So I drive into the parking lot at my local post office and I see a sign on the building. “Vehicles in this lot subject to search. Parking in this lot signifies consent to search vehicle.” I of course went and parked on the street.
At first I thought “how can this possibly be legal?” then remembered who was Attorney General. Still, it seems like a Fourth Amendment violation to assume that by simply parking a car in a particular lot the owner is consenting to a vehicle search. Especially since the sign is not particularly prominently displayed and not even visible from the entire lot. Next thought was that this is similar to the idea that concert promoters can search ticket holders if it’s included in the contract to buy the tickets, but since the post office is at least quasi-governmental the same rules wouldn’t apply.
So what’s the law on this these days? Can the post office, or a police department, legally assume consent based on where someone is parked? They can’t legally assume consent to a search based on where someone is walking so what’s the difference between the two situations? If I put a sign in my car stating “owner does not consent to search” does this defeat the presumption of consent?
Not to editorialize too much but it truly irks me to think that I can stand in that lot and not be subject to unreasonable search but I can’t park my car there and have the same assurance.
Presumably, because of the threat of car bombs, they reserve the right to search all cars in the lot. As you said, you have an alternative, park in the street.
Whether you think this is a reasonable precaution is another thing. I have no knowledge of the legality, but I would assume that since it is federal land, they probably can get away with it.
AFAIK it’s not “federal” land, but I may be incorrect. And I understand the why of the search; I’m sure given the opportunity the authorities would like to search anyone or anything as they choose. There is, however, at least in theory, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which states
Now the Rehnquist court has severely eroded the scope of the Fourth Amendment over the last several years, so the plain text requirement of probable cause can no longer be taken at face value. So is there a case or line of cases upon which the supposed authority to assume consent to search rests?
And yes, I realize I have the option of parking on the street. That’s not the point. Why should I not be able to park right next to the building without fear of government search and seizure of my vehicle or that I’m waiving my rights based on where I park?
I recall from my days working at Quantico (1986) that my car was subject to search the minute I drove on base. Given that the USPS property may also be government property (but not necessarily so - the USPS has recently taken to leasing most of the sites of its facilities instead of owning them outright) I assume the same rules apply.
I think federal ownership is a red herring. Some retail stores post signs that they reserve the right to search bags brought into their store. I can’t comment on legality, though. There was a thread on this board recently about concert searches as mentioned in the OP, BTW.
I was going to visit a National Seashore near the Shuttle launch site last year, and they were searching ALL vehicles. I was on a two-month-long road trip and had a SUV full of camping and outdoor gear, along with my clothing, food, icechest, 2 cameras and assorted lenses, etc. They said that it would all have to be checked out. Rather than hang out for an hour, I made a U-turn and went to the beach somewhere else.
One thing I’ve always wondered is the legality of a search… not from the 4th amendment standpoint, but from the standpoint of someone walking up to you, pulling everything out of your car, and walking off.
What I mean is this: let’s assume yawndave agreed to the search of his fully-loaded car.
The only way they could do this, obviously, is to unpack the car. Presumably they’d pull something out, search it, and set it by the side of the road. By the time they’re done, EVERYTHING in the car would be sitting on the ground. That’s a LOT of stuff that has to be carefully re-packed into the car, assuming of course you’re not willing to just drive off and leave it there.
Now we all know every straightdoper is a perfectly law-abiding citizen, so of course after this search, the authorities have found nothing whatsoever. They let him go on his way.
Now, what I want to know is, are these same authorities legally required to re-pack yawndave’s car? Can he insist they stick around and at least help him, despite the large amount of honking traffic waiting to be searched themselves? If they don’t, if they just walk off leaving him to do it himself, is there any legal action he could take?
We’ve all seen the movies where the cops come to search someone’s home and just tear everything up…
How, exactly, is this any different from my just walking up to someone’s car, pulling everything out of it, and walking off? If I did that I’d get arrested at the very least… why can THEY?
The defense contractor that I worked for reserved the right to search all vehicles entering or leaving the facility as well as any bags or packages we might be carrying. By posting a sign they are giving you notice, by passing the sign you are consenting, at least that’s how it was presented to us.
Vehicles and people on government property have always been subject to search. Period. It has nothing to do with Ashcroft, 9/11, expanding federal jurisdiction, 4th ammendmend violations or the boogeyman.
Don’t want your car subject to search, don’t park there. Nobody is making you. The government has always retained the right to protect its property in this manner, this is nothing new. Given the times, they are exercising this right more often.
“It’s not government property; they rented it.” Wrong. If the government rents it, it’s government property. Renting and leasing confer most of the same rights as ownership.
“We’ve all seen the movies where the cops come to search someone’s home and just tear everything up…
How, exactly, is this any different from my just walking up to someone’s car, pulling everything out of it, and walking off?” Two things – the badge and the warrant. In the case of your car, the warrant is obviated by the statute pursuant to which the administrative search is being made. Warrants are also obviated by consent. As a matter of fact, with consent, you can just walk up to some guy’s car and start pulling stuff out.
There are two major reasons why car searches like the one in the OP are legal:
Cars have a reduced expectation of privacy; they’re cars, not houses or clothing.
Administrative search; if a statute provides a reason to search, a plan for searching, and selecting subjects to search, so that the search is not entirely discretionary, then the search may be found to be reasonable despite the lack of probable cause.
There are lots of other arguments that can come into play, but these are the big ones here. I think.
I imagine if anyone ever took this to court, they’d cite the laws that are in effect at least in Virginia, and I beleive, recently, enforced by the Suprme court that say that it’s alright for a school official or police officer to basically handcuff you, strip you naked, and search through your clothes and your belongings, your car, etc, as long as you’re on school property. Doesn’t matter who you are or what you were doing.
I’m sorry I don’t have cites, searching through the VA govt’s pages and on google, I haven’t been able to turn up a copy of the law, and I find the Supreme Court’s search engine… less than optimal.
I think those laws are a gross violation of the 4th amendment, but we have to protect the kids, right? Makes me sick. You can find plenty of probably cause to search any unsavory types (including students) on public school property, you don’t need a law that states you don’t. And in my experience, they tended to abuse that power quite often. And this was several years ago when the law was brand new, not now when it’s been upheld by the supreme court.
““It’s not government property; they rented it.” Wrong. If the government rents it, it’s government property. Renting and leasing confer most of the same rights as ownership.”
The USPS does not retain feel simple title to the property on which the post offices that I’ve reviewed have been built, and moreover, they wouldn’t have to conform to local zoning laws if they did. The USPS merely leases the real estate (and sometimes the structures themselves).
FWIW, point 1 is going to depend on the state. New Mexico basically has a car being an extension of your house. So, for example, you could keep a gun in the glovebox with no problem. Of course, when you get pulled over, you’d probably want to tell the cops that before you go opening it.
The question that hasn’t really been answered is the idea of passive waiver of constitutional rights based on a posted sign. I find the idea that a government or quasi-government agency can post a sign saying you waive your rights just by being here repugnant. I don’t think any other constitutional right so waived would pass constitutional muster. “Parking in this lot equals consent to be baptized into a religion not of your choosing by the Senate chaplain.” “Standing next to this building equals consent that your right to read newspapers or speak about politics is suspended.” Extreme absurd examples but not that much of a reach from the existing sign. It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment has gotten a bad rap as a “criminal’s amendment” because, well hey, alleged criminals are probably the most likely to assert those rights and so there’s less concern among the courts about maintaining and upholding those rights. I’m still left wondering if there’s a case or line of cases under which the USPS is claiming this authority to require the passive waiver of rights.
And I will truly thank everyone who wants to post to this thread from this point forward to refrain from posting anything along the lines of “if you don’t like it, go park on the street.” I’m well aware of the option of parking ong the street and if that’s all you’re planning on contributing, don’t waste your time and the bandwidth.
I think the parking in the street comments are to show that there’s nothing to make you park there. For example, if the only other place to park was 10 miles away, then it would be somewhat coercive (I’m not sure if that is a legal term in this context or not) to give you only one option and have you submit to a search.
Many stores post a sign saying “We reserve the right to search all bags”. This is the same level of notice, and IMO a more intrusive search. If you aren’t comfortable with that, you can shop elsewhere or not bring any bags into the store. The passive waiver of rights is pretty well established in other cases, why should there be a problem with it applying here?
There are two controlling clauses in the Fourth Amendment: the “warrant clause” and the “reasonableness clause.” You’d think they’d be read together, but SCOTUS has chosen to treat them separately.
The warrant clause is generally used for traditional criminal investigation and law enforcement, the general rule that to perform a search a warrant and probable clause are presumptively required. Other “special needs” searches are often based on the reasonableness clause, which involves a balancing between the degree of invasion on personal rights against the need and importance of the search or seizure. If the warrant requirement doesn’t take into account the high degree of the government interest in the search in light of the degree of the intrusion, then the courts will apply lesser standards (reasonable suspicion, area warrants, etc.) which must only be reasonable. For example, a typical 10th circuit case has held that probable cause isn’t required to search cars in a prison parking lot if done for safety purposes, but if the officers “had executed the search for traditional law enforcement purposes, they presumptively would have needed probable cause.”
The fact that the signs were posted serves two purposes; gives warning to the potential wrongdoers and gives the government the additional argument that you consented to the search. Even absent the signs or your consent, though, they have an argument that they were authorized to conduct the search based on “special needs” of safety.
The extra protection protection afforded by the state (if any) wouldn’t be applcable in a federal prosecution based on a search in the USPS parking lot. States can offer more protection than the 4th amendment provides, but that’s not applicable to a federal prosecution.
Not to threadjack this or anything, but I suppose my question wasn’t clear enough. I’m not concerned about the actual search, presumably it was legal and nothing was found anyway. What bothers me is the massive destruction left behind after a search. How is searching my sofa for drugs, for example, any different than just tearing it apart with a knife for no reason at all? The end result is the same in both cases… a destroyed sofa. In one case the police destroyed it with a warrant, in the other it was just some guy. “Just some guy” would be arrested and forced to replace the sofa… why aren’t the cops?
The short answer is that the guy doesn’t have sovereign immunity. Subject to a few exceptions, the state can’t be sued without its consent, and there’s usually no statutory consent or obligation to replace property damaged in the course of a lawful search. Still, some police force have arrangements in which they will make ex gratia payments. These are arrangements where they for whatever portion of property damage they feel like they ought to, even though they aren’t obligated to do so. This sometimes happens when they smash up an elderly widow’s house instead of the crackhouse next door.
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to actions by private parties. And for the record I do have a problem with the idea of allowing store clerks to search my bag. I almost got thrown out of Great America last year for attempting to refuse to allow a private security guard to search my 1 foot square backpack upon entry. The only reason I relented was that I was not alone and had traveled two hours to go. The ironic upshot was that the fuss I kicked up allowed the friend I was with to get by without having her bag checked (and she’s the one who had all the contraband…we smuggled in outside food and drink).
pravnik
So let’s say I posted a sign of my own, in the car, stating “owner does not consent to vehicle search” or actually asserting my 4th Amendment rights. Does this overcome the implied consent of parking in the lot? Obviously it would not overcome the “special needs” argument by itself but it seems it would knock out one leg.
I reviewed the language of the sign the other day. Turns out it doesn’t say parking there equals consent. It states that entering the lot equals consent. Thing is, the sign is not visible from the street so there’s no way to know that one is “consenting” to the search until such time as the “consent” has already been given. Not to Pit this too much, but Jesus, that sucks!