Crim Pro

Generally, evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible at trial.

· Exceptions: o Statements obtained in violation may be used to impeach the detainee if the court finds that it was voluntary. - Not voluntary - inadmissible for any purpose. o Nontestimonial fruits of an unwarned confession - if the police fail to give miranda warnings and during interrogation a detainee gives the police information that leads to nontestimonial evidence, the evidence will be suppressed if the failure was purposeful, but if the failure was not purposeful, the evidence will probably not be suppressed. o Public Safety Exception - If police interrogation is reasonably prompted by concern for public safety, responses to the questions may be used in court, even though the suspect is in custody and Miranda warnings were not given. - New York v. Quarles - When suspect had empty gun holster when caught by police for a rape charge after running and gun was out somewhere in the streets. Police asked where gun was for safety purposes. · "The need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination."

Doing nothing or remaining silent

· If the detainee does not respond at all to the Miranda warnings, it is not assumed that the detainee waived his/her rights. But, the police may continue questioning. · At any time prior to or during interrogation, the detainee may indidicate that he wishes to remain silent. Such an indication must be explicit, unambiguous, amd unequivocal. If the detainee so indicates, all questioning related to the particular crime must stop.

Garbage

· In California v. Greenwood, officers searched through plastic garbage bags left on the curb in front of a house for trash pickup. The court ruled that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left outside the curtilage of a home for trash removal. --No objective right to privacy because garbage is readily accessible to other people - does not meet Katz standard

Stages when 6th Amendment applicable

· Post-indictment interrogation (Massiah), Preliminary hearings to determine probable cause to prosecute, arraignment, post-charge lineups, guilty plea and sentencing, felony trials (Gideon v. Wainwright), misdemeanor trials when imprisonment is actually imposed or a suspended jail sentence is imposed, overnight recess during trial, appeals as a matter of right, appeals of guilty pleas.

Roadblocks

· Stop cars on the basis of some neutral, articulable standard · Be designed to serve purposes closely related to a particular problem pertaining to automobiles and their mobility

United States v. Jones (facts)

· The owner of a nightclub came under suspicion of trafficking in narcotics and was made the target of an investigation. Officers employed various investigative techniques, including visual surveillance of the nightclub, installation of a camera focused on the front door of the club, and a pen register and wiretap covering Jones's cellphone. Based in part on information gathered from the investigation, Gov. applied for a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic tracking device on a jeep registered to Jones's wife. The warrant was issued authorizing installation of the device in the District of Columbia within 10 days. 11 days later, police installed the device. Monitored over a period of 28 days, and changed the battery once at a parking lot in Maryland.

Aerial Surveillance of Curtilage

· The police may, within the Fourth Amendment, fly over a field or yard to observe with the naked eye things therein. California v. Ciraolo. · Even a low (400 feet) fly-over by a helicopter to view inside a partially covered greenhouse is permissible Florida v. Riley.

Aerial Surveillance of Curtilages Test

· The warrantless, naked eye observation by police of an individual's curtilage from an aircraft lawfully operating in public navigable airspace, (altitude) and that does not interfere with the Defendant's normal use of his or her curtilage (undue noise, wind, dust or threat of injury) does not violate their expectation of privacy. No REOP (society). Also, the taking of aerial photographs of an industrial plant complex from navigable airspace is not a search prohibited by the 4A. (Ciraolo + Riley)

Warrant Requirement

· Valid Search Warrant: (1) Issued by a neutral and detached magistrate (2) Based on probably cause established from facts submitted to the magistrate by a government agent upon oath or affirmation - Showing of probable cause: a warrant will only be issued if there is probably cause to believe that seizable evidence will be found on the premises or person to be searched. (3) Particularly describe place to be searched and items to be seized

Arresting in public place

· warrants not required to arrest a person in a public place (as long as there is probably cause). o Felony - a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when she has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person before her committed it. o Misdemeanor - An officer may make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor committed in her presence. A crime is committed in the officer's presence if she is aware of it through any of her senses.

Katz Test (for search under 4A)

(1) Person has expectation of privacy (subjective) (2) That society recognizes as reasonable (objective).

Due Process Standard

- A defendant can attack an identification as denying due process when the identification is unnecessarily suggestive AND there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification.

6th Amendment

- A person charged with a crime has the right to the assistance of counsel during all critical stages of the prosecution." - The starting point is when someone is going to be prosecuted. · Where adversary judicial proceedings have begun/formal charges have been filed. - Offense specific - only prevents questioning about certain offense. · Test for "different offense" o Under the Blockburger test, two crimes are considered different offenses if each requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not require.

5th Amendment

- At any time prior to or during interrogation, the detainee may invoke a Miranda right to counsel (5th Amendment). If the detain invokes this right, all questioning must cease until the detainee is provided with an attorney or initiates further questioning himself. - The right to counsel under Miranda is a prophylactic right designed by the Court to prevent the police from badgering a detainee into talking without the aid of counsel, and this purpose can be accomplished only if all questioning ceases. - Prevents all questioning - not offense specific. - Police cannot resume without counsel.

Confessions

- For confessions to be admissible, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that they be voluntary. Voluntariness is assessed by looking at the totality of circumstances: suspect's age, education, mental and physical condition, along with the setting, duration, and manner of police interrogation. Spano v. New York. - Official compulsion necessary to render confession involuntary - not involuntary merely because it is the product of a mental disease that prevents the confession from being of the defendant's free will. - A conviction will not necessarily be overturned if an involuntary confession was erroneously admitted into evidence. The harmless error test applies, and the conviction will not be overturned if the government can show that there was other overwhelming evidence of guilt. - A finding of voluntariness by the trial court does not preclude the defendant from introducing evidence to the jury of the circumstances of the confession in order to cast doubt on its credibility.

Detention to obtain warrant

- If the police have probable cause to believe that a suspect has hidden drugs in his house, they may, for a reasonable period of time, prohibit him from going into the house unaccompanied so that they can prevent him from destroying the drugs while they obtain a search warrant.

Miranda

- Miranda warnings and a valid waiver are prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by the accused during custodial interrogation. A person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that: · He has the right to remain silent · Anything he says can be used against him in court · He has the right to the presence of an attorney, and · If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him if he so desires - Generally, no need to repeat warnings merely because of a break in interrogation, unless the time lapse was so long that a failure to do so would seem like an attempt to take advantage of the suspect's ignorance of his rights. - Anyone in policy custody and accused of a crime, no matter how minor a crime, must be given warnings before interrogation. - Usually only applies to the police - not informants.

Execution of Warrant

- Must be done by the police - Executed without reasonable delay - Knock and announce · There are exceptions to the knock and announce common law rule: o Threat of physically violence o Escaped prisoner o Evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given

Station house detention

- Police officers must have full probable cause for an arrest to bring a suspect to the station against the suspect's will for questioning.

Occupants of premises being searched may be detained:

- Pursuant to the execution of a valid warrant to search for contraband, the police may detain occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.

4th Amendment threshold Qs

- whether there was governmental conduct constitutes a search or seizure? - whether the person being searched had a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Richards v. Wisconsin

-*The court ruled that a state blanket exception*, allowing no-knock entries for felony drug crimes was *unconstitutional* -Officers need to articulate individual reasons for knock & announce waiver (no-knock warrant) -*No-knock warrants should be given on a case-by-case basis*

Exceptions to warrant requirement

-consent searches -stop and frisks -plain view exceptions -searches incident to a lawful arrest -motor vehicle stops -emergency circumstances (and open fields?)

Reasonable Suspicion Examples

1) Reasonable suspicion justifying a stop is present when: (i) a suspect who is standing on a corner in a high crime area (ii) flees after noticing the presence of the police. Neither factor standing alone is enough to justify a stop, but together they are sufficiently suspicious. [Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)] 2) Police had reasonable suspicion—and therefore there was no Fourth Amendment violation—where they detained Defendant at an airport while dogs sniffed his bags for drugs based on the following facts known by the police: (i) Defendant paid for airline tickets in cash with small bills; (ii) Defendant traveled under a name that did not match the name for the phone number he gave; (iii) Defendant traveled to a drug source city (Miami) and stayed for only 48 hours, while his flight time was 20 hours; (iv) Defendant appeared nervous; and (v) Defendant refused to check his bags. [United States v. Sokolow, supra] Note: The fact that these suspicious circumstances are part of a drug courier profile used by the police neither helps nor hurts the totality of the circumstances inquiry.

Curtilage Test

1) proximity of the land to the home 2) whether the area is included within enclosures surrounding the house; 3) the nature of the use to which the area is put; and 4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the land in question from observation US v. Dunn (1987)

Dog Sniffs

A canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics detection dog does not require the opening of luggage. It does not expose noncontraband items that would otherwise remain hidden from public view. The information obtained is limited Not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

Perry v. New Hampshire

A suggestive identification procedure does not violate due process if the police are not involved in creating the suggestive circumstances

Oregon v. Elstad

A suspect can make a statement that is admissible in court after being read his Miranda warnings, even when he previously made an unwarned statement, because the initial failure to read a suspect his Miranda warnings does not taint later voluntary statements.

Massiah v. US

A suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are violated where he has been indicted, he has invoked his right to counsel, and federal agents have deliberately elicited incriminating statements from him in the absence of his retained counsel

Public school searches

A warrant or probably cause is not required for searches conducted by public school officials, only reasonable grounds for the search are necessary. o The Court has also upheld a school district rule requiring students participating in any extracurricular activity to submit to a random urinalysis drug test monitored by an adult of the same sex.

Wong Sun v. United States

Although evidence obtained through illegal police conduct must be excluded at trial as it is "fruit of the poisonous tree," the connection between the illegal police conduct and a relevant piece of evidence can become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, and such evidence may then be admissible.

Spinelli v. United States

An affidavit that lacks sufficient detail to explain why an informant is reliable and how he came to his conclusions does not provide the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

Searches incident to arrests

An arrest occurs when the police take a person into custody against her will for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation. An arrest must be based on probable cause.

Stop and Frisk

As noted above (see B.3.a., supra), a police officer may stop a person without probable cause for arrest if she has an articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In such circumstances, if the officer also reasonably believes that the person may be armed and presently dangerous, she may conduct a protective frisk. [Terry v. Ohio, B.3.a. supra; United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981)]

Dickerson v. United States

Congress cannot legislatively supersede a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interprets and applies the Constitution.

Smith v. Maryland (1979)

Government used a pen register to see the numbers that an alleged robber called; the Court ruled that this information could be used because the robber "gave" that information to the phone company. It was only the numbers, not the content of the information. Not technically a search because the information retrieved is limited - phone number only.

"Automobile" Exception

If the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle such as an automobile contains contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they may search the vehicle without a warrant. [Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)] Rationale: Automobiles and similar vehicles are mobile and so will not likely be available for search by the time an officer returns with a warrant. Moreover, the Supreme Court has declared that people have a lesser expectation of privacy in their vehicles than in their homes. Note: Similarly, if the police have probable cause to believe that the car itself is contraband, it may be seized from a public place without a warrant. [Florida v. White, 526

Boyd v. United States (1886)

Laid the seeds of a property-rights interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Under Boyd, the Fourth Amendment did not apply in the absence of a physical intrusion - a trespass - by government agents into a "constitutionally protected area," in order to "find something or to obtain information."

Kyllo v. United States:

Officers used a thermal imager to scan petitioner's home for high-intensity lamps used to grow marijuana. Scan showed the roof over the petitioner's garage was relatively hot compared to the rest of the home and substantially warmer than other neighboring homes. Scan took a few minutes and was performed from the officer's car which was parked across the street from Kyllo's home · Obtaining by self-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 - at least where the technology in question is not in general public use.

Carpenter v. United States

Police arrested men for robbing Radio Shack stores. One of the men named accomplices and gave their phone numbers. The police made sure the suspect actually called these numbers close in time to the robberies. With that information, prosecutors applied for court orders under the Stored Communications Act to obtain cellphone records for Carpenter and other suspects. The records requested would show location points of Carpenter's phone during the time of the robberies. The cell phone company released the records. The cellphone company owned the records · Declined to follow Smith or Miller, but said this decision does not affect either. · This was a search because there was a detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence complied every day, every moment, over several years. · SC declined to extend Third-Party Doctrine o "Nature of documents sought" o Third-Party Doctrine applies to voluntary exposure, and while a user might be abstractly aware that his cell phone provider keeps logs, it happens without any affirmative act on the user's part

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Police have the authority to briefly detain a person for investigative purposes even if they lack probable cause to arrest. To make such a stop, police must have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime. [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)] Note: If the police also have reasonable suspicion to believe that the detainee is armed and dangerous, they may also conduct a frisk (a limited search) to ensure that the detainee has no weapons

Hot Pursuit, Exigent Circumstances, Evanescent Evidence, and Other Emergencies

Police officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure. The scope of the search may be as broad as may reasonably be necessary Multistate 06 criminal procedure Q.indd 26 9/20/2016 9:34:39 AM CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 27. to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping. [Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967)] When the police have probable cause and attempt to make a warrantless arrest in a "public place," they may pursue the suspect into private dwellings. [United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)] Exigent Circumstances—Destruction of Evidence Police officers may enter a home without a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence, even if the exigency arose because police officers knocked on the door and asked for entry, as long as the officers have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed and the officers did not create the exigency through an actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation. [Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011)] Evanescent Evidence Exception Police officers may seize without a warrant evidence likely to disappear before a warrant can be obtained. [See Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973)—scrapings of tissues from under a suspect's fingernails, which could be washed away] Whether such a warrantless search is reasonable is judged by the totality of the circumstances. Emergency Aid Exception Emergencies that threaten health or safety if not immediately acted upon will justify a warrantless search. This includes situations where the police see someone injured or threatened with injury. [See, e.g., Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 389 (2006)] Whether an emergency exists is determined objectively, from the officer's point of view. [Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2010)] (Some states refer to this as the community caretaker exception.)

Third Party Doctrine

Revealing information to a third-party takes away your protections of that information.

Reasonable Suspicion

The Court has not specifically defined "reasonable suspicion." It requires something more than a vague suspicion (e.g., it is not enough that the detainee was in a crime-filled area [Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)]), but full probable cause is not required. Whether the standard is met is judged under the totality of the circumstances. [United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989)]

Parolees

The Supreme Court has upheld warrantless searches of parolee and his/her home - even without reasonable suspicion - where a state statute provided that the parolee agreed to submit to searches as a condition of parole.

Consent

The police may conduct a valid warrantless search if they have a voluntary consent to do so. Knowledge of the right to withhold consent, while a factor to be considered, is not a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. [Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)]

Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest

The police may conduct a warrantless search incident to an arrest as long as it was made on probable cause. [See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)]

Plain View

The police may make a warrantless seizure when they: (i) Are legitimately on the premises; (ii) Discover evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of crime, or contraband; (iii) See such evidence in plain view; and (iv) Have probable cause to believe (i.e., it must be immediately apparent) that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of crime.

Home Arrests

The police must have an arrest warrant to effect a nonemergency arrest of an individual in her own home. The officer's executing the warrant may only enter the suspect's home if there is reason to believe the suspect is within it. Payton v. New York (1980).

Difference between Katz and White

This did not overrule Katz because this was dealing with a conversation between two people where one knew the conversation was being recorded. Katz involved the recording of a phone conversation and neither party agreed to or had knowledge of the conversation being recorded.

Illinois v. Gates

U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the flexible totality of circumstances test for determining the existence of the probable cause needed for obtaining a search warrant

Katz v. United States (1967)

Under Katz v. United States, an unconstitutional search occurs when there is a governmental intrusion into an where a person has a justifiable expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

United States v. White (1971)

Whether recording conversations between an informant and an individual, and sending those recordings to the police, are violations of the Fourth Amendment No - The informant would have the ability to go to the cops and tell the cops the contents of the conversation, therefore, recording those conversations is not inconsistent with the Fourth amendment

Whether placing recording devices outside of a telephone booth is a search under the 4th amendment.

Yes, it is a search and a violation of the 4th amendment. People have an expectation of privacy when placing a phone call in a phone booth.

Probable Cause (seizures)

exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person arrested.

Probable Cause (searches)

exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that evidence subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched.

United States v. Karo (1984)

o "A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." o DEA agents learned that suspects ordered 50 gallons of ether from government informant. Ether was used to extract cocaine from clothing that had been imported into US. Informant consented to government substituting their own can with one of the informant's cans. The government's can would contain a beeper. o The Court said that putting a beeper in a container (w/ consent of the container's then-owner) was not a search, but that once the container entered the curtilage of a house, using the beeper to locate the container inside that house was a search. Presumably, because the inside of a house isn't public in the same way as are one's movements in a car on public roads. o This was a mere technical trespass on the space contained by the beeper. No person's possessory interest was interfered with in a meaningful way.

Test for Custody

o 1. Whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel that he was free to terminate the interrogation and leave. - Consider all circumstances surrounding interrogation. o 2. Whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda. o Test is objective. o Traffic stops are generally not custodial. - Berkemer v. McCarty · Detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief. · Circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police. o Being incarcerated does not always mean that the interrogation is custodial. - Ex. Prison guards question w/ door open and tell inmate repeatedly that he is free to leave.

Homes of Third Parties

o Absent exigent circumstances, the police executing an arrest warrant may not search for the subject of the warrant in the home a third party without first obtaining a separate search warrant for the home. If police do execute an arrest warrant at the home of a third party without obtaining a search warrant for the home, the arrest is still valid, but any evidence of crime found within the home cannot be used against the owner of the home since it is the fruit of an unconstitutional search.

Warrant required for searches of private residences and businesses

o Exception: warrant not required for searches of businesses in highly regulated industries, because of the urgent public interest and the theory that the business has impliedly consented to warrantless searches by entering into a highly regulated industry. - Liquor, guns, strip mining, and automobile junkyards.

Interrogation Requirement

o Interrogation refers to not only express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. o "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." o Does not apply to routine booking questions. o Does not apply to spontaneous statements, although officers must give warnings before any further questioning. o Questioning by different police agencies - denial or invoking of rights carries over.

Exclusionary Rule

o The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits the introduction, at a criminal trial, of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights. o The main purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter the government from violating a person's constitutional rights: If the government cannot use the evidence obtained in violation of a person's rights, it will be less likely to act in contravention of those rights. o Fruit of the poisonous tree: - Generally, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence.

Distinctions between stops and arrests

o Under Terry v. Ohio, both stops and arrests are seizures w/in the meaning of the 4A. Arrests, though, must be based on P.C., while stops require only RS. o Court has made clear that if a person is detained for sustained interrogation that is an arrest w/in the meaning of 4A. EX: AN arrest has occurred if police officers take a suspect to the station house for questioning. o Taking a suspect from the public area of an airport into a small room constituted an arrest o Taking a suspect to the police station house for fingerprinting was an arrest and had to be based on PC. However, fingerprinting, if done in the field as part of a brief encounter, do not always constitute an arrest. o The duration of the detention also matters in determining whether there has been a stop or an arrest. But the Court has not imposed rigid time limits in determining when a stop becomes an arrest. o Court in Place found that detaining a person's luggage for 90 minutes was seizure under the 4A. o U.S. v. Sharpe - P.O detained the suspects between 30-40 minutes while waiting for the arrival of a DEA. Court ruled that this was a stop and not an arrest.

Open Fields Doctrine

officers are permitted to search and to seize evidence, without a warrant, on private property beyond the area immediately surrounding the house 4A protections extended to curtilage

Inventory searches

police may search an arrestee's personal belongings in order to inventory them before incarcerating the arrestee o Similarly, police may search an entire vehicle, including closed containers within the vehicle, that has been impounded, as long as the search is part of an established department routine.

Florida v. Jardines

warrant required to employ police dog to sniff at front door of a house when police suspect drugs

Right to Counsel (6A)

§ A suspect has a right to the presence of an attorney at any post-charge lineup or showup. At a lineup, the witness is asked to pick the perpetrator of the crime from a group of persons. A show up is a one-to-one confrontation between the witness and the suspect for the purpose of identification. - Role of counsel at lineup: The right is simply to have an attorney present during the lineup so that the lawyer can observe any suggestive aspects of the lineup and bring them out on cross-examination of the witness. There is no right to have the lawyer help set up the lineup, to demand any changes in the way it is conducted, etc. - Photo identification: The accused does not have the right to counsel at photo identifications. United States v. Ash - Physical Evidence: The accused does not have the right to counsel when police take physical evidence such as handwriting exemplars or fingerprints from him/her.

Investigatory Detentions (Stop and Frisk)

§ Police have the authority to briefly detain a person for investigative purposes even if they lack probable cause to arrest. To make such a stop, police must have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime. If the police also have reasonable suspicion to believe that the detainee is armed and dangerous, they may also conduct a frisk (a limited search) to ensure that the detainee has no weapons.

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

§ Search and seizure of obscene videos. The magistrate was there for the search. They filled in a specific list of items to be seized AFTER seizing them. Court said the justice was not neutral and detached. Consequences of having these movies at a store are less bothersome than the consequences of allowing illegal searches and seizures.

Automobile stops

§ Stopping a car is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes (of driver and passengers). Thus, generally, police officers may not stop a car unless they have at least reasonable suspicion to believe that a law has been violated. However, in certain cases where special law enforcement needs are involved, the Court allows police officers to set up roadblocks to stop cars without individualized suspicion that the driver has violated some law.

Standing

§ the person only has standing for a 4th amendment claim if the search or seizure violated his/her own reasonable expectation of privacy. · Owned or had a right to possession of the place searched. · The place searched was his/her home. - He/she was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched

United States v. Jones (holding)

· "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an "effect" as the term is used in the Amendment. · 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. - Jones Property rule only applies when: Defendant owned the property at the time gov't physically interfered with it, and the gov't physically interfered with it in order to search it or gather information about Defendant. Must be a physical intrusion on the Defendant's property.

United States v. Wade

· A post-indictment witness identification of a criminal suspect, conducted without notice to and in the absence of the suspect's counsel, violates the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel.

What is a seizure?

· A seizure can be defined as the exercise of control by the government over a person or thing.

Effect of invalid arrest

· An unlawful arrest, by itself, has no impact on a subsequent criminal prosecution. Thus, if the police improperly arrest a person (ex. at his home without a warrant), they may detain him if they have probable cause to do so, and the invalid arrest is not a defense to the offense charged.

Stages when 6th Amendment not applicable

· Blood sampling, taking of handwriting or voice exemplars, pre-charge or investigative lineups, photo identifications, preliminary hearings to determine probable cause to detain, brief recesses during the defendant's testimony at trial, discretionary appeals, parole and probation revocation proceedings, post-conviction proceedings.

Search of airline passengers

· Courts have generally upheld searches of airline passengers prior to boarding