Law.scu.edu



CaseYr.Pg.FactsHoldingRuleB. WHAT IS A SEARCHKatz v. United States196732Petitioner was convicted of transmitting wagering information by telephone.FBI agents had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone boot from which he had placed his callsAttachment of an eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth was an intrusion of the 4A- REP in phone booth conversations4A protects people, not places. Two-fold requirement: (1) that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and (2) that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonableUnited States v. Jones201238Respondent was under suspicion of drug traffickingOfficers used visual surveillance of his nightclub, installation of a camera focused on the front door of the club, and a pen register and wiretap covering Jones’ cellular telephoneOfficers then applied for a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic tracking device of the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’ wife. Warrant was good for 10 days, on the 11th day it was installed.The government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search”The Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common law trespassory test.A search within the 4A occurs where the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area.1. Open FieldsOliver v. United States198449Acting on reports that marijuana was being raised on the farm of petitioner, 2 narcotics agents went to the farm to investigate. They drove past petitioner’s house to a locked gate with a “No trespassing” signThe government’s intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those “unreasonable searches” proscribed by the text of 4ANo reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields United States v. Dunn198755Agents had discovered respondents had purchased large quantities of chemicals and equipment used to manufacture meth. DEA agents obtained warrants authorizing installation of miniature electronic transmitter for tracking devices, or “beepers”The barn and the area around it lay outside the curtilage of the house (50 yards from a fence surrounding a ranch house)Curtilage question should be resolved with reference to 4 factors: (1) proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home; (2) whether the area is included w/in an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature of the uses to which the area is put; (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.2. Aerial Searches California v. Ciraolo198659Santa Clara police received an anonymous tip that marijuana was growing in respondent’s backyard. An officer secured a private plane and flew over respondent’s house, at 1,000 feet. From the air, they could identify the marijuanaRespondent’s expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor. Florida v. Riley198963Respondent lived in a mobile home located on 5 acres of rural property. A greenhouse was located 10-20 feet behind the mobile home. A wire fence surrounded the mobile home and the greenhouse, and the property was posted w/ a “DO NOT ENTER” sign. An anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on respondent’s property. Officer circled twice over respondent’s property in a helicopter at 400 feet The property surveyed was within the curtilage of respondent’s home. He could not reasonably have expected the contents of his greenhouse to be immune from examination by an officer seated in a fixed-wing aircraft flying in a navigable airspace 3. Thermal Imaging of HomesKyllo v. United States200170Petitioner was suspected of growing marijuana inside his home. Agents used an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan the triplex. Scan was performed from the passenger seat of Agent Elliott’s vehicle across the street from the front of the house, and from the street in back of the house.Thermal imaging was an unlawful searchObtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, constitutes a search 4. Searches of TrashCalifornia v. Greenwood198877Police received information indicating that respondent might be engaged in narcotics trafficking. Officer asked trash collector to pick up the plastic garbage bags that Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his house and to turn the bags over to her. Officer found items indicative of narcotics use The 4A does NOT prohibit a warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a homeWarrantless search and seizure of garbage bags left at the curb outside the home would violate the 4A only if respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable. No reasonable expectation of privacy in what a person chooses to discard 5. Observation and Monitoring of Public BehaviorUnited States v. Knotts198381A beeper was placed in a five gallon drum containing chloroform purchased by one of respondent’s co-defendants. Law enforcement was able to trace the can from its place of purchase to respondent’s cabin.Monitoring the beeper signals by respondent did NOT violate an legitimate expectation of privacy. Governmental surveillance conducted by means of the beeper in this case amounted principally to the following of an automobile on public streets and highways. There is a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile.Smith v. Maryland197985Victim received obscene calls- police set up Pen register with phone company to obtain numbers dialed by the suspect OK- no REP in numbers dialed because that info is conveyed to telephone company (Third party docrine)Katz application and third party doctrine 6. Use of Dogs to Sniff for ContrabandU.S. v. Place 198390Canines sniffed luggage at the airport to check for drugs- no fourth amendment violation because no need to open the bags Canine sniff of closed luggage is NOT a search Illinois v. Caballes200591Guy pulled over for speeding, police walked a dog around the car- dog sniffed drugsNo 4th A violation- traffic stop was lawful and the use of the dog sniff does not implicate privacy interests- no info other than location of the substanceA lawful stop can become unlawful if it goes beyond reasonable time needed for traffic stop- no problem hereRodriguez v. U.S.2015Supp.Vehicle swerved off and back on the road- police pulled him over and conducted the traffic stop, then asked if he could have the dog sniff around the car and called for backup4th A violation- lawful traffic stop but unlawful to keep him detained after the traffic stop was completed Florida v. Jardines2013Supp.Police officer allowed dog to sniff the porch and the front door of someone’s home and then got a search warrantSearch of the curtilage by the drug sniffing dog= trespass Government’s use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a search within the 4th AFlorida v. Harris 2013Supp.D aSCOTUS rejected the lower court's rigid requirement that police officers show evidence of a dog's reliability in the field to prove probable cause. Probable cause is a flexible common sense test that takes the totality of the circumstances into account.Evidence 7. Sufficient Belief to Meet the Standard for Probable Cause Aguilar v. Texas, Spinelli v. U.S.1964, 1969952 part test for probable cause with info from informants- (1) was the informant credible? (2) was the informant reliable?Illinois v. Gates198395Anonymous letter stated Sue and Lance Gates are drug dealers and buy their drugs in florida, provided details of the upcoming trip- police corroborated details of the letter and then obtained a warrantAn informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but that those issues are intertwined and should not be rigidly applied.Totality of the Circumstances Test!Maryland v. Pringle 2003104Police pulled over a vehicle with a driver and 2 passengers, police found drugs in the vehicle, all 3 denied ownership of the drugs, all 3 arrested a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that passengers of the vehicle committed the crime of possession of cocaineWhen finding contraband in an automobile, there is probable cause to arrest its occupants, regardless of their proximity from the contraband.8. Is Probable Cause an Objective or Subjective Standard?Whren v. U.S.(1996)106Vice Officer patrolling a high drug area was suspicious when he saw a truck with black kids stop at an intersection for 20+ seconds- Pulled the truck over and saw the passenger holding 2 large plastic bags of cocaineActual motivation of the police are irrelevant- subjective intentions play no role in the ordinary probable cause Fourth Amendment analysisOBJECTIVE STANDARDHeien v. North Carolina2014Supp.Police Officer follows car because D appears to be nervous, notices 1 tail light out, pulls over D’s car, receives permission to search the car and cocaine but the P.O. was mistaken in law because the law only requires one tail light PO mistake as to the law will satisfy Probable Cause as long as it is a reasonable mistake9. What Info Must be Included in a Warrant?Andreson v. Maryland1976112The warrant specifically stated what documents could be taken, although the final clause was extremely vague, and seemed all encompassing- No 4th amendment violation- warrant included specific documents to be taken even if final clause was all encompassing- “catch-all” phrase did not make the warrant overbroad Look to the totality of the document and use common sense Groh v. Ramirez2004116Groh accidentally neglected to specify the exact items to be search on the warrant. The items, however, were listed on the warrant application, but not on the actual warrant.4th A violation- the warrant was invalid- warrants must apprise the suspects of what the warrant intended for the police to seizeZurcher v. Stanford Daily1978122Police obtained a warrant to search newsroom of photos of demonstrators that attacked policeWarrants may be issued to search any property where there is probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found (Congress later said newsrooms are protected)United States v. Grubbs2006Warrant will be executed after a controlled delivery of contraband to the location- conditional warrantAnticipatory warrants are OK so long as there is probable cause10. Manner of Executing WarrantsMichigan v. Summers1981122When there is a search of a residence, those present at the time of the search may be detainedMuehler v. Mena2005123Police searching the home of known gang members, Mena was present and they took her to the garage and kept her there handcuffed for 2-3 hoursNo violation- police can use reasonable force to detain persons in the home when conducting a search in the house of dangerous suspectsJustification for detaining Mena and other people in the house- safety of the officers, preventing flight, facilitating orderly completion of the searchUnited States v. Bailey2013Supp. 21Suspects were detained a mile away from the apartment/house to be searchedOnly persons within the immediate vicinity of the search may be detained (factors- lawful limits of property, within sight, ease of reentry) 11. Knock and Announce RuleWilson v. Arkansas1995126Police had probable cause and a warrant to search the house- the door was open and screen unlocked so the police entered and announced themselvesViolation- police must knock first before entering!Reasonableness clause requires knock and announce absent exigent circumstancesRichards v. Wisconsin 1997129Police request a warrant with a no knock entry, magistrate approves the warrant but crosses out no knock entry, police knock on the door at the same time as they are ramming the door down No per se blanket rule exceptions for drugs to excuse the police from the knock and announce ruleIn order to justify a no knock entry, police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile. Or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime12. Unforeseen Circumstances or Mistakes While Executing a WarrantMaryland v. Garrison1987133Police had a warrant for an apartment on the third floor, there were 2 apartments on the third floor and police searched both (discovered contraband in the first apartment before realizing they were in the wrong apartment) Factual mistakes do not invalidate a warrant that would have been valid if it reflected an accurate understanding of the building’s floor plan Mistake was reasonableLA County v. Rettelle2007136Police had a warrant to search the house but the police were unaware the house had been sold by the suspects- police looking for 3 african American suspects in the residence, door answered by 17 year old white male, 2 white adults naked in bed held at gun point by police Warrant and Manner of Execution was reasonableWhen officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, the fourth amendment is not violated 13. Warrant ExceptionsExigent Circumstances- Hot Pursuit, Prevent Injury, Prevent Destruction of the EvidenceWarden v. Hayden 1967140Defendant was arrested in his home after a robbery. The robber had been followed by two cab drivers to the residence. Their dispatcher notified the police, who arrived in short order and were permitted to enter by Mrs. Hayden, the defendant’s wife. As they searched the house, police found weapons, ammunition, and clothing that the robber was described as wearing. The police had no search warrant.Speedy search was essential here to prevent escape by the defendant and ensure the police had control of all the weapons- necessary to find a suspected felon that was armed after he ran into the house minutes before 4th A does not require the police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of othersPayton v. New York1980142New York police believed that Payton was responsible for murdering a gas station manager two days prior to his arrest. Six officers went to Mr. Payton’s apartment and, when no one answered their knock, forcibly entered. Upon entering, they saw a shell casing in plain view that would later be admitted into evidence.Unconstitutional- no warrant and no exigent circumstances4th A prohibits the police from making a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart2006145Police respond to a call about noise at a party at 3 am, see a scuffle occurring in the kitchen, knock and announce and no one could hear, police enter and break up the fightExigent circumstances applies when serious threat to safety of others- may enter without warrant to render emergency assistance to injured occupant or protect against imminent injuryLook to what a reasonable police officer would have done in the situation- officer’s actual motivation is irrelevant Michigan v. Fisher2009147Police responding to disturbance complaint- police arrived and saw broken glass from the windows, a man inside with a bleeding hand throwing things, man did not respond if he needed emergency assistance and placed a couch in front of the door, police entered and defendant pointed a rifle at the officerEntry was reasonable- Objective police officers would enter because of imminent injuryApplied law from Brigham Kentucky v. King2011150Officers searching for drug dealing suspect after he ran into his apartment, 2 apartments did not know which one the suspect ran into, officers smelled marijuana coming from the apartment on the left, knocked and announced but no one answered and police could hear movement and moving furniture inside so they broke down the door and found drugs and paraphanalia but not the suspect. Checked the apartment on the right and found the suspectEntry was lawful- ok for police to create the exigent circumstances by knocking if it did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.14. Limits on Exigent CircumstancesWelsh v. Wisconsin 1984157Witness sees defendant driving erratically and driving off the road, defendant asked witness for a ride home but ends up walking home, Police find out the owner of the car, goes to his home and are let in by his step daughter to find the defendant asleep in his bedAn important factor to be considered when determining whether exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense- here D was not a danger, already asleep in bedWarrantless arrest not permissible to arrest a person for a nonjailable traffic offense 15. Plain ViewCoolidge v. New Hampshire1971160Requirements for Plain View Doctrine: (1) Police must have lawful access in a place they have a right to be as well as (2) evidence must be immediately incriminating and in plain viewArizona v. Hicks1987161Police entered an apartment without a warrant to investigate shots fired, saw stereo equipment they believed to be stolen, officer moved the stereos to find the identification number- stereos were stolenBelief that speakers are stolen does not fall under plain view requirement of immediately incriminating evidence – need probable cause Can’t move the objects- no longer plain viewMinnesota v. Dickerson1993162Police become suspicious in a high drug rate neighborhood when an individual is walking towards them, sees the police, and turns around and walks the other direction. Police conduct Terry stop and feel a lump in his pocketSearch was improper and did not fall under “Plain Touch Doctrine”- Police officer knew lump was not a weaponEvidence must be immediately incriminating based on the touch, if police engage in further manipulation of the object it is an unjustified search15. The Automobile ExceptionCaroll v. U.S1925165Prohibition era- probable cause that Caroll was transporting alcohol- searched without a warrant OK- Not practical to secure a warrant for a vehicle that can be quickly moved out of the areaMust have probable cause there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle but can search the entire vehicle (including the trunk)California v. Carney1985166Police have information that owner of a mobile home/RV was selling drugs in exchange for sex so police watch the building. Police see a kid go into the RV and come out over an hour later. Police stop the kid and the kid confirms their suspicions so police conduct a searchpolice did not need a search warrant before searching the motor home- lesser degree of protection for motor vehicles because they can be quickly moved out of the areaa motor home was subject to the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement because the motor home was readily movable.16. Searches of Containers in AutomobilesUnited States v. Ross1982A warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception could include a search of a container or package found inside the car when the search was supported by probable cause California v. Acevedo1991169DEA Agent seizes a fed ex package in Hawaii that was being sent to CA, sends to police in CA, police go to Fed ex to see who is picking up the package, Guy picks up package and places it in his trunk, police pull him over and search the trunk4th A does not require a warrant to search a container in a vehicle if there is probable cause to search the container. This holding applies even if there is no probable cause to search the entire vehicle.17. Searches Incident to Arrest Chimel v. California1969175Police arrived at D’s home with an arrest warrant for burglary. Police asked for permission to search the home- D refused- police searched anyway and found coins and medals which were used to convict DSearch not ok- beyond the D’s person and area within his immediate control Searches "incident to arrest" are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspectRiley v. California2014 Supp.D was arrested for possession of firearms after his car was impounded and searched. Upon arrest police seized D’s cell phone and searched it without a warrantUnconstitutional- Warrant required to search a mobile phoneThe warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the purposes of protecting officer safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data in a cell phoneArizona v. Gant2009181D pulled over, arrested, and placed in the squad car. Police then search the vehicle and discover a handgun and cocaine. Violation of Fourth AmendmentPolice may search the vehicle of its recent occupant after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest18. Protective SweepMaryland v. Blue1990197Police entered D’s home to arrest him, D emerged from the basement, police enter the basement to ensure no one else was there. While in the basement police find evidence connecting D to the robbery that led to the arrestNo violation- protective sweep upheld Only a reasonable belief (reasonable suspicion) that a serious danger exists is required before police perform a protective sweep after arresting a person in his home19. Consent Georgia v. Randolph2006208D arrested for drug possession after police found cocaine in his home. Police did not have a warrant. D’s wife consented to the search but D objected to the searchUnconstitutional searchWhen two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutionalFernandez v. California2014Supp.Police searching for D in connection with robbery. Go to a house where a woman answers and police ask to conduct a search. D steps forward and objects to the search. D is arrested and taken into custody. Police went back to the apartment and the woman consented to the search Different from Randolph- okay to search when objecting tenant is no longer present and there is consent Because the objecting tenant was no longer present, the search was reasonable because consenting tenant had authority to allow police to enter and search 20. Administrative SearchCamara v. Municipal Court1967212A city ordinance gave city building inspectors the right to enter any building at reasonable times in furtherance of their code enforcement duties. The occupant denied entrance to building inspectors on three separate occasions, each time demanding that they first obtain a warrant. He was prosecuted under another ordinance that made it a crime to refuse to comply with the inspectors' requests. He claimed the warrantless search requested by the building inspectors violated his?Fourth Amendment?rightsSearch without a awarrant or probable cause would violate fourth amendment Probable cause for administrative searches altered to reasonable governmental interest New York v. Burger1987218NY law requires junkyards to be licensed and operators to maintain records of sales. Police entered D’s junk yard, he did not have the proper documentation as required by law. Police inspected the lot and found some of the vehicles were stolen.The state has a substantial interest in regulating because the threat of motor theft, and regulation of the industry” can control “the receiver of, or market in, stolen property.” That statute provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant by informing the operator “that inspections will be made on a regular basis. Traditionally a junkyard business is a “closely regulated business” and may be inspected without a warrant or probable cause where: substantial government interest, warrantless search necessary to further regulatory scheme, inspection by its terms provides adequate substitute for the warrant.City of Los Angeles v. PatelLA Muni Code- compels operators of hotels to keep records containing specific information about guests and make the records available to inspector on demand. Hotel operator says unconstitutional Unconstitutional because penalizes hotel operators for declining to turn over their records without affording them any opportunity for precompliance reviewHotels are not a “closely regulated” business and therefore do not fall under that exception to the warrant requirement.21. Border SearchesU.S. v. Flores-Montano2004222D approached the US- Mexico border and seemed nervous so police brought drug sniffing dog which alerted police to the gas tank. Police searched vehicle by removing and disassembling the gas tank and discovered marijuana bricks in the tankNo reasonable suspicion requiredGovernment has the authority to inspect a vehicle's fuel tank at the border without suspicion. No reasonable suspicion required at the borderU.S. v. Montoya- Hernandez1985227D entered US at the airport. Customs inspectors detained Defendant upon her arrival based upon a suspicion that she was smuggling drugs. Inspectors detained defendant for at least 16 hours before defendant passed balloons filled with cocaine from her alimentary canal. Defendant was given the opportunity to undergo an x-ray. Inspectors sought a search warrant after several hours. Defendant alleged that her Fourth Amendment,U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV, rights were violated by an unreasonable detention. No violation of fourth amendment- length of time that defendant was detained was reasonable Only reasonable suspicion required at the border 22. CheckpointsMichigan State Police v. Sitz1990233Michigan state implemented DUI checkpoints and licensed driver challenged it “The balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program.”DUI checkpoints not a violation and no suspicion required City of Indianapolis v. Edmond2000235Checkpoint program whose primary purpose is to discover illegal drugs- involves visual search and dog sniffingUnconstitutional because primary purpose is to discover criminal activityWhen primary purpose is for law enforcement, checkpoint not ok Post Arrest DNAMaryland v. King2013Supp.Statute allows police to collect DNA samples from individuals who were arrested for violent crimes. D was arrested and his DNA was collected and connected him to an unsolved rape caseNo violation of fourth amendment- legitimate state interest and not invasive When officer’s make an arrest based on probable cause, taking DNA is reasonable 23. SchoolsNew Jersey v. TLO1985240School officials searched students purse based on suspicion that she had cigarettes. The officials discovered cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list containing the names of students who owed her money. Charged with possession of marijuana.School officials may search a student’s purse based on reasonable suspicion- no need for warrant or PC- diminished privacy expectation for students and need for schools to maintain discipline and order Safford Unified School District v. Redding2009241D, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policyUnconstitutional because search in this case was unreasonable Based on a reasonable suspicion, search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."24. Drug Testing Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton1995258Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy after discovering in an investigation that high school students may be involved in drug use. Policy authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testingNo fourth amendment violation- government concern over safety of students under their supervision overrides minimal intrusion into privacy (drug test occurs in similar manner as regular public restroom use)No violation as long as its reasonable Bd. Of Education v. Earls2002266Drug testing policy requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activityNo Fourth Amendment violation- the policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its studentsReasonable means to further an important interest Ferguson v. City of Charleston2001274The hospital was testing pregnant women without their consent for cocaine use and turning the evidence over to the police.Unreasonable search- involvement of police meant ultimate search was crime control A policy that permits searches where the purpose served is “ultimately indistinguishable form the general interest in crime control” does not comport with the Fourth Amendment25. Jail and Prison SearchesFlorence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders2012279D was searched twice in seven days after he was arrested on a warrant for a traffic violation he had already paid. D says unreasonable because he paid already and minor offense Reasonable because strong interest in keeping employees and inmates safeStrip searches for inmates entering the general population of a prison do not violate the Fourth Amendment26. Probation and ParoleU.S. v. Knights2001288D on probation for drug offense. Part of probation means agreeing to search of person, property, place of residence, vehicle, personal effects, to search at anytime, with or without a search warrant, warrant of arrest or reasonable cause by any probation officer or law enforcement officer. Police officer searched D’s apartment after an arson at PGE and discovered evidence of his involvement Warrantless search ok because reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of the probation For probation- reasonable suspicion is constitutionally sufficient to render a warrant requirement unnecessarySamson v. California2006290Police officer stopped D because he knew D was on parole- found meth on D and arrested him Reasonable- An inmate who chooses to complete his sentence outside of direct physical custody on parole, however, remains in the Department of Correction's legal custody until the conclusion of his sentence, and therefore has significantly reduced privacy rights.Parolees do not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate27. When is a person seized?United States v. Mendenhall1980299D was approached at the airport by DEA agents who asked to see ticket and ID (she looked like she was illegally transporting drugs). Agents asked if she would go with them to their office and she complied. Told her if she wanted to leave she would be restrained. Asked her if they could search her and her purse and she compliedNo seizure- voluntarily accompanied the agents to the office and reasonable person would have felt like they could leave and go on their way A person is "seized" when, by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained- reasonable person test 28. ArrestAtwater v. City of Lago Vista2001310Misdemeanor for driver not to secure small children sitting in the front seat. D was driving and her kids were sitting in the front seat without seatbelts. Police pulled the car over and the officer was aggressive (according to D) and arrested her and placed her in jail. No violation- if an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence he may, without violating the fourth amendment, arrest the offenderArrests permissible under all circumstances of criminal actions (misdemeanor and felony)Virginia v. Moore2008318Officer knows the defendant and knows he is driving with a suspended license- officers arrested him and search and found cocaine- State law says police should have only issued a summonsNot reasonable under state law, but reasonable under fourth amendment Arrest permissible under federal law even for minor offenses29. Stop and FriskTerry v. Ohio1968323Officer observed a group of young men standing around and walking by a store window like 50 times apparently doing recon. He approaches the men and asks for their name, the boys mumble something so the officer grabs Terry turns him around and conducts a pat down, feels a weapon, recovers a gun from his coatReasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armedAn officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerousAnonymous tipsNavarette v. California2014Supp.A woman called police and said a vehicle ran her off the road and was driving erratically. Police officer located the vehicle she identified during the call and executed a traffic stop.Reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion that driver was intoxicated so justified for officer to conduct a traffic stopPolice can stop drivers based on anonymous unverified phone calls Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist.2004334D was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. State law requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked. D challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.No violation—search was based on reasonable suspicion (investigating the nearby assault) and was minimally intrusive (only asked his name)Neither the Fourth or Fifth Amendment is violated when an individual can be arrested for not providing their name to an officer after the officer asks for itUnited States v. Arvizu2002338D was stopped by border patrol while driving on unpaved road near checkpoint. D consented to search and officer found with 100 pounds of marijuana. Challenge the stopNo violation- reasonable suspicion based on totality of the circumstances Look at the “totality of the circumstances” of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoingFlorida v. J.L.2000345Police received an anonymous tip that a black male wearing a plaid shirt at a bus stop was carrying a weapon. Officers saw three black males at the bus stop, one was wearing plaid, searched him and found a weapon.Searching D solely on the basis of the anonymous tip received by the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure because the tip did not meet minimum requirements to perform a warrantless searchAn anonymous tip must posses a moderate level of reliability, including "predictive information" that offers police a "means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility."Illinois v. Wardlow2000348D was holding an opaque bag and fled a known heavy narcotics area. Police stopped him and conducted a pat down. Arrested D after discovering a handgun. Challenged the stop – is a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from identifiable police officers, patrolling a high crime area, sufficiently suspicious to justify the officers' stop of that person?Officer was justified in suspecting that the accused was involved in criminal activity and, therefore, in investigating furtherNervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion to justify a stop30. Exclusionary RuleHudson v. Michigan2006374D convicted after police found a gun and cocaine in his home. Police had a valid search warrant but failed to knock and announceEvidence need not be excluded when police violate the "knock-and-announce" ruleif you do a no-knock warrant, there is no remedy – you can still bring the evidence in.Weeks v. United States1914379Police entered the home of D and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant.Violation of Fourth Amendment to seize personal property and refuse to return it. Exclude evidence seized in violation of Fourth AmendmentFirst application of the exclusionary ruleMapp v. Ohio1961381The police pretended to have a warrant and forcibly entered D’s home, where they seized evidence that was admitted at D’s trial for possessing obscene materialsOverruled wolf- exclusionary rule applied to state police Constitution and judicial integrity require the exclusionary rule to apply to the statesHerring v. United States2009388Police searched D and found meth in his pocket and a gun in his vehicle based on an arrest warrant (which turned out to be outdated but never got updated in the system)Evidence admissible because negligent action by police was an isolated incident The exclusionary rule does not apply to negligent or good faith violations of the Fourth Amendment- applies only to deliberate or reckless violations or those that are the result of systematic government policiesHeien v. North CarolinaPolice pulled D over because he believed it was illegal to drive with a broken tail light- found drugs during search of the vehicle. State law only required one working brake light No violation- reasonable mistakeSearch or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has made a reasonable factual or legal mistakeRakas v. Ill.1978402Search of a car believed to have been used in a robbery that Police recovered sawed off rifle and shells. Passengers in the vehicle raise the exclusionary rule Search of a vehicle violates the rights of the owner and driver of the car so they are the only ones that may challenge the search, not the passengerPassengers of the vehicle did not have standing to raise the exclusionary ruleMinnesota v. Carter1998409Cops get an anonymous tip about people doing drugs in an apartment building, cop is outside the apartment building and can see three people bagging cocaine through the window, two of the individuals left in a car, the cops pulled them over and found a handgun on the floor of the car, later the police found the bags of cocaine in the vehicleDefendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house- only there for 2 hours, for a commercial purpose, and did not know the owner of the housePeople who visit someone's home for a short time do not have the same protection against unreasonable police searches and seizures as do the residents or their overnight guests. Short-term visits for commercial transactions are not protected by the Fourth AmendmentBrendlin v. California.2007413Police stopped a vehicle with expired registration and D was a passenger with a warrant out for his arrest. Police found meth and marijuana in the vehicle and on his person If a car is stopped, then everyone in it is stopped. If its stopped illegally, everyone has standing to challenge things related to the stopWhen a vehicle is stopped at a traffic stop, the passenger as well as the driver is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.Murray v. U.S.1988418Police officers were tailing two people suspected of drug dealing- followed them to a warehouse. Once the Ds left again police pulled them over and searched the vehicles to find marijuana. Went back to the warehouse without a warrant- viewed the bales and left to get a warrant to later discover marijuana balesBecause the officers in this case obtained a lawful warrant without relying on the information they obtained illegally, the evidence seized in the warranted entry can be considered to have come from an independent source and therefore not subject to exclusionEvidence that would be excluded under the Fourth Amendment is admissible if it comes from an independent sourceNix v. Williams1984423Williams was arrested for the murder of a 10 year old girl whose body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a search for the child’s body. During the search, in response to an officer’s appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead them to the body.When evidence will inevitably be found in the course of an investigation, it is not unconstitutionally obtained if it is found sooner by other meansUnder the inevitable discovery doctrine, because the evidence would have been discovered within a short period of time, the method in which it was obtained became irrelevant and it was still allowed against the defendantU.S. v. Leon1984439A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant.Evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial- don’t want guilty defendants walking away Good Faith Exception to the exclusionary rule 31. Fifth AmendmentMiranda v. Arizona1966479Suspect must be aware of his rights before interrogation- Right to remain silent, any statement may be used against him, Right to an attorney, may waive these rightsFifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in placeDickerson v. United States2000493A federal law was in place that allowed the admission of statements if they were voluntarily made.Struck down federal statute that attempted to preempt the Miranda warnings decision Congress cannot overrule the Miranda v. Arizona decision because it was a decision based on the United States Constitution32. CustodyJ.D.B. v. North Carolina2011504Two burglaries – JDB seen near the scene of the burglary, Police go to the school and pull the 13 year old special ed enrolled 7th grader outside of his class to interview him in the principals office, Principal urging the kid to tell the truth, Guardian in this case was not notified about the questioningA child's age properly informs the Miranda custody analysisChild’s age must be considered when evaluating custody and interrogation issues Howes v. Fields2012Defendant in jail when he was being questioned about another crime- was not read Miranda rights, questioned for 5-7 hours before finally confessing SCOTUS has refused to adopt a rule that an inmate must be Mirandized every time he is in custody (prison), and speaks to a Government official.The?Miranda?warning does not have to be given where an inmate is removed for interrogation about activity outside the prison, unless the interrogation is conducted in a way as to have a coercive?effect on the speaker; i.e., the speaker’s freedom-of-movement, is restricted.33. InterrogationRhode Island v. Innis1980D arrested for robbing and murdering a cab driver- gun was not found. While D was in the back of the police car, officers remarked what a tragedy it would be if a child were to stumble upon the weapon before they found it. D disclosed where the weapon was Conversation between two police officers is NOT an interrogationInterrogation should only include conduct that the police should KNOW would be likely to illicit a response34. Miranda ViolationOregon v. Elstad1984D was suspected of committing a burglary and was picked up by police officers in his home. Before officers had given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, Elstad made an incriminating statement. Later, D was read Miranda warnings and voluntarily confessed While Miranda required that unwarned admissions must be suppressed, subsequent statements, if made knowingly and voluntarily, need not be.A suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warningsMissouri v. Seibert2004D set fire to her mobile home killing two individuals that were inside. Upon questioning, police initially withheld Miranda to get D to confess. Once D confessed, officer took a break, came back and gave the Miranda warnings and prompted D to restate the confession A confession obtained after an un-Mirandized confession was given is not always inadmissible but, when it is intentionally obtained by a determination not to give Miranda warnings, it is.The second Post-Miranda confession is not admissible when a prior confession has been given unless the Miranda warning and accompanying break are sufficient to give the defendant the reasonable belief that she can decide not to speak with policeU.S. v. Patane2004D was arrested at his home when he called his ex-girlfriend in violation of a restraining order. During the arrest, police officers began reading D his rights, which he interrupted, saying that he knew his rights. The officers then stopped, at which point D admitted to possession of a firearm.Evidence is admissible, so long as the statements have not been coerced; however, the statements, themselves, may not be admissible as un-Mirandized confessionsAny statements obtained as un-Mirandized may not be used, but this case holds that physical evidence, when volunteered, may be. No fruit of the poisonous tree exceptionSalinas v. Texas2013D was interviewed in a non custodial setting- volunteered to accompany police, no Miranda warnings given. D answered the officer’s questions for most of the interview, but went silent and tightened up when asked if the shotgun would match the shells recovered at the murder scene. After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which defendant answered.The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning.A Defendant generally must expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to benefit from it. Two exceptions- (1) D does not need to take the stand to claim the privilege (2) failure to claim this privilege must be excused when that failure was due to government coercion.35. WaiverNorth Carolina v. Butler1979After his arrest, D was given his Miranda warnings. He was also given a form to read outlining his rights. When asked, D said that he understood his rights. He refused to sign the form indicating that he waived his rights, but agreed to talk to the agents and made self-incriminating statements.The question is not one of form, but rather whether the D in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in Miranda- in some cases, waiver can be inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogatedExpress written or oral statement waiving Miranda is strong proof of waiver but not necessary. Look to whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights in Miranda Berghuis v. Thompkins2010D a suspect in a shooting, fled to Ohio where he was arrested. Given a rights form read it aloud and then officer read it to him, D refused to sign it. After 3 hours, an officer asked D, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" D said, "Yes."A suspect who has received and understands his Miranda rights and has not invoked these rights waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the policeNothing short of unambiguous and unequivocal asserting of the right to remain silent will be sufficient to implicate Miranda protectionsMichigan v. Mosley1975D was arrested in connection with a robbery. After being advised of his rights, D said he did not want to talk about the robbery. Police left. A few hours later, while Mosley was still being held, another officer interrogated him regarding a homicide. The officer read Mosley a fresh Miranda warning and Mosley then made statements that incriminated him.Questioning on a different crime did not violate Mosley's right to remain silent. Lapse of time, fresh warnings= no fifth amendment violationIf you are interrogated about a different crime and you invoke the right to silence, it has to be offense specificEdwards v. Arizona1981D was read his rights, said he wanted to make a deal but he wanted an attorney before making one. The next morning, without an attorney present, 2 officers questioned D after an officer said he had to speak with the officers. D was given his rights and made a confession When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. If D requests counsel, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.Maryland v. Shatzer2010Defendant was incarcerated for child sex abuse, police interrogating for a second crimeEdwards presumption doesn’t last forever. Police can reinitiate interrogation after invocation of 5th A right to counsel if 14 day break in custody. Sending defendant back into general jail population constitutes break in custodyPolice may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custodyDavis v. United States1994Davis murdered another sailor with a pool cue after he refused to pay $30 debt. D was taken into custody and read his rights. D confessed and then made ambiguous statement about an attorney“Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” is NOT clear enough Invoking right to counsel must be a clear, articulate, unequivocal invocation. 36. ImpeachmentHarris v. N.Y.1971D took the stand and stated he sold baking powder not heroin- impeached D not entitled to perjure himselfProsecutors MAY use statements obtained in violation of Miranda to impeach a defendant’s testimony at trial37. EmergenciesN.Y. v. Quarles1984A woman identified D as her rapist to a police officer in a supermarket. After being stopped and frisked, revealing an empty shoulder holster, respondent Benjamin Quarles said “the gun is over there” in response to an officer’s question about its whereabouts. Only then did the officer give the respondent his Miranda warnings.Strong public safety concerns (supermarket very public place- customer may find it) justifying the court creating an exception to the requirement that officers provide Miranda warnings before asking questions"Public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects38. Sixth Amendment Right During InterrogationMassiah v. U.S.1964Two individuals arrested for transporting narcotics. Released on bail and one of them agreed to allow police to bug his car and allow police to listen to his conversations with co-defendant. Co-D makes incriminating statements.Statements may NOT come in- police deliberately eliciting statement from defendant after he was indicted in the absence of counsel6th Amendment attaches with formal charges (indictment, preliminary hearing, arraignment) and includes interrogation!!39. Offense Specific Texas v. Cobb2011Man reports a burglary and says his wife and child are missing- neighbor is suspected of involvement. While under arrest for a different offense, police question the neighbor about the burglary and disappearancesThe confession is admissible because the Respondent waived his Miranda rights, and his right to counsel for the burglary charge would not transfer to the murder charge.Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense specific- applies only to charged crimes and offenses based on the same act.40. WaiversMontejo v. Louisiana2009D was appointed counsel at a hearing but was not informed. D wrote an apology letter to the victim.When a court appoints counsel for an indigent defendant in the absence of any request on his part, he can still voluntarily waive his rightPolice are no longer forbidden from initiating conversion with suspects who had been formally charged or arraigned and appointed or retained counsel if the suspect is willing to answer their questions, and treat his willingness to answer as constituting a waiver of his right to have his counsel present at a questioning41. Right to Counsel in LineupsU.S. v. WadeBank robbery, D arrested and appointed counsel, lineup held without counsel present, witness identifies DPre-trial lineup critical stage of procedure – right to counsel only at post-indictment lineupsGilbert v. US1967D suspected of committing multiple robberies. Lineup held in auditorium with 100 witnesses- “wholesale identifications” where witnesses make identifications in each other’s presenceProsecutor introduced both in court and out of court ID Out of court ID inadmissible but in court ID admissible In court identification admissible, in court identification must be found to have independent origin, free of the primary taint of the improperly conducted lineup, in order to be admitted42. Right to Counsel During IDKirby v. Illinois1972Man’s wallet stolen, police stop two individuals who had the identification of the man whose wallet was stolen. Man arrived at police station and ID’d them immediately before any charges were filed The right to counsel attaches only at the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings, which have not begun prior to an indictment or formal chargeSixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during a pre-indictment identificationUnited States v.Ash1973Police use photo spread of mug shots BEFORE indictment, police obtain tentative IDs. Police go back to witnesses again before trial. Witnesses id D, no counsel presentThe Sixth Amendment of the Constitution does not grant an accused the right to counsel during a post indictment photographic identification procedure because the accused himself is not entitled to be present, rendering it impossible that the accused will be confused or overpowered by the proceedings.An accused does not have the right to counsel at a post indictment photographic lineup43. Eyewitness IDManson v. Brathwaite1977A trooper and an informant went to the apartment of a suspected narcotics dealer to purchase heroin, which they did. The suspected dealer was charged with dealing heroin. No lineup was ever conducted, and the respondent was identified on the strength of one photograph.Reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. Factors to be considered include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the degree of attention paid by the witness, accuracy of the prior description, level of certainty, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.Is it a suggestive procedure? Was it nevertheless reliable (using Biggers factors?)Perry v. New HampshirePhone call about African American male breaking into cars- find D holding 2 speakersDPC does not require inquiry into reliability of an eyewitness ID when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download