United States v. Jacobsen

Supreme Court of United States
466 U.S. 109 (1984)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A law enforcement officer's search does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it does not exceed the scope of a preceding private search. Furthermore, a chemical test that only reveals whether a substance is contraband does not infringe upon a legitimate expectation of privacy and is therefore not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

Facts:

Employees of Federal Express, a private freight carrier, examined a package that had been damaged by a forklift, pursuant to company policy.
The package contained a cardboard box with a tube made of silver duct tape hidden under crumpled newspaper.
The employees cut open the tube and discovered a series of four zip-lock plastic bags, the innermost of which contained a white powder.
Suspecting the powder was illicit, the employees notified the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Before a DEA agent arrived, the employees placed the plastic bags back inside the tube and returned the tube to the box.
When the first DEA agent arrived, he removed the tube from the box, took out the plastic bags, and observed the white powder.
The agent then removed a trace amount of the powder and conducted a field test on the substance.
The chemical test revealed that the white powder was cocaine.

Procedural Posture:

Respondents were indicted in federal district court for possession of an illegal substance with intent to distribute.
Respondents filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the package, arguing it was the product of an illegal search and seizure.
The U.S. District Court (trial court) denied the motion to suppress.
Following a trial, respondents were convicted.
Respondents appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the warrantless chemical test was an unconstitutional search because it significantly expanded the scope of the initial private search.
The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a federal agent's warrantless chemical field test of a substance, which was first discovered and exposed by a private party, violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

No, a federal agent's warrantless chemical field test under these circumstances does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches does not apply to searches conducted by private parties, such as the initial opening of the package by Federal Express employees. The subsequent inspection by the DEA agent did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it did not exceed the scope of the prior private search; the agent learned nothing that the private search had not already revealed, as the respondents' expectation of privacy was already frustrated. The chemical field test was not a "search" because it did not infringe upon any legitimate expectation of privacy. A test that can only reveal whether a substance is or is not contraband, and no other private information, does not compromise a privacy interest that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. This is analogous to the canine sniff test in United States v. Place, which was found not to be a search because it is minimally intrusive and discloses only the presence of contraband. While removing a trace amount of the powder for the test constituted a "seizure," it was a de minimis and reasonable intrusion on possessory interests, justified by the substantial law enforcement interests at stake.

Concurrence - Justice White

No, the test did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but the majority's reasoning is overly broad. The decision should rest on the narrower ground that the contraband was in plain view when the DEA agent arrived, as found by the Magistrate. The majority's holding that the government may always duplicate a private search, even if the contraband is concealed again before the agent's arrival, is a dangerous expansion of the private search doctrine. This approach improperly vitiates an individual's expectation of privacy based on the unknown actions of a third party and could logically extend to allow warrantless police searches of locked containers or even homes if a private party had previously searched them and reported their findings.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes, the majority's approach dangerously misinterprets the Fourth Amendment. While agreeing that the test in this specific case might be permissible because the packaging made the substance's illicit nature virtually certain, the majority's broad rule is fundamentally flawed. By defining a "search" based solely on whether the technique reveals only contraband, the Court ignores the context in which the surveillance occurs and the privacy of the space or container being investigated. This logic could lead to an "Orwellian world" where advanced technology that scans people or homes for contraband from a distance would not be considered a "search," thereby eviscerating the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless, suspicionless surveillance.

Analysis:

This case significantly narrowed the definition of a "search" under the Fourth Amendment by establishing that an investigative technique is not a search if it only reveals the presence of contraband. By creating this contraband-specific exception, the Court extended the logic of the "canine sniff" case, United States v. Place, to chemical tests, thereby allowing certain law enforcement actions to proceed without a warrant or probable cause. The decision expands the private search doctrine by permitting government agents to re-examine anything a private party has already exposed. The ruling has been influential in cases involving new technologies but remains controversial for its potential to erode privacy protections as surveillance capabilities advance, a concern forcefully articulated in the dissent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Jacobsen (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature