Chapter 8: the 4th amend and the law of search and seizure
'seized'
A person is "seized" when, by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained
meaning of search
If police actively look for evidence of a crime, or inspect goods or objects with the hope of discovering contraband, they have carried out a search within meaning of 4th
violation of 4th
Whether a search has occurred for purposes of the 4th depends on whether gov agents violated an individuals actual and reasonable expectations of privacy
united states v mendenhall
(seizure case) Was an airline passenger "seized" under the 4th Amdt. when two DEA agents confronted her upon deplaning and asked for her ticket and ID and then asked if she would accompany them to an office for further questioning? Not "seized": No objective reason for D to believe that she was not free to end the conversation and proceed on her way -Agents did have a reasonable suspicion for believing that D was engaging in criminal activity -Voluntarily went to office: Totality of the evidence plainly shows that D voluntarily consented to accompany the officers to the DEA office
united states v robinson
bright line rule SILA case officer pulled over and arresting Robinson for operating an automobile without a valid permit officer then frisked and discovered crumpled package of heroin in pocket does the officers search violate the 4th amendment? NO Court supported the search officer did not conduct the search in an abusive or extreme manner, and because he acted consistent with the authority vested in a police officer when making an arrest, his actions were legitimate Was already making arrest, need to follow procedure in making sure no harmful material on offender
US v drayton
consent exception to warrant requirement o Random bus search o Question: "Whether officers must advise bus passengers during these encounters of their right not to cooperate." o Held: NO, held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches o although the officer did not inform the defendants of their right to refuse the search, he did request permission to search and gave no indication consent was required
sibron v new york
digging during stop officer observed man talking to addicts, assumed he was selling broad search powers conferred on New York State police officers under the State's "stop-and-frisk" law violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections? Officers actions were not justified. inference that Sibron engaged in narcotics trafficking merely because he spoke with drug addicts did not constitute probably cause for a warrantless search could not be justified as a self-protective search for weapons since he admitted that he had no reason to suspect Sibron of concealment
california v acevedo
excep to warr/automobile exception Under the Fourth Amendment, may police conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe that the container holds evidence? The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained. Prob cause here was offender carrying paper bag while leaving house of marijuana
birgham city v stuart
exigent circum/excep to warr/emergency aid Supreme Court held that police may enter a building without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is "seriously injured or threatened with such injury Court ruled that once the officers announced their presence, they were free to enter the house to deal with the tumult, as it would be pointless to stand at the door waiting for a response while people brawled inside
reasonable suspicion
needed for an investigative stop
search warrant requirements
search warrant details what is to be searched, where the search is being conducted and what evidence is to be seized. To be legal, the search warrant must be reviewed and signed by a judge/magistrate who has determined that the requested search is reasonable and probable cause exists to believe that the person whose property is being searched is involved in illegal activity (before search) essentially providing the limits in scope of search, as to not allow abuse of power If information for warrant does not come directly from first hand observation from officer, an INFORMANT must provide and prove 1. Credibility and veracity 2. Basis of knowledge on how info was provided to officer
mapp v ohio
(4th amend ; exclusionary rule) police entered home no warrant May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? Federal exclusionary rule now applies to the States through application of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. All illegally obtained evidence under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution must now be excluded. federal exclusionary rule, which forbade the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in federal courts, was also applicable to the states through the incorporation doctrine
california v greenwood
(curtilage case) suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence -police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home, searched his trash outside of home did the warrantless search and seizure of greenwood's garbage violate the fourth amendment search and seizure guarantee? NO Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public."
united states v leon
(good faith exception) police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance after anonymous tip, and got warrant (but warrant deemed insufficient afterwards due to anonymous tip not being enough) is there a good faith exception to exclusionary rule? YES can this evidence (although insufficient warrant) be used in court? YES evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial
arrests
NEED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST after being detained, the actual arrest occurs when a person has been taken into police custody and is no longer free to leave or move about (not necessarily cuffed or restrained)
probable cause
REQUIRED UNDER 4TH FOR A WARRANT for an arrest, necessary for a search warrant, but the certainty that a search or seizure will uncover illegality is not required judge determines validity of probable cause, take into account all circumstances stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction
search incident to lawful arrest
SILA : legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee's immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the destruction of evidence (removes need of prob cause)
exceptions to search warrant requirement
SILA consent plain view exigent circumstances automobile exception
chimel v california
SILA exception o Chimel was arrested inside his home, police asked for consent to search home he said no, police proceeded o QUESTION: here a defendant is lawfully arrested inside his home, is a warrantless search of the area beyond the defendant's immediate control constitutional? o Rule with SILA: Incident to a lawful arrest, a search of any area beyond the arrestee's immediate control, is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ("Constitution"), unless there is a clear danger that evidence may be destroyed or concealed or there is an imminent threat of harm to the arresting officers. o the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person. o searches incident to a lawful arrest are reasonable to seize weapons as well as prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence. Searches beyond the scope of these justifications are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
florida v JL
anonymous tip and warrantless search Did searching J.L. solely on the basis of the anonymous tip received by the Miami-Dade police violate his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure? YES, anonymous tip did not meet the minimum requirements to perform a warrantless search 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."
terry stop
brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. LIMITED TO WEAPONS AND SHORT
kentucky v king
exigent circum/excep to warr/destruction of evidence/hot pursuit Does the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions? NO The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment IN THIS CASE, THEY DID CREATE THE CIRCUMSTANCE police were not in pursuit of a fleeing suspect when they entered the apartment since there was no evidence that the original suspect even knew that he was being followed by police
weeks v united states
fruit of the poisonous tree case ; metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally Police entered home without warrant and did search and seizure - Question: violation of 4th? -YES Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. -To allow private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens would have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures would be of no value whatsoever. -This was the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule."
minnesota v dickerson
held that instances in which an officer uses the sense of sight to discover illegal goods are analogous to those involving the sense of touch, must need almost certainty of contraband to seize item in pocket, officer did not but in this case, officers actions did not qualify case had gone beyond the limits of a lawful patdown search before he could determine that the object was contraband, making the search and the subsequent seizure unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
the exclusionary rule
law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial to deter illegal police misconduct in trying to make arrest
search warrant
need probable cause to obtain court order that a magistrate, judge or Supreme Court official issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find
stop and frisk
need reasonable suspicion when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous.
exigent circumstances
occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant. hot pursuit destruction of evidence emergency aid
good faith exception
pertains to exclusionary rule applies majority to police allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant — that is, they had reason to believe their actions were legal
horton v california
plain view exception to warrant requirement • Guy gets robbed, robber is identified by multiple witnesses, police get warrant to for robbers house, when inside they don't find the stolen property but see multiple guns in plain view linking him to crime • Question: Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain sight if the discovery of such evidence was not inadvertent (part of warrant/deliberate plan)? • NO, inadvertence "is not a necessary condition" to plain view seizures • seizure of evidence in plain view does not constitute as an invasion of privacy that the Fourth Amendment is meant to prohibit • officer also had probable cause to believe that certain types of weapons were used in the commission of the crime, he could legally seize the weapons if they were found in the course of that search
bright line rule
present in us vs robinson standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation
whren v united states
probable cause case Police observe truck stopped unusually long, then speeds away -Stop truck on traffic violation but see bags of cocaine -Arrested on federal drug charges -Question: Did the officers conduct an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment? -No. The unanimous Court held that as long as officers have a reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle. -"declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop.
requirement for seizure of a person
reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, less than prob cause based on "specific and articulable facts" need justification in terms of prob cause or reasonable sus
4th amendment
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized
illinois v gates
search warrants and probable cause (good faith exception again) Did the search of the Gates's home violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? (got anonymous tip, then police observed drug smuggling) "Credibility/reliability" and "basis of knowledge" of an informant are very relevant in determining the value of a tip. However, these elements alone do not form the entire basis of inquiry in deciding whether probable cause exists. So long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the Fourth Amendment is not violated. the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one, and that the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant abided by it in this case. (acted in good faith)
katz v united states
situations involving warrant Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? YES, and in this case the police did not do so. Court ruled in favor of Katz. Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a "reasonable expectation of privacy"
subjective vs objective expectation of privacy
subjective expectation of privacy is the opinion of someone that a certain event or occurrence is private (public phone in katz case) whereas objective, legitimate, or reasonable expectation of privacy is a generalized idea of privacy known by society (case with garbage, garbage is not held under privacy rights)
terry v ohio
terry stop Plain clothed officer stopped and frisked the three men of which he believed to be suspicious, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail Question: was the search and seizure of terry and other men violation of 4th? -No, Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous
curtilage
the open space situated within a common enclosure belonging to a dwelling-house, not protected
hot pursuit
two specific conditions that justify warrantless searches under the rule of hot pursuit: the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury