When Patrick Scullark was arrested, he was not wearing his fanny pack. He had taken it off and handed it to a friend before being handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. But police nevertheless conducted a thorough search of the bag without a warrant. Mr. Scullark argued that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but on appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the police’s examination as a valid search incident to arrest.

The search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment authorizes limited, warrantless searches of an arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control. This exception is meant to let police disarm the arrestee and prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence. It was never meant to extend to searches of personal items outside the arrestee’s reach.

Cato filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to grant Mr. Scullark’s petition, reverse the decision below, and reaffirm the narrowness of the search incident to arrest exception. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates how decades of judicial deference to law enforcement has caused the warrant requirement to become an exception, rather than the norm. Correcting this trend is especially important for protecting homeless Americans’ rights: by allowing officers to conduct overly expansive searches of personal items like bags, backpacks, and suitcases that play a similar role for homeless people as a nightstand or a closet might for a homeowner, the decision below strips a vital constitutional protection from a uniquely vulnerable population. The Supreme Court should take Mr. Scullark’s case as an opportunity to provide all citizens with meaningful Fourth Amendment protection.