intelligently, the Court has said relatively little about the scope of consent searches. See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973). In addition, Justices on the Court today often find government overreach when private property is concerned. See, e.g., Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063, 2072 (2021) (holding that a California regulation giving union organizers access to farm workers constitutes a per se physical taking); Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021) (per curiam) (concluding that a federal eviction moratorium intruded on property owners’ right to exclude). ↑

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.