User:Seahawk01/Notes:Consent search
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: This is a workpage, a collection of material and work in progress that may or may not be incorporated into an article. It should not necessarily be considered factual or authoritative. |
States and Cities requiring written consent for searches[edit]
Please feel free to add or I will add later. See:
Washington[edit]
In State v. Ferrier - police need to inform of rights before searching homes. Does not apply to cars.
Columbia, Missouri[edit]
Sanderson, Shane (November 10, 2016). "Racial search disparities run deep, according to new analysis of Columbia police traffic stops". Columbia Missourian.
Sanderson, Shane (September 21, 2016). "Columbia police to begin using 'consent to search' form". Columbia Missourian.
Kendrick, Deborah (October 2, 2016). "Columbia Police officers are now using a 'consent to search' form". ABC 17 KMIZ.
Love, Don (March 5, 2018). "Columbia's approach to bias-free policing". Columbia Daily Tribune.
Asheville, NC[edit]
Burgess, Joel (May 22, 2018). "Police searches in Asheville to face new restrictions, including written consent". Citizen Times.
Burgess, Joel (May 24, 2018). "Asheville police search rules: The fight behind how the change in consent happened". Citizen Times.
Burgess, Joel (June 8, 2018). "Asheville police search limits draw national attention; ex-Ferguson prosecutor weighs in". Citizen Times.
NOTE: need to check for more updates...are limits just for cars and homes or also for pedestrians
Add section: controversial aspects[edit]
To add: section on controversial aspects. For instance:
https://stanfordpolitics.org/2015/09/23/consent-searches-need-expand-miranda-rights/
[NEEDS TO BE CHECKED] US states that ban consent searches[edit]
The New Jersey Supreme Court in 2002 banned consent searches[citation needed] based on Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey constitution. The Minnesota Supreme Court also banned consent searches in 2003[citation needed] based on Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota constitution.
Both articles are identical and read as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized."
Rhode Island banned consent searches in 2004 when re-enacting it's data collection law.[1]
Thanks to Eliyohub at the reference desk:
According to the ACLU document you linked to, the New Jersey case was State v. Carty (in 2002, as you mention). Googling "state v carty new jersey" will bring up plenty of results, but an article analyzing the case can be found here. Note that the court heard that police may still request to perform a consent search in a case of "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a crime has been committed. There is no need to find probable cause. A 2016 New Jersey Supreme Court decision looking at New Jersey consent searches (including applying the aforementioned Carty test) would be State v. Hagans. A somewhat dated, but still relevant analysis of consent searches in New Jersey can be found here
I will add another good reference:
"Consent Searches" (PDF). Alameda District Attorney.