Following surveillance for several days, the police obtained a search warrant, and discovered the
location to be a drug laboratory. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that this "amounted principally to
the following of an automobile on public streets and highways...A person traveling in an automobile on
public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to
another." When the subject traveled on public streets, "he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted
to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever
stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private
property."
Hudson v. Palmer, 82 L. Ed 2d 393 (1984), involved a search of an inmate's prison cell. The
Supreme Court concluded that "society is not prepared to recognize as legitimate any subjective
expectation of privacy that a prisoner might have in his prison cell...prisoners have no legitimate
expectation of privacy." In another case, the police went to an adult bookstore, browsed for several
minutes, and then purchased some of the magazines. The clerk was then arrested for selling obscene
materials. On appeal, the issue was whether this violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court
ruled that the clerk "did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in areas of the store where the
public was invited to enter and transact business...the officer's action in entering the bookstore and
examining the wares that were intentionally exposed to all who frequent the place of business did not
infringe a legitimate expectation of privacy." There was, then, no unreasonable search and seizure, and
the evidence was admissible. Maryland v. Bacon, 37 Cr. L. 3111 (1985).
In People v. California, (Ct. App. 2d Dist.) Crim #BO27605, 3/31/88, the defendant was under
arrest for car theft. At the police station, he was left alone in the interview room for a few minutes while
some officers went to get the booking forms. As another officer watched through a mirror, the
defendant started talking to himself, saying, "I'm really nailed now." The court held that the defendant
had no reasonable expectation of privacy under these facts.
In one case, an individual was in a car accident. His vehicle crashed into a tree, flipped over, and
skidded to a halt off of the left side of the road. The vehicle was towed to a civilian garage and was
later searched by a special agent of the Naval Investigative Service (NIS). In this case, the vehicle had
been "utterly demolished" and left upside down on the grounds of the Naval Academy. Under these
facts, "the car had permanently ceased its function as a means of transportation and, lacking a top or
operable windows and doors, was completely exposed to the view of law enforcement personnel and
elements of the public...The accident resulted in a fatality. Under such circumstances...no one could
reasonably expect that his vehicle would not be thoroughly examined...the authorities invaded no
constitutionally protected interest" U.S. v. Olmstead, 17 MJ 247 (CMA, 1984).
The above case should be contrasted with Michigan v. Clifford, 78 L.Ed.2d 477 (1984). There, a
fire broke out in the defendant's home and the fire department arrived at approximately 0540 hours.
The fire was put out and all fire officials and police left the premises at 0704 hours. The initial entry to
put out the fire was, of course, lawful. A burning building represents an exigent, or emergency,
MP1021
1-8
Previous Page
