CRIM LAW: searches and seizures

Inevitable discovery

Exception to the exclusionary rule. Illegally obtained evidence is admissible if police would have "inevitably" discovered it

fruit of poisoned tree

Exception to the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained through illegally obtained evidence is also inadmisible

Special needs

Exceptions that don't fit into other categories. Include: probation and parole searches, school searches, searches of highly regulated businesses (pawn shops, firearms dealers, junkyards), employment and educational drug screenings, the immediate search for temporary evidence (such as blood alcohol content) from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Escobedo v Illinois

FACTS: Escobedo was arrested without a warrant on charge of murder. - police investigated, but defendant wouldn't make a statement without an attorney present, police continued to interrogate - attorney was denied access to his client EFFECTS: After Escobedo's trial, he appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. Illinois allowed a rehearing, but the court affirmed the original sentence. Escobedo then appealed to the Us Supreme Court. He won with a split decision of 5-4.The court ruled that Escobedo's 6th Amendment right to an attorney had been violated. WINNER: Escobedo

Gideon v Wainwright

FACTS: Gideon was convicted of breaking and entering - asked for state appointed attorney, denied (goes against rights) - forced to defend himself and was convicted EFFECTS: Seeking counsel is a right that everyone has and when you can't afford an attorney, one should be appointed to you. In a unanimous decision for this trial, the court said that this went along with the 6th amendment which guarantees the right of having an attorney for criminals. WINNER: Gideon

Florida v Jimeno

FACTS: Jimeno was overheard arranging a drug deal by police officer - stopped for traffic violation, Jimeno gave consent for car search - police found cocaine - Jimeno argued consent didn't count closed containers EFFECTS: the outcome was that when you consent to have your car searched, it includes closed bags and boxes. This doesn't violate the 4th Amendment because you consented. WINNER: Florida

Miranda v Arizona

FACTS: Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned in connection to kidnapping and rape - after 2 hours of interrogation, police received written confession - written confession used as evidence, even though Miranda hadn't been informed of his right to an attorney during the interrogation EFFECTS: 5-4 DECISION FOR MIRANDA The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. WINNER: Miranda

Oregon v Mathiason

FACTS: Oregon state police officer suspected mathiason for burglary so he called him in for questioning - mathiason spoke freely but was arrested after - mathiason wasn't read Miranda rights but he came to office freely EFFECTS: The court ruled 6-3 in favor of this police department. The impact taken from this ruling gave police more freedom to question criminal suspects and left uninformed persons more susceptible to coercive police interrogations WINNER: Oregon

Florida v Riley

FACTS: Riley lived in mobile home and owned greenhouse behind his home that's as shielded from view - officer received tip that Riley was growing marijuana but couldn't see into the greenhouse - flew in a helicopter and saw marijuana, obtained a search warrant, arrested Riley EFFECTS:The police did not violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy by observing his property from a helicopter with the naked eye because any member of the public could have viewed Riley's property from a helicopter flying in navigable airspace and observed the plans. The officer did not enter Riley's land or interfere with it in any way. Court noted that the case would be different if the flight operation had been contrary to the law. WINNER: Florida

Arizona v Gant

FACTS: Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. -After the officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in their squad car, they went on to search his vehicle, discovering a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine. - At trial, Gant asked the judge to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle because the search had been conducted without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures EFFECTS: The Supreme Court held that police 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 arrest. WINNER:

New Jersey v TLO

FACTS: TLO was a highschool student whose purse was searched since school officials believed she had cigarettes - officials discovered cigarettes, marijuana, list of students who owed her money - TLO charged with possession EFFECTS: 6-3 decision for New Jersey. The search resulting in the discovery fo the evidence of marijuana dealing by the students as reasonable WINNER: NJ

Stafford United School District v Redding

FACTS: eighth grader was strip searched based on a tip from another student that she had ibuprofen - sued school on fact that search violated 4th amendment EFFECTS: The Supreme Court said that Savanna's 4th amendment rights were violated when the school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers. The school official's however, did not have sufficient suspicion to extend their search to Savanna's underwear. The Supreme Court's ruling was that the school officials violated Savanna's constitutional rights when the strip searched her based on a classmate's accusation. WINNER: Redding

Chimel v California

FACTS: local officers went to chimel's home with a warrant authorizing arrest for burglary - warrant only authorized wingspan search, but police searched whole house - evidence ruled out by court EFFECTS: At first, it was considered constitutional because the involvement of criminal activity gave the officers probable cause to search the house, but was then ruled out because under the 4th amendment, it was an illegal search because of the fact that there was no warrant. WINNER: Chimel

Stern v New Haven Community Schools

FACTS: mirror of body restroom was two way, student observed buying marijuana - principal called students to office, one cooperated and the other didn't - stern was reported to police EFFECTS: official's limited view of a boys' restroom through two-way mirror to detect drug transactions neither invaded nor violated any of the observed students' rights under the Fourth Amendment WINNER: new haven school

Carroll v US

FACTS: officer arranged sale of illegal liquor from Carol, never went through - saw Carroll driving and pulled him over - he was arrested for violating prohibition and having illegal liquor - defendants filed motion to suppress evidence and cited lack of probable cause EFFECTS: Justice Taft wrote that there should be a distinction between houses and automobiles. Since there are too many cars to be searched on public highways, officers must have probable cause to stop and search vehicles. Because Carrol was already known to have been smuggling illegal alcohol, especially through that same route, the officers had probable. cause to stop them and search the car. The Carroll doctrine states that there are two constitutional requirements for a warrantless vehicle search: There must be probable cause to search the vehicle. There should be a genuine threat that the vehicle would be moved before a search warrant could be obtained. WINNER: US

United States v Robinson

FACTS: officer pulled over and arrested Robinson for operating a car without a valid permit - officer frisked Robinson and found heroin - Robinson argued that search violated fourth amendment EFFECT: courts distinguish between searches done to discover concealed weapons and those conducted coextensive with an arrest also that depending on the abusive or extreme manner an officer handles a search WINNER:

Knowles v Iowa

FACTS: police officer stopped Patrick knowles for speeding and conducted a full search of the car without probable cause or consent - search turned up marijuana, officer arrested knowles EFFECTS: In a unanimous opinion, the court held that a full-stopped car search can only be conducted when the safety of the officers is at risk. This search violated the "search incident to arrest" power and the fourth amendments prohibition against lawful searches and seizures. WINNER: Knowles

Katz v US

FACTS: police suspected Katz was transmitting gambling information over phone to clients in other states - federal agents attached eavesdropping clients to phone booth used by Katz - convicted Katz for illegal transmission of wagering information - Katz argued private phone calls are not evidence EFFECTS: The court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz, declaring that he was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play WINNER: Katz

Mapp v Ohio

FACTS: police suspected Mapp to be harboring a bomber, forced into her home without a warrant - found no suspect , but did find pornography - mapp was arrested but argued her rights were violated EFFECTS: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. WINNER: Mapp

California v Greenwood

FACTS: police suspected greenwood was dealing drugs from his home - not enough evidence for warrant, searched garbage bags on curb - uncovered evidence of drug use, used to obtain warrant to search the house and allowed for arrest of greenwood EFFECTS: Voting 6 to 2, the court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The court also noted that police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public." WINNER: California

Coolidge v New Hampshire

FACTS: police went to suspects house to question him about a murder - suspect showed police three guns and agreed to take lie detector test - suspect was arrested for murder and warrant was issued to allow police to search the automobile - Coolidge was sentenced to life in prison EFFECTS: claim for warrant was invalid. Government enforcement agent made the determination of probable cause for this case. Multiple justices decided that the searches and seizures for the suspects property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart said that the incident to arrest, plain view, or automobile exception did not justify the search so it became invalid. WINNER:

Vernonia School District v Acton

FACTS: school noticed drug problem so they made all students test for drug use to participate in sports - seventh grader without previous issues was denied a spot on football team because parents refused to sign him up for drug test - parents filed lawsuit saying policy violated fourth amendment EFFECTS: The federal court in Oregon dismissed Acton's suit. They appealed to the court of appeals for the 9th district which favored the Acton's complaint and voided the Vernonia drug testing program. However, this decision then conflicted a 1988 ruling of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which permitted random drug testing in public schools of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. So the case was then referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court argued that the search was reasonable under the fourth amendment. It was concluded that public schools can randomly drug test their students and that the policy implemented by the Vernonia School District did not violate the Fourth Amendment. WINNER: school

Michigan Department of Police v Stitz

FACTS: states police used random sobriety checkpoints, drivers were stopped and questioned and if thought to be intoxicated, sent to test - drivers filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from potential injunction to the checkpoint EFFECTS: The Court decided that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that the measure of intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints, is slight. This was also found lawful because they noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it and evidence found supported the effectiveness of this procedure. WINNER: Michigan

Terry v Ohio

FACTS: terry and two other men were observed by an officer to be casing a job - officer stopped and frisked men, found weapons EFFECTS: 8-1 decision, Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the 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." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation. WINNER: Ohio

Whren v USA

FACTS: whren and brown were driving in night drug area, while officers in plain clothes patrolled - whren sped without signaling, officers approached vehicle the noticed cocaine in vehicle EFFECTS: The unanimous Court ruled that if officers have a reasonable cause or suspicion to search a car they may. Since the traffic violation occurred the officers had the right to stop the vehicle and it was reasonable to search the vehicle since the Cocaine was in plain sight. The Supreme Court 9-0 favored with the police officer is doing there job and following the law. WINNER: USA

New York v Quarles

FACTS: woman stopped 2 officers and told them she was raped, described man as Quarles and said he went into supermarket carrying a gun - officer ordered him to stop, he was frisked and an empty shoulder holster was found - officer asked where the gun was after Quarles was arrested EFFECTS: Once the arrest was conducted, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. The officer's question to Quarles abou where his gun was, was excluded because the officer did not read him his Miranda rights before asking where the gun was. as well as the statement the gun was also excluded from evidence. The New York Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. WINNER: Quarles

Abandoned property

A law enforcement officer without a warrant or probable cause, may retrieve items of evidence that have been abandoned by their previous owners. No longer a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Criminal law

A law that defines crimes against the public order. Police study study this.

Frisk

A protective measure, justified when the officers thinks the safety of police officers or other citizens might be endangered. A pat down or minimal search

search warrant

A written court order that authorizes police to search a certain area. To obtain this, law enforcement must provide: info showing probable cause/premises to be searched/suspects to be found/illegal activities taking place/items to be seized. Issued by a non biased judged and executed within 72 hours.

Affidavit

A written statement of facts

Arrest

Act of apprehending a suspect for the purpose of detaining him or her on a criminal charge. takes place based on actions of the officer and the perception of the suspect. Elements: intent, authority, seizure or detention, understanding of a person. Additional protections under constitution.

Fourth amendment

Affects how police officers investigate crimes and gather evidence. All police searches, seizures of evidence and arrests must comply with this amendment

Warrantless searches of automobiles

Allowed if the person being arrested is close enough to the car to grab or destroy evidence or a weapon inside the car. The arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to be the same crime for which the arrest took place

Pretextual stops

As long as an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been broken, the true motivation for the stop is irrelevant

Miranda warnings

Based on 5th amendment and protection from inherent coercion. Suspects need protection from physical force or mental intimidation compelling a person to do something against their will. Required when a suspect is in custody, custodial interrogation

Lawful inspection

Border and airport searches. Customs agents are authorized to search without warrants and without probable cause: baggage, person, purse/or wallet, vehicles, similar belongings entering country

No Knock Entry

Courts only allow these when circumstances present threat to officers or destruction of evidence if advance notice is given

Criminal procedure

Deals with procedures for arrests, trials, and appeals, sets rules for processing someone through the criminal justice system. Police study this.

Recent developments in searches

Digital devices on the border, blood used as evidence in drunk driving cases (can take without warrant), cell phone location data (law enforcement can access records), electronic surveillance (wiretaps/hidden microphones) can be used if consent or warrant

Hot pursuit

Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant. Police can enter any structure that a suspect is seen to enter and seize evidence found as a result of the pursuit even if private property and the suspect is in no way connected with the property owner

Strip searches

Highly intrusive, require probable cause

Miranda warning not required

In case of: police asking suspects non testimonial questions, police question witnesses at a crime scene and are not focused on a suspect, person volunteers information, person gives a private statement, during a stop and frisk no arrest was made, during a traffic stop, public safety exception, waiving Miranda

Stop

Investigatory stop, brief detention of a person by the police for questioning, a stop requires reasonable suspicion

Reasonable suspicion

Is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. Refers to an assessment based on all the circumstances which includes objective observations, information from police reports, and consideration of the modes of patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers. SUFFICIENT FOR A STOP AND FRISK BUT NOT ARREST OR WARRANT

Testimony or affidavit

Law enforcement can establish probable cause through:

Open fields

Law enforcement officers may search for items of evident in open fields without a warrant or probable cause, and may seize items if they have probable cause to believe they are items of an incriminating character subject to seizure under the law of the officers' jurisdiction

Patriot act

Law that says: no proof of criminal activity needs to be provided to obtain warrants for terrorism investigation, gives law enforcement more leeway when conducting surveillance

Pocket searches

Lawful because school officials had reasonable suspicion or cause to believe that student had contraband on them

Knock and announce test

Meets reasonableness requirement: knock, announce authority and purpose, request permission to enter

Pat downs

Minimally intrusive

Incident to lawful arrest

Most common exception. Takes place when a person has been arrested. Necessary because of officer's need to confiscaste any weapons and protect evidence on suspect from being destroyed. MAY ONLY SEARCH WINGSPAN, AKA PROTECTIVE SWEEP

Lockers

No expectation of privacy because owned by school. Search may begin when drug dog indicates contraband inside, when student reports concern, when administration calls for search

Canine searches

Non intrusive since there is no expectation of privacy in the air around objects, only explore what is within plain smell.

Arrests without a warrant

Occurs when offense is committed in the presence of the officers, officer has probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime, time lost obtaining a warrant would allow the suspect to escape to escape/destroy evidence and the officer has probable cause

Arrests with a warrant

Officers have established probable cause and obtained a warrant. Includes the name of the person suspected and the crime he or she is suspected of having committed. Officers are required to knock and announce their presence. Under exigent circumstances officers do not need to announce themselves.

Searches of automobiles

People in vehicle do not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as they would have if they were in their places of residence. The idea is that if an officer has to take the time to obtain a warrant, the vehicle might be out of reach before the warrant can be issued and executed.

Exigent circumstances

Police can enter any structure if possible: bomb threat, probable fire, hearing screams/someone's life is in potential danger, other situations where there is no time to get warrant, public safety issued. Can enter a person's home only in case of serious crime and there is possibility of destruction of evidence, escape of suspect, harm to police/person inside

Fourth amendment for schools

Privacy and making sure public schools don't get overzealous in investigating violations

Exclusionary rule

Prohibits use of illegally obtained evidence from a search, seizure, arrest or interrogation. Any evidence obtained by an unreasonable search or seizure cannot be used in trial. Very few guilty suspects benefit from this.

contraband

Property that is illegal to possess or transport. If it is in PLAIN VIEW, can bear seized without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. For schools.

School drug testing

Public schools can randomly test. School board objective to protect against drug abuse outweighs 4th amendment

in loco parentis

Refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Substitute for parent.

Fifth amendment for schools

School officials who plan to discipline a student must provide the alleged wrongdoer with 2 rights. Schools cannot hold or punish without specific information about the charges or evidence behind its. Must give a chance to tell their story.

Reasonableness

Searches and seizures must be this. The term can be different in each case, corresponds to certain circumstances. No specific meaning fro this term exists that applies to case law. This concept is linked to probable cause.

Searches with consent

Second most common type of warrantless search. Civilian person voluntarily consents to the search of their person, home, or belongings. Police don't need reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Association

Source of probable cause. Known criminal in place where criminal activity is openly taking place. Generally not adequate to establish probable cause.

Personal observation

Source of probable cause. Personal training and expertise of police officer.

Evidence

Source of probable cause. Police can derive probable cause based on this; for example in plain view.

Information

Source of probable cause. Received from others; must be believed to be reliable.

A legitimate privacy interest

Steps taken to obtain privacy6 must be reasonably certain to ensure privacy

Defining reasonable suspicion, police discretion, totality of circumstances

Stop and frisks are governed by:

Seizure

Taking of a person or property in response to a suspected violation of the law.

Privacy and satellite monitoring

Technology now allows for greater levels of surveillance. Evidence gathered by gps device was ruled inadmissible.

Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and the requirement of probable cause to issue a warrant

The 4th amendment contains two critical legal concepts:

Implied consent

The voluntary giving of permission by act if the act clearly indicates consent

Express consent

The voluntary giving of permission by the accused by word of mouth or by signing a consent to search form.

Particularity of warrants

The warrant must describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Officers are restricted in where they can look based on the items they are searching for.

Purses and book bags/ cars

These personal items need reasonable suspicion to be searched. If parked on school property.

Be done by a government employee or agent, fit the court's definition of a search or seizure

To be legal a search or seizure must:

Plain view

Warrantless seizures of items allowed if: the item is positioned in the officer's view, the officer is legally in a position to notice the item, the discovery of an item is inadvertent, the officer immediately recognizes the illegal nature of the item. Also applies to plain smell

Age, intelligence and physical condition of the suspect, coercive behavior of the police (language used), length of questioning and its location

What are factors to consider when it comes to consent of a search?

Items that resulted from a crime, items that are inherently illegal to possess, items that can be called evidence of a crime, items used in committing the crime

What are the categories of items that can be seized with a search warrant?

Reasonable suspicion

What is the school standard for searches? Because age and vulnerability of student population and need of school officials to look out for their health and safety. Goal is to protect school and educational process.

Has a governmental search or seizure taken place? If so, was the search or seizure reasonable?

Whether a search or seizure is legal comes down to 2 basic questions:

To protect the safety of officers and the public, to ensure that evidence will be seized before it is hidden or destroyed, to help apprehend suspects or prevent their escape

Why did courts create exceptions to warrant requirement?

Probable cause

a reasonable belief, known personally or through reliable sources, that a specific person has committed a crime or is intending to commit one. Stronger than reasonable suspicion. Can legally justify searches and arrests with or without a warrant and requires the question.

Good faith

exception to the exclusionary rule. Evidence acquired with a technically invalid warrant is admissible if the officer was unaware of the error.