U.S. Versus Knoll Irac Analysis:

U.S. versus Knoll

IRAC Analysis: United States v. Kroll. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 481 F.2d 884. July 10, 1973.

The central issue at stake in the United States vs. Kroll was the question of what constitutes a valid, warrantless search, specifically regarding a passenger about to board a commercial airliner who was searched by a U.S. Marshall.

Rule:

When a search is conducted without a warrant, the government is required to show that the search was justified by exceptional circumstances to make the evidence admissible in court. In this case, the government attempted to meet the burden by contending, first, that the defendant had consented to the search and secondly, that the search was necessary for the safety of the passengers on board because it took place under exceptional circumstances. The government said that the defendant was assumed to be a suspected hijacker. The search was originally conduced for weapons and explosives because of the defendant's allegedly suspect status as a hijacker although only contraband narcotics in a small amount were discovered on his person, not anything incriminating regarding the defendant's suspect status as a hijacker, which was the original stated reason for the search.

Application:

On a TWA flight, the ticket seller, through a process which is not identified in the case information said that he or she found the defendant suspicious. It was feared that the defendant Kroll was a hijacker. Kroll's driver's license was recorded on his ticket, to notify the security officer at the boarding gate that the defendant fit a hijacker profile and should be searched. The metal hinges on Kroll's attache case activated the magnetometer under which the search took place. The TWA security agent instructed the defendant to place the case on table for inspection. A United States Marshal working with the TWA agent watched the search on Kroll. The Marshall became suspicious because the defendant did not open the file section in the upper part of the attache case. He approached the defendant identified himself as a United States Marshal and directed the defendant to open the file section where he observed a white business envelope that was approximately 9 1/2 inches x 4 inches.

The envelope was described as being light in weight, possessing a very small bulge, approximately 1/4-inch thick and 2 inches across, at one end of the envelope. The rest of the envelope was described as being limp and flat. The Marshal felt that the actions of the defendant regarding the file section and the envelope were 'suspicious' and asked the defendant to empty the contents of the envelope into the case. The envelope contained a small plastic bag, which contained an amphetamine and a partially-consumed marijuana cigarette.

Regarding the consent issue, the government's burden is to prove that "consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given." The government stated that Knoll was warned in advance that he would be searched at the ticket booth, it was alleged that and he still had time to refuse. Both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that this did not constitute consent a meaningful sense, as forcing the defendant to choose between exercising his Fourth Amendment rights to refuse to be searched and his right to travel constituted coercion.

Regarding the extraordinary nature of the circumstances, there was no evidence that Knoll showed any reason to give the suspicion he might carrying explosives or weapons, although the court did state that the inspection of the attache case was justified by the dangers posed by hijacking. But inspecting what was inside the envelope exceeded the scope of the permissible search under the circumstances, given there was no reason to suspect that there was explosives in the envelope, given the size of the package.