Opinion ID: 2225382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: smith was searched within meaning of fourth amendment

Text: The State's primary argument is that Smith was searched by South, a private actor, not the government. But as a threshold matter, we first consider the State's argument that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated because Smith was not searched or seized. We agree with the district court's conclusion that Smith was searched. To determine whether an individual has an interest protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Neb. Const. art. I, § 7, we must determine whether the individual has a legitimate or justifiable expectation of privacy in the invaded place. Ordinarily, two inquiries are required. First, the individual must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and second, the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. [9] For reasons that will be explained more fully below with respect to consent, Smith clearly exhibited an actual expectation of privacy. The State seems to be arguing that because Smith knew the Club patted down patrons, his expectation of privacy was unreasonable. But whether an expectation of privacy is reasonable does not turn on notice. [10] Rather, an expectation of privacy is reasonable if it has a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society. [11] We have little difficulty in concluding that Smith's expectation that the contents of his pockets were private was reasonable and that the invasion of that privacy was a search. Generally speaking, courts have implicitly assumed that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to those portions of his or her person that are hidden from public view, including hidden recesses in both one's clothing and body. [12] For example, rummaging through an individual's pockets and other inner recesses of one's clothing constitutes a Fourth Amendment search of the person. [13] Likewise, patting down an individual's outer clothing so as to discover hidden objects therein is also a Fourth Amendment search. [14] In this case, the evidence in question was retrieved from a location hidden from public view, namely Smith's pocket. Such a search is unquestionably a Fourth Amendment search.