When William Bembury was arrested, the police took it upon themselves to conduct a thorough search of his backpack without a warrant. But by the time the search occurred, Mr. Bembury was handcuffed and the backpack was secured away from him. Mr. Bembury argued that the warrantless search of his backpack violated the Fourth Amendment and that any evidence found as a result of that search must be suppressed; but on appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the search as a valid search incident to arrest.

The search incident to arrest exception permits limited, warrantless searches of the arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control in order to disarm the arrestee and prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence. But in its decision below, the Kentucky Supreme Court disregarded the limited application of this exception and empowered police to conduct warrantless searches of virtually any physical item found with the arrestee.

Cato filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse this decision and clarify that the search incident to arrest exception is meant to be narrowly applied. The Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision illustrates how decades of excessive judicial deference to the judgment of law enforcement has resulted in the warrant requirement itself becoming the exception, rather than the norm. Such broad application of the search incident to arrest exception gives police even more power to engage in warrantless searches based on bias and stereotypes and leaves some of our most vulnerable citizens with fewer constitutional protections. By reversing the decision below, the Supreme Court can take a small but significant step toward providing all citizens with meaningful protection under the Fourth Amendment.