We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Searches by Non-Law Enforcement

A man walks into the police department with a laptop computer. He tells the officer who contacts him that he burglarized a home and took the laptop and when he turned it on he found significant amounts of child pornography. He tells officers the location of the home. The residents of that home reported a burglary and that a laptop was among items that were stolen. What do you do? Arrest the confessed burglar? Have to get a warrant before examining the laptop? Arrest both the burglar and the suspected child pornographer? Become excited about the societal two-fer; one burglar and one chester off the streets? Are we worried about suppression?

Officers do not risk suppression of evidence seized, even illegally, by private citizens. The general rule is that contained in United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113, “the Fourth Amendment is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official.” The reason is clear, the suppression remedy was put in place to deter law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment by suppressing any evidence found by way of a bad search.

The general rule changes, however, if the citizen is acting at the behest of law enforcement by becoming a governmental agent. Courts do not look at the job of the citizen, how much the citizen was intending on helping the government but rather courts examine the extent to which the officer was involved in the search. A civilian becomes an agent of law enforcement based on whether officers instigated the search, participated in its planning or execution, or if they gave the citizen an incentive to search. Be careful as well with situations where you are told that a citizen is going to perform a search that you know is illegal. The failure to stop a citizen from doing something illegal in order to obtain evidence will lead to evidence suppression.

Civilian job duties similarly do not transform individuals into agents of law enforcement. Security guards, private investigators and others who fulfill some sort of law enforcement functions have been found to not be agents of law enforcement absent evidence that that person was acting with police. Security officers and employees of hotels, motels, apartments, condominiums or employers at businesses who are acting on their own initiative and without police supervision are deemed civilians when taking action to protect people and property on the premises.

If the civilian is acting on their own accord, without the assistance, encouragement or knowledge of law enforcement, even if their actions are illegal, will not lead to suppression of the evidence. A potential societal two-fer.


  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department