NCJ Number
111739
Journal
North Carolina Law Review Volume: 65 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1987) Pages: 417-480
Date Published
1987
Length
64 pages
Annotation
This article explores whether the drug courier profile is scientifically based, when and how profile searches implicate fourth amendment rights, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court's favorable characterization of the profile has led to the abdication of its responsibilities under the fourth amendment.
Abstract
Profile characteristics, even those considered to be primary, are often inaccurate. Others are so conducive to subjective application that they give virtually free rein to enforcement officials, and the profile itself is susceptible to abuse through retroactive application. Because the drug courier profile generally precludes a particularized focus, dependence solely on the profile tends to emasculate the requirement that courts consider the totality of the circumstances before upholding a search and seizure. Consequently, courts should consider the profile as nothing more than a law enforcement administrative tool. It may guide an agent toward a person and alert the agent to initiate surveillance. This use, however, would not support the particularized suspicion of narcotics trafficking. The U.S. Supreme Court's 'free to leave' test, advanced in United States v. Mendenhall (1980), is unworkable. In its place, courts should adopt a bright line rule under which all airport stops based solely on the drug courier profile would constitute seizures for fourth amendment purposes. Thus, any such stop would trigger traditional fourth amendment analysis and require reasonable suspicion before further probing could be conducted. 391 footnotes.