Unknown Speaker
Good evening, Justice O'Connor. My name is Jordan speed and I'm from Wichita, Kansas. How does the Supreme Court decide when a search and seizure is unreasonable? And when it is reasonable?
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, it's a vague sort of a standard issue well know what's reasonable depends very often on the circumstances in their particular case, the Supreme Court, in effect, has determined that if a search of a suspect is unreasonable under constitutional standards, then the evidence cannot be admitted against that person in any criminal proceeding against the person. Now, you know, many countries around the world don't follow an exclusionary rule that's called an exclusionary rule where you can exclude that evidence from any trial proceeding against the person that the state is trying to prosecute. And that's rather a dramatic limitation on evidence that can be used by this state against someone. And many countries don't do that. So great britain did, and the United States system map and I guess, Australia to a degree and other common law countries from the British system, but not everybody in the world. Thanks. That's a good system. But we do and we have this exclusionary rule. So deciding whether a particular search or a seizure of some kind of evidence to use against someone in a criminal proceeding requires judges at the end of the day to make a determination whether that particular seizure or search was reasonable. Well, what's reasonable? You have arguments on both sides, probably. But it depends on the facts in that particular situation, and whether there are enough circumstances and facts that are objective, that it adds up to some kind of reasonable suspicion that would justify admitting the evidence into a trial and using it in a criminal proceeding. And there's no hard and fast diet. judges who sit in criminal cases get used to these questions and get used to having to answer them, in case after criminal case. So I don't know what guidelines to give you. But they tend to water try to find some facts. The judge does that would indicate that this is the circumstances and facts add up to some kind of reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify letting that evidence in.
Unknown Speaker
Good evening, my name is Alex Nunez Thompson and I'm actually from here in Phoenix, Arizona, you
Sandra Day O'Connor
are from a local high school. Yes, good.
Unknown Speaker
My question is, I have to actually, in general, do judges agree on what it takes for the police to establish that there is a probable cause? And how do judges learn how to make good judgments about when to issue a warrant?
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, it's like anything else, it takes a little practice, I suppose. First of all, you can assume that the judges have gone to law school that they've passed, that they've taken a State Bar Exam, and they've passed. And you can assume that they've practiced for a time where they wouldn't already be judges. And you can assume that most of these judges have had some experience already on the bench, trying to answer these very questions because they come up time after time in criminal cases. And it's kind of a combination of learning, study, and experience. And most judges in depth serving as IBM for some years. In a criminal court, hearing criminal cases, day in and de out. So you begin to get comfortable, if you will, in what you need to ask and what you need to know in order to determine that. Yes, for this piece of evidence, there is reasonable suspicion, and we think that it was reasonable under constitutional standards for the police to have it and to use it against the defendant.
Unknown Speaker
My name is Addison Marshall, and I'm from Jonesboro, Arkansas. And my question is, why what is the importance of requiring the police to have probable cause and having an impartial judge to sign a warrant?
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, when our Constitution was written, you know, at first, it didn't have a bill of rights, you know, that it was a constitution that told us how we, we'd have three branches of government, we had a president and it's said something about our president would be selected. And we had a congress with two houses and how they would be formed. And we'd have the third branch that you digital branch, and the judges would be appointed by the president with advice and consent of the Senate. Now, that was the summons substance of the original Constitution. And it dealt some with the powers that each branch would have.
Unknown Speaker
But
Sandra Day O'Connor
when it was presented to the states to see if the states wanted to ratify it, many people in the states thought that it needed some protection for individuals that we needed some kind of a bill of rights they called.
Unknown Speaker
And
Sandra Day O'Connor
it became clear that some states not enough states, we're going to ratify it, unless we got a bill of rights. And that one, as it ended up being the first 10 amendments to our constitution as the Bill of Rights. And it was intended to try to add some protections for individuals, because the constitution originally didn't do that. And so the 10 amendments, the First Amendment is, you know, dealt with freedom of speech and assembly, number one, and then it deals with freedom of religion. And then it deals with the concerns that we're dealing with today. protecting people in their homes and in their private lives from unreasonable violations by authority on behalf of the State at wanted to protect individual citizens. And that's how the constitution finally got ratified, because they produced a bill of rights, and then they got the necessary number of states to approve it, and we became a nation. Well, of course, the language in the bill of rights is pretty general. What does it say? No state shall make or enforce any law, which chiller bridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny any person the equal protection of the laws? Well, no, sir Graham, to sounding general principles, but when it comes right down to it. When is someone deprived of liberty or property without due process of law? That's where these questions start coming in? What if the police say, we suspect you of stealing something and we're going to go in your house and search it just generally, not, not maybe not even knocked on the door, just go in and start searching? Is that a situation where a court the judicial branch would then get in and say, wait a minute, that's not a reasonable action on the part of the police, that deprived that citizen of property without due process of law. Those were the issues that would then come before courts and judges decide. And they set up three branches of government. Of course, every state them adopted a similar system, setting up three branches of government and having state courts as well. But that's how courts began to get into these questions in the first place. And through the years, they've developed principles that courts look at, and judges look at in making these decisions. And decisions of courts are written down. And they become part and parcel of the law. And people can read them and follow them in the future. And you build up a body of law, by way of the cases that have been decided.
Unknown Speaker
Hello, Justice O'Connor. My name is Anna lions, and I'm from Des Moines, Iowa. My question is, what are the democratic values underlying the fourth amendment
Sandra Day O'Connor
that every citizen wants to feel secure and safe in the citizens own person and property? And dwelling in home? mean? I don't want to be a cost. And when I'm walking on the street by policeman, and grabbed and searched, because the policeman thanks, oh, there's been a robbery in this neighborhood. And we're just going to search everybody, low search you? Well, that's pretty frightening for a citizen. And I think it's that kind of action, that the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent, to make sure that if you're going to be searched, for example, by a police officer, that there has to be some reasonable grounds for taking that action that severe to be if I'm walking down the street, and I have my purse, and the police come up and say, Well, we've had a theft here recently. Now I want to look in your purse and see what's in there. Well, we don't do that. We think that's beyond the bounds of what's permitted, absent reasonable suspicion, that, yes, this person I'm talking to was on the scene at the time the event occurred and could well have been involved and could well have had something incriminating in her purse. And we've examined the evidence and talk to people and we think there are reasonable grounds to search that woman's purse. Well, you have to present those sometimes to a judge and see if the court is satisfied that that amounted to reasonable suspicion. Because it doesn't always and these are where reasonable people can defer to with the merchants.
Unknown Speaker
Hello, Justice O'Connor. My name is generally Chan, I'm from the Northern Mariana Islands.
Sandra Day O'Connor
From the Mariana Yes, we're just when you came a few miles.
Unknown Speaker
Good. Um, is there respect
Unknown Speaker
for privacy, one of the values underlying the Fourth Amendment?
Sandra Day O'Connor
Absolutely. Absolutely. And privacy of the person and your home, and your, your personal property. And that's why we require some standard of reasonable suspicion before law enforcement officials can get in there and start digging around and looking. And we hope that those standards are protective on the right standards of the rights of individual citizens. That's what we try to do. Anyway.
Unknown Speaker
Hello, Justice upon. My name is David Berman. And from the state of Minnesota, do you agree with justice Clark statement, the Makepeace that without the exclusionary rule, the fourth amendment would just be a form of words and values?
Sandra Day O'Connor
Well, I think that's right, if you don't have a means of enforcing the protections that these amendments are intended to give, then it's kind of worthless. It's just so many words, and the exclusionary rules to say the evidence cannot come in. If it violates one of the principles in the Bill of Rights. That's pretty drastic, to say the state can't use it. Unless there was probable cause or reasonable suspicion or whatever it is, we master pretty drastic remedy. They say no, you can't use it. And many countries do not do that. The Anglo American legal system is more protective of the individual rights, then many legal systems around the world, that's a big step to pay to say no, if you can't meet the standards, of reasonable suspicion, and so on, we're going to keep the evidence out or Mr. Policemen if you violated and we're not going to allow that evidence to come in as very drastic in certain cases, but we feel that individual liberty is so important. And it was how we got people in this country to agree to the Constitution in the first place. So it mattered to them. And and we believe in them, and I think they've served our nation. Well. You probably do, too. I think it's okay. And that's why we have a judicial branch to try to have people who are qualified to serve as judges and who look at these questions and and respond responsibly, to the issues that are presented, and who don't modify their standards every time the case comes. They have certain legal principles they're trying to apply and to apply them similarly, in similar circumstances. That's very important.
Unknown Speaker
Hello, Justice O'Connor. My name is Jordan speed. And my question is, what would you say to the argument that the exclusionary rule let's guilty defendants go free?
Sandra Day O'Connor
It could, if it's employed, and if the only evidence against the person was evidence that under under our legal principles should not be admitted against the defendant, because it was seized without reasonable suspicion, for instance, it's drastic to say no, the evidence can't come in, that person's going to go free. That's a drastic step. But we think these basic principles are so important. We are willing to have that result to keep our standards high and satisfied under the Bill of Rights, and I guess it's justified. It has served us pretty well.