Fourth Amendment Aample

Probable Cause: Levels of Probability

1.No doubt - Absolute Certainty 2.Beyond a reasonable doubt 3.Clear and convincing 4.Preponderance of evidence 5.Probable cause (This is the level that government officials are required to prove to obtain a search or arrest warrant from a magistrate or judge.) 6.Reasonable suspicion 7.Suspicion 8.Hunch 9.No information

Who issues Warrants?

A magistrate or judge that is authorized to issue warrants.

What is a Seizure?

A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessing interest in that property. The forms of seizure include arrest (For government officials to make an arrest there should be Probable Cause that said person committed an offense. If there is an arrest in a public place, a warrant is not necessary to make that arrest. This is the quintessential form of seizing a person. Government officials need probable cause to arrest a person.) , and traffic offenses (Government officials need reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop.)

Plain View Exception

An essential predicate to any valid warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence is that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the point where the evidence could be plainly viewed. Not only must the item be in plain view, its incriminating character must also be immediately apparent. Not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP)

An expectation of privacy that is generally recognized by society.

Withdrawing Consent

An individual can withdraw their consent to a search at any time, and that withdrawal, standing alone, cannot support finding of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Requirements for a reasonable Plain View Seizure

An officer's original intrusion or location must be lawful. There can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment to arrive at place of search and/or seizure. An officer must lawfully be in a position to seize the item. The item must be observed while in conducting activities allowed through the scope of the search. It must be immediately apparent that the item that is seized is contraband or other evidence or fruits of a crime. There must be probable cause to believe the item is contraband or other evidence or fruits of a crime. It must be immediately apparent that the item that is seized is contraband or other evidence or fruits of a crime. There must be probable cause to believe the item is contraband or other evidence or fruits of a crime.

Probable Cause

Facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge or of which he/she has reasonable, trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that items connected with criminal activity will be found in the place to be searched.

What is a Search?

In order for there to be a search, there must be a subjective expectation of privacy, and the expectation of privacy must be deemed reasonable by society

Consent: Scope

It can be limited by the person giving consent. The Test: What would the reasonable person have understood from the exchange between the officer and the suspect?

Warrant Requirements and Warrant Exceptions: Standard

Katz sets the standards for warrant requirements and warrant exceptions. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.

Fourth Amendment Guarantees: Warrants Clause

No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized...

To who does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to private citizens; only to government actions.

Fourth Amendment Remedies

The Fourth Amendment does not provide remedies for violations of the Fourth Amendment. Remedies are left up to the United States Supreme Court for violations of the Fourth Amendment. The reasoning for the remedies for Fourth Amendment are as varied as the Justices of the United States Supreme Court.

The Exclusionary Rule

The Fourth Amendment would only be applied to the Federal Government, and not State or Local governments. Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be introduced against the accused at trial.

Katz v. United States: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Are public telephone booths constitutionally protected from wiretapping? Can evidence gained from such wire tappings used in court? Is physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area necessarily the only way that the Fourth Amendment can be violated? The Rule of Law: The government cannot perform an illegal search and seizure, regardless if the search is physical or not. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court held that Katz was subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone booth. The federal government should have obtained a warrant before wiretapping the telephone booth.

Weeks v. United States: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Can an agent of the federal government violates the Fourth Amendment, can any evidence gained as a result of the illegal search and seizure be used against the accused at a federal trial? The Rule: Federal officials cannot use illegally seized evidence against any person accused of a crime in the United States. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court found that the Fourth Amendment would only be applied to the Federal Government, and not State or Local governments.

Illinois v. Rodriguez: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does Fischer have the authority to consent to the search of Rodriguez's apartment? The Rule of Law: Determination of consent to enter must be judged against an objective standard of would the facts available to the officer at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution in the believe that the consenting party had authority over the premises. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court sides with the State of Illinois. It is said that there was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the police reasonably believed at the time of their entry that Fischer possessed the authority to consent, which they did.

Wolf v. Colorado: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does a conviction by a State court for a State offense deny the "due process of law" required by the Fourteenth Amendment, solely because evidence that was admitted at the trial was obtained under circumstances which would have rendered it inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a court of the United States because there deemed to be an infraction of the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: Rights which are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are rights that states must honor. The Conclusion: State sanctioned police incursion into privacy violates the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus states must honor the Fourth Amendment.

Warden v. Hayden: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does an exigent circumstance allow for warrantless entry into a house? The Rule of Law: Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are, per se, unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically and well delineated exceptions. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court found that the search and seizure was legitimate due to the exigent circumstances of the robbery. The evidence seized comes back into play and the lower court's decision is reversed.

United States v. White: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does the 4th Amendment bar from evidence the testimony of government agents who used monitoring and recording devices to record conversation between White and Harvey Jackson, a government informant? Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversation monitored by the government? The Rule of Law: No reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with other people, and you assume the risk that the people that you talk to are government informants, and they may be recorded, taped, or monitored. If the conduct and revelations of an agent operating without electronic equipment do not invade the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy, neither does a recording of the same conversation. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court overruled the United States Court of Appeals, stating that no warrant was required to electronically monitor conversations between a suspect and a government agent.

Smith v. Maryland: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does the 4th Amendment bar from evidence the testimony of government agents who used monitoring and recording devices to record conversation between White and Harvey Jackson, a government informant? Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversation monitored by the government? The Rule of Law: No reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with other people, and you assume the risk that the people that you talk to are government informants, and they may be recorded, taped, or monitored. If the conduct and revelations of an agent operating without electronic equipment do not invade the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy, neither does a recording of the same conversation. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court overruled the United States Court of Appeals, stating that no warrant was required to electronically monitor conversations between a suspect and a government agent. The Issue: Does Smith have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy when dialing telephone calls? Does the installation and use of a pen register constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: The government cannot perform an illegal search or seizure, regardless if the search is physical or not. The Conclusion: The use of a pen register, without a warrant, does not constitute a violation of Smith's Fourth Amendment protections.

United States v. Karo: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does the installing of a surveillance device inconspicuously (without the recipients' knowledge) constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessing interest in that property. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court ruled that the beeper in the supposed container of either did not create a meaningful interference with the possessory rights of James Karo to the container of ether, therefore his conviction was upheld.

Arizona v. Hicks: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does the plain view doctrine apply to the moving of an item to uncover its evidentiary value? The Rule of Law: Whether legal authority to move the equipment could only be found as an inevitable concomitant of the authority to seize it, or also as a consequence of some independent power to search certain objects in plain view, probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was required. The Conclusion: Evidence obtained by Officer Nelson's moving it, to obtain serial numbers, is an invasion of privacy, which is an illegal search, and thus is inadmissible.

Kyllo v. United States: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does the use of a thermal imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: A Fourth Amendment search does not occur, even with the explicitly protected location of a home is concerned, unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search, and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. The Conclusion: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search', and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Spinelli v. United States: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Does the use of a thermal imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: A Fourth Amendment search does not occur, even with the explicitly protected location of a home is concerned, unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search, and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. The Conclusion: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search', and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The Issue: Is there sufficient information to establish probable cause? The Rule of Law: If the affidavit rests on hearsay, and informants report, what is necessary is the informant must declare either that he has himself seen or perceived the facts asserted, or that his information is hearsay, but there is good reason for believing it. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision affirming Spinelli's conviction based on a lack of credible information contained in the informant's hearsay.

Illinois v. Gates: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Is there sufficient information to establish probable cause? The Rule of Law: The totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, where magistrates issue warrants based on a practical, common sense decision, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of the informant, as to if contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Review courts obligation is to ensure the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court overturned the Illinois Supreme Court's decision based on the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, which reactivated the initial verdict against the Gates'.

Mapp v. Ohio: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Should the evidence (lewd and lascivious materials) be allowed into evidence? Does in a prosecution for a State court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment forbid admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure? The Rule of Law: The United States Supreme Court applied the Exclusionary Rule to State Court proceedings. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a State court. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court ruled that the evidence seized from Mapp's home was inadmissible in accordance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the decision was reversed and remanded back to State court.

California v. Hodari: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: The issue is at what point does a seizure take place? Is a person seized when they're being chased by the police? The Rule of Law: A show of authority is not a seizure. In order for a seizure to occur, physical apprehension of or a show of authority towards someone or something must take place, and a person's liberty is restrained. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court held that evidence used against Hodari qualified as admissible, because it was not due to the seizure of the suspect. It was the choice of Hodari to flee, and since they were not under arrest, it was their choice to dispose of the drugs. The California guilty verdict was upheld, and evidence seized was admitted.

Payton v. New York: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Whether and under what circumstances an officer may enter a suspect's home and evidence to make a warrantless arrest. The Rule of Law: Absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless entry to search for weapons or contraband is unconstitutional, even when a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence will be found inside. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court ruled in both cases that because no arrest warrant was obtained, the judgments against Payton and Riddick must be overturned and the case returned to New York courts to proceed consistent with the majority opinion.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Whether or not in order for a consent to be voluntary, the person consenting must know that they have the right to refuse. The Rule of Law: When the subject of a search is not in custody, and the state attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, expressed or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. The Conclusion: Knowledge is not a requirement for consent to be voluntary and valid.

Horton v. California: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of evidence was not inadvertent? The Rule of Law: An essential predicate to any valid warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence is that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place where the evidence could be plainly viewed. Not only must the item be in plain view, its incriminating character must be immediately apparent. Not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court concluded that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view searches, it is not a necessary condition.

Georgia v. Randolph: Issue, Rule, and Conclusion

The Issue: Whether when police obtain the voluntary consent of an occupant who shares authority over the area in common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of evidence obtained in a search is a lawful evidentiary seizure? The Rule of Law: A physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering any warrantless search unreasonable and invalid. The Conclusion: The Georgia Supreme Court's decision is upheld on the basis that both of the Randolph's did not consent to the warrantless search of the home.

The Katz Rule

The government cannot perform an illegal search and seizure, regardless if the search is physical or not.

Consent: Authority

The person must have authority to consent! Actual authority: If there is a mutual use of property, the doctrine of common authority applies. (A landlord lacks the authority to consent to a search of a tenant's apartment. This also applies with a hotel manager and a guest room.) Apparent Authority: To look at a situation from the perspective of a police officer - would a reasonable police officer, under the circumstances present, have believed that the third party had actual authority to consent? (If this is the case, then the consent is valid, and the search is reasonable).

Fourth Amendment Guarantees: Reasonableness Clause

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...People are entitled to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Open Fields

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in 'open fields'. There is no societal interest in protecting the activities on or in open fields. Generally, open fields are accessible to the public.

Curtilage

This is land right outside the home. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy for curtilage. Factors to take into consideration for determining curtilage: What is the proximity to the home? Is the area included in enclosure around the home? Are steps being taken by the resident to protect the area from the view of passersby? Is the area used for domestic activities?

Exigent Circumstances

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts. A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

What is Consent?

To give acceptance or denial of entry based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the purpose of entry into an area.

What must Consent be?

To give acceptance or denial of entry based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the purpose of entry into an area. Consent must be voluntary! The state must show that, based on the totality of the circumstances, consent was voluntary. (A person is not required to know about their ability to waive their right to consent (Scheneckloth v. Bustamonte)). The factors considered in deciding whether the consent is voluntary (The factors are subjective, objective, and are not exhaustive). Characteristics of accused includes age, education, physical and mental condition. Details of police-citizen interaction. The presence of coercive police procedures include weapons, number of officers, threats, voluntariness of custodial status, the extent and level of suspect's cooperation with police, the suspect's awareness of their right to refuse, the suspect's believe that no evidence will be found, and the police's deception and promises.

Aguilar Two-Prong Test

Veracity Prong: The credibility and reliability of the informant. Basis of Knowledge Prong: The basis of knowledge with how does the informant know the information that he gives is reliable.

Fourth Amendment Protections

Who is protected by the Fourth Amendment? The People. The people refer to a class of people who are a part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with the United States.

False Friend's Doctrine

You assume the risk that the person you are talking to will report, tape, write down, record, or otherwise transmit the conversation you are having with them.