The following excerpt is from United States v. Mazzarella, 784 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2015):
We have held that whether a private individual acts as a government agent for Fourth Amendment purposes requires an inquiry into whether the government knew of or acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and whether the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or further his or her own ends. United States v. Reed, 15 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1994). In Reed, a hotel manager called the police to report suspected drug activity by one of the hotel's guests and asked for police protection as he searched the guest's room, which the police provided.Id. We held that the search fell within the Fourth Amendment's ambit. Id. at 932. We also rejected crime prevention as an independent private motive, reasoning that if crime prevention were deemed a
[784 F.3d 540]
private motive, searches by private parties would never implicate the Fourth Amendment. Id.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.