Then the police officer told the suspect, without just cause, "I bet you are hiding [drugs] under your balls. If you have drugs under your balls, I am going to fuck your balls up."
Jon Gould and Stephen Mastrofski document astonishingly high rates of unconstitutional police searches in their groundbreaking article, "Suspect Searches: Assessing Police Behavior Under the U.S. Constitution." By their conservative estimate, 30% of the 115 police searches they studied – searches that were conducted by officers in a department ranked in the top 20% nationwide, that were systematically observed by trained field observers, and that were coded by Gould, Mastrofski, and a team including a state appellate judge, a former federal prosecutor, and a government attorney – violated Fourth Amendment prohibitions on searches and seizures. The majority of the unconstitutional searches – 31 out of 34 – were invisible to the courts, having resulted in no arrest, charge, or citation. In fact, the rate of unconstitutional searches was highest for suspects who were released – 44% versus 7% of arrested or cited suspects. Focusing exclusively on stop-and-frisk searches, an even higher proportion – 46% – were unconstitutional. Moreover, 84% of the searches involved black suspects. The searches were conducted and observed in the early 1990s in the midst of an ongoing war on drugs, during a period of increased police discretion nationwide. The study paints a troubling picture of police practices and raises a number of difficult questions about discretionary policing.
Criminal Law | Fourth Amendment | Law | Law Enforcement and Corrections
Bernard E. Harcourt,
Unconstitutional Police Searches and Collective Responsibility,
Criminology & Pub. Pol'y
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2563