Overview
When we think about the 4th Amendment, it is important to remember that we need to employ the reasonable innocent person test. While the 4th Amendment protects everyone, what is “reasonable’ is determined through the lens of innocent.
Example
The Reasonable Guilty Person: Suppose an officer walks up to a group of outlaws which are in possession of a backpack containing a trafficking amount of drugs. The officer has no suspicion of criminal activity and is engaging in a consensual encounter. The traffickers may not know whether the officer has a justification to search or seize the backpack. As the officer approaches, he politely asks the traffickers if the backpack belongs to them. It is perfectly reasonable for a guilty trafficker to deny ownership of a backpack containing a large cache of drugs. If these suspects claimed the bag and its contents, then that statement would be used to prove knowledge and control of the drugs, if the drugs were subsequently discovered.
The Reasonable Innocent Person: Suppose my mother is in Branson with my dad and is at some gospel show. If my mother sets down her purse in the lobby and an officer walks up and politely asks if the purse belongs to her, I doubt she would say, “That shit ain’t mine.”
Legal Supplement
Florida v. Bostic, 501 U.S. 429 (1991),
[T]he "reasonable person" test presupposes an innocent person.
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988),
The test's objective standard -- looking to the reasonable man's interpretation of the conduct in question -- allows the police to determine in advance whether the conduct contemplated will implicate the Fourth Amendment. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2(h), pp. 407-408 (2d ed.1987 and Supp.1988). This "reasonable person" standard also ensures that the scope of Fourth Amendment protection does not vary with the state of mind of the particular individual being approached.
See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (Justice Blackmun Dissent)
The fact that Royer knew the search was likely to turn up contraband is, of course, irrelevant; the potential intrusiveness of the officers' conduct must be judged from the viewpoint of an innocent person in Royer's position.
