User:Seahawk01/Notes:Consent search

The New Jersey Supreme Court in 2002 banned consent searches^{[citation needed]} based on Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey constitution. The Minnesota Supreme Court also banned consent searches in 2003^{[citation needed]} based on Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota constitution.

Both articles are identical and read as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized."

Rhode Island banned consent searches in 2004 when re-enacting it's data collection law.^[1]

Thanks to Eliyohub at the reference desk:

According to the ACLU document you linked to, the New Jersey case was State v. Carty (in 2002, as you mention). Googling "state v carty new jersey" will bring up plenty of results, but an article analyzing the case can be found here. Note that the court heard that police may still request to perform a consent search in a case of "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a crime has been committed. There is no need to find probable cause. A 2016 New Jersey Supreme Court decision looking at New Jersey consent searches (including applying the aforementioned Carty test) would be State v. Hagans. A somewhat dated, but still relevant analysis of consent searches in New Jersey can be found here

I will add another good reference:

"Consent Searches" (PDF). Alameda District Attorney.

• "L.A. County deputies stopped thousands of innocent Latinos on the 5 Freeway in hopes of their next drug bust".
• "Claims of racial profiling on 5 Freeway echo findings against sheriff's deputies in Antelope Valley".