Criminal Procedure: Chapter 6

particularity requirement.

"particularly describe the place to be searched"; also have to "particularly describe the things to be seized."

Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement:

1. Particularity requirement 2. An affidavit supporting probable cause 3. The "knock-and-announce" rule

five major exceptions to the warrant requirement that SCOTUS has interrogated and approved:

1. Searches incident to (at the time of) arrest, listed roughly in order of frequency: 2. Consent searches 3. Vehicle searches 4. Container searches 5. Emergency searches (also called "exigent circumstances searches")

SCOTUS made it clear that third-party consent doesn't depend on property law. It rests on two bases:

1. That the consenting party could permit the search "in his own right." 2. That the defendant had "assumed the risk" that a co-occupant might permit a search

What's the justification for the bright-line Robinson rule? SCOTUS offers two:

1. The possible danger to police officers taking suspects into custody 2. The logical impossibility of SCOTUS reviewing every police decision

Concerning third-party consent to search, in which of the following situations can one person consent to a search for the other person?

A factory owner consenting to a search of items on top of an employee's workbench.

knock-and-announce rule

According to the rule, officers have to knock and announce that they're officers with a search warrant before they enter homes they're about to search.

Occupants' failure to respond to ofcers' announcement

Announcing their presence doesn't automatically authorize officers to break and enter. They have to "wait a reasonable amount of time" before they break and enter, unless occupants refuse to allow them to come in

If a suspect is arrested in a vehicle, police, as part of the search incident to the arrest, may search thevehicle's trunk.

False

Most searches require warrants to be reasonable.

False

Most searches take place pursuant to warrants.

False

bright-line Robinson rule:

Officers may always search anyone they're authorized to take into custody.

Which of the following is true of most people who consent to searches by law enforcement?

They are innocent.

Law enforcement officers often prefer searches without warrants, because of the time or effort it takes to get a warrant issued.

True

Persons consenting to a search can withdraw their consent at any time.

True

According to the waiver test of consent:

a consent search is valid only if the person consenting voluntarily and knowingly waives the Fourth Amendment rights.

In U.S. v. Robinson (1973), the police had stopped the defendant for driving with a revoked driver's permit. SCOTUS's ruling with respect to the legality of the search of the defendant is important, because it held that:

a search incident to a full custody arrest may be conducted regardless of the likelihood of finding weapons or evidence on the arrestee's person.

Consent that takes place when one person in fact has the legal authority to consent to a search of the home and possessions of another person is called:

actual authority consent.

pretext arrests

are arrests for one offense where probable cause exists, motivated by officers' desire to search for evidence of another unrelated offense where probable cause doesn't exist.

Consent searches

are searches in which individuals give officers permission to search them and/or their houses and personal belongings without either warrants or probable cause.

Searches incident to arrest

arrest—searches of lawfully arrested suspects without probable cause or a warrant—are old. But are they reasonable Fourth Amendment searches? Definitely "yes" says SCOTUS, for three reasons: 1. They protect officers from suspects who might injure or kill them. 2. They prevent arrested suspects from escaping. 3. They preserve evidence that suspects might destroy or damage.

According to SCOTUS, the consent is

as broad as the officers reasonably believe it to be. In other words SCOTUS interrogates the scope of consent as it does the consent itself—according to the totality of circumstances test that favors law enforcement over individual privacy.

What is the name of an emergency created by the need to pursue a fleeing suspect?

hot pursuit

According to SCOTUS in Chimel v. California, involving the search of a house incident to an arrest for burglary of a coin shop:

it is not reasonable to search an entire house incident to a lawful arrest.

What is the name of the practice of officers going to a person's residence, with or without any objective basis, and knocking on the door so as to obtain plain views of home interiors, question the residents, or ask for consent to search?

knock-and-talk technique

According to the empirical research about consent searches:

lower courts find that consent was voluntary in all but the most extreme cases.

The "grabbable area" allows police to search:

only the area within the suspect's immediate control or "arm's length."

In Knowles v. Iowa, concerning an instance where a driver had been given a citation for speeding but had not been arrested, SCOTUS held that:

police could not automatically do a search incident to arrest when only a citation is involved.

Which of the following is not needed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?

reasonable suspicion

The Fourth Amendment particularity requirement for search warrants:

requires that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

The countervailing law enforcement interests against "no-knock" entry requirements identified by Justice Thomas in Wilson v. Arkansas include:

safety of officers, escape of the suspect, and destruction of evidence.

When police arrest a suspect based on probable cause, but then conduct a search without probable cause or a warrant, the search is called a:

search incident to arrest.

The following are all examples of emergency search situations, except:

searching a home with a suspected drug dealer inside.

In Wilson v. Arkansas, SCOTUS unanimously decided that:

the Fourth Amendment prohibits all "no-knock" entries.

In Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990), SCOTUS applied what test to uphold a search of Edward Rodriquez'sapartment?

the apparent authority third-party consent test

Under the holding in Chimel v. California (1969), a leading SCOTUS case on searches incident to arrest, the police must limit a thorough search incident to arrest to:

the arrestee's person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control.

The reasonableness of searches pursuant to search warrants depends on:

the existence of probable cause, the extent of the search, the particularity of the warrant, and the manner in which the police enter the place to be searched.

The vehicle exception to the warrant requirement is based upon:

the inherent mobility of the vehicle, and the reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles.

The criminal procedure value of balancing privacy and community safety weighs heavily on which side of the balance?

the privacy side

In Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990), the police conducted the consent search of the suspect's apartment based on the consent of the suspect's former girlfriend. According to the apparent authority of third-party consent theory:

the warrantless entry to search based on third-party consent is valid if the officer reasonably believes that the person consenting had authority to consent.

Wilson exceptions to the knock-and-announce rule

there are three major exceptions to the rule: to prevent violence, the destruction of evidence, and the escape of suspects.

In order to conduct a consent search of a person, an officer must have:

voluntary consent to search.

Police ordinarily seek consent to search:

when they do not have probable cause and cannot get a warrant.