{"id":1608,"date":"2007-12-16T19:09:19","date_gmt":"2007-12-17T00:00:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-16T17:20:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1608","title":{"rendered":"Texas Tech Law Review articles on consent searches"},"content":{"rendered":"

Volume 39, number 4<\/a>, of the Texas Tech Law Review<\/a> has a series of articles about consent searches from the Texas Tech Symposium on Citizen Ignorance, Police Deception, and the Constitution:<\/p>\n

Essay:<\/em><\/p>\n

–Arnold H. Loewy, Police, Citizens, the Constitution, and Ignorance: The Systemic Value of Citizen Ignorance in Solving Crime,<\/em> 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1077 (2007)<\/p>\n

Consent Searches by Ignorant Citizens:<\/em><\/p>\n

–John M. Burkoff, Search Me?<\/em>, 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1109 (2007)<\/p>\n

–Morgan Cloud, Ignorance and Democracy<\/em>, 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1143 (2007)<\/p>\n

–Christo Lassiter, Consent to Search by Ignorant People<\/em>, 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1171 (2007)<\/p>\n

–Russell L. Weaver, The Myth of \u201cConsent\u201d<\/em>, 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1195 (2007)<\/p>\n

There are other articles about police lying and confessions:<\/p>\n

Do We Want Citizens to Know Their Rights, and If So, How Do We Tell Them?<\/em><\/p>\n

–Susan R. Klein, Lies, Omissions, and Concealment: The Golden Rule in Law Enforcement and the Federal Criminal Code,<\/em> 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1321 (2007)<\/p>\n

–Alan C. Michaels, Rights Knowledge: Values and Tradeoffs<\/em>, 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1355 (2007)<\/p>\n

–Andrew E. Taslitz, Bullshitting the People: The Criminal Procedure Implications of a Scatalogical Term<\/em>, 39 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1383 (2007).<\/p>\n

Id.<\/em> at 1421-23:<\/p>\n

There is far less data on consent searches and warnings. Yet the available data similarly supports the conclusion that rights warnings do not increase noncooperation with the police. Sociologist Illya Lichtenberg, for example, in a study of the Maryland State Police and the Ohio State Highway Patrol, found that 88.5% to 96.5% of those asked to consent to automobile searches by police officers did so when no warnings were given. When the police gave warnings, however, there was no substantial decrease in the percentage of instances in which police consent-to-search requests were granted. These statistics held across race, sex, and age. Lichtenberg concluded from this data that “verbal warnings are an ineffective means of encouraging citizens to exercise freely their constitutional rights.” 293 On the other hand, combining both the confessions data and the consent-to-search data, Lichtenberg explains:<\/p>\n

Finally, for those who still fear that verbal warnings will render our criminal justice system ineffective and lead to marauding criminals on the street with no means to control them, these findings suggest that such fears are unfounded. The criminal justice system appears to operate quite effectively with verbal warnings in place. Research suggests that verbal warnings do not have any substantial impact on consent or confessions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Indeed, Lichtenberg found that 12.9% of those consenting to searches were found to be in possession of illegal narcotics. They consented anyway. <\/p>\n

What explains compliance in the face of warnings? One possible explanation is simple fear of the police. Lichtenberg found in a survey of some of those consenting to searches in Ohio (an admittedly small sample), use that they “consented to search for one primary reason: fear of reprisal if they refused.” Other scholars have relied on older research on compliance to conclude that, at a minimum, suspects are likely to blindly obey authority, especially uniformed authority. Thus, in the well-known experiments of Professor Stanley Milgram, subjects purportedly involved in a study about learning patterns’ relationship to negative reinforcement were willing to give increasingly higher voltage shocks to a “learner” when he made mistakes. This escalation in voltage continued upon the experimenter’s command, despite the learner’s at first modest, then vigorous, and finally painfully screaming, protests. As Professor Ric Simmons has pointed out, however, Milgram’s experiments involved obedience to orders, not requests, and did not turn on subjects’ ignorance about their legal rights or the authority figure’s intentions. <\/p>\n

Scholars challenging the voluntariness of consent to search as illusory have also relied on Professor Leonard Bickman’s experiments involving authority figures wearing uniforms. The experimenter dressed as a civilian, then a milkman, then a guard (police-type uniform but with no gun). In each pose, the experimenter ordered passersby to do one of three things: pick up a bag, give a dime to a person near a parking meter, or change locations. Compliance rates were much higher in the two uniformed than the one civilian situation and were particularly high-89%-when the guard uniform was worn. Again, as with Milgram’s experiments, orders, rather than requests, were involved, and rights awareness versus rights ignorance was not tested, making the experimental circumstances very different from those involved in consent searches or in interrogations. Nevertheless, these studies suggest that the reasons for citizen obedience to the police are far more complex than fear or a knee-jerk obedience to authority, even if those forces do play some role and perhaps under certain circumstances an important role. <\/p>\n

Research psychologist Tom Tyler recently conducted a series of studies and a literature review of when and why Americans obey government agents, including the police and the courts. Tyler found at least two important psychological processes to be at work: a sense of personal responsibility to defer to legitimate government authorities and a desire to empower government to solve social problems, particularly in the face of a perceived crisis. (footnotes omitted)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}