The Silver Platter Doctrine was formulated in order to deter unconstitutional searches from providing evidence in a trial that would otherwise be inadmissible in court. Federal law enforcement cannot allow a subordinate agency (i.e. local law enforcement), acting no on behalf of the United States, to conduct a search and seize evidence while "standing idly by" and then use the seized evidence to prosecute in a trial. No government agency can allow police or a private citizen to carry out a search while claiming innocence to the act. This principle was rejected by a five-to-four vote under Elkins v. United States.



Justice Mosk explained the opinion in People v. McKinnon:

"[I]n certain circumstances a private citizen may also be deemed to act as an agent of the police when the latter merely 'stand silently by,' i.e., when they knowingly permit the citizen to conduct an illegal search for their benefit and make no effort to protect [emphasis added] the rights of the person being searched. [Citation to Stapleton omitted.] This rule forestalls belated police claims that they did not actually 'direct' or 'request' their lay associate to undertake the illegal search, and thereby prevents them from doing indirectly--by silent but unmistakable [emphasis added] approval--what they cannot constitutionally do directly.

"[I]t is obvious that the rule cannot be invoked unless the police have both actual knowledge of the search and the opportunity to prevent it. [emphasis added] ... [T]hey knew of the search and could have intervened to stop it."





HOME