I saw it again recently Beverly Hills cop (1984), the Eddie Murphy film, released when I was in middle school. I realized that the film isn’t just a vehicle for Eddie Murphy’s comedic talents. It is this, to be clear; Murphy is fantastic in the film. But there is a more important legal aspect: Beverly Hills cop it’s a Fourth Amendment movie.
There are many Fourth Amendment issues in the film. But the key scene, in the warehouse, could be an exam question.
Remember the facts.
Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy’s character) is a Detroit cop on vacation who is trying to investigate the murder of his friend. He’s trying to get the Beverly Hills police to investigate, but they refuse. The Beverly Hills police chief orders Foley to leave town instead, ordering Beverly Hills officer Billy Rosewood (played by Judge Reinhold) to escort Foley to the outskirts of town.
During the trip, however, Foley convinces Rosewood to ignore his orders and take Foley and his old friend Jenny Summers to a warehouse where Foley expects to find drugs trafficked by Victor Maitland, the art dealer turned drug trafficker. Summers has the key to the warehouse because she works for Maitland in her art gallery, although she obviously had no idea of her illegal drug activities.
Rosewood parks the car outside the warehouse. Rosewood also wants to go into the warehouse, but Foley tells Rosewood to stay in the car. If Rosewood goes in, Foley says, it will be an illegal search because they have no probable cause. I’ll come get you if I find any evidence, Foley tells him. Foley wants Summers to give him the key so he can search on his own, but Summers refuses and insists on going with him.
Foley and Summers enter the warehouse with Summers’ key and find several wooden crates with the gallery’s name on them. According to Foley, these are crates coming from abroad that have bypassed customs. Foley uses a crowbar to open the crates and they find cocaine inside. “Go get Rosewood,” Foley tells Summers.
But wait! Maitland and his evil team are discovering them. They capture Foley and Summers in the warehouse. They take Summers away and Maitland orders his men to kill Foley.
Meanwhile, Rosewood watches from the outside. He saw Maitland and his team arrive at the warehouse. He then sees Maitland leave a few minutes later, and has Summers, who appears to be forced into Maitland’s car before they leave. Rosewood is sufficiently worried about Foley that he breaks into the warehouse himself. After entering, Rosewood saves Foley.
Suppose that Maitland somehow survives the subsequent shooting at his estate and that the government seeks to present the following evidence in Maitland’s trial:
(a) Foley’s testimony about what happened in the warehouse,
(b) Rosewood’s testimony about what he saw in the warehouse;
(c) Summers’ testimony about what he saw in the warehouse; AND
(d) the cocaine found in the warehouse.
Among the issues you might consider:
First, was Foley a state actor for purposes of the 4th Amendment when he entered the warehouse? He was an officer outside his jurisdiction who had been told by the Detroit and Beverly Hills police departments not to investigate. He did it anyway for personal reasons, to arrest the man who killed his friend. Was Foley a private actor or a state actor? Fourth Amendment state action generally requires government knowledge or acquiescence. But who is the government here: the police chiefs? Rosewood? Foley himself?
Second, was Summers a state actor for purposes of the Fourth Amendment? Note that she is not simply moving forward; she insisted on participating together with Foley and is working together with Foley.
Third: Did Summers have common authority to consent to enter the warehouse? If so, does his joint authority extend to opening the chests that Foley opened with a crowbar, in which the cocaine was found? If there was no common authority, was there any apparent authority?
Fourth, did Rosewood have exigent circumstances to enter the warehouse? Seeing Summers being taken away certainly looks bad, but was it the result of a police-created need caused by their possible illegal entry? Or is it more of a Brigham City vs. Stuart ssituation to save Foley’s life?
Fifth, assuming that entry into the warehouse was illegal and that the cocaine must be suppressed, the scope of the exclusionary rule goes so far as to prohibit testimony about what Maitland and his men said and did to Foley and Summers after stopping them inside? the warehouse? Or does the criminal conduct of Maitland and his men break the causal chain and allow testimony?
Extra credit: Your answers are different if you apply Fourth Amendment law as it existed in 1984, when Beverly Hills cop It was released?