Intro to CJ final Ch.8

Exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment

1) Exigent circumstances (emergency or urgent) 2) Stop and frisk 3) Searches incident to lawful arrest 4) Automobile searches 5) Consent searches 6) Searches based on plain view 7) Crimes committed in an officer's presence

Two rules for a search incident to a lawful arrest

1) The search must be conducted at the time of, or immediately following the arrest, and 2) The police may search only the suspect and the area within the suspects immediate control

Anonymous tips began to be permitted when

1983

Every person who is subject to warrantless arrest must be brought before a judge usually with in how many hours, for a parole cause hearing

48

Search

A government actor's infringement on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Hot pursuit

A legal doctrine that allows police to perform a warrantless search of premises where they suspect a crime has been committed when delay would endanger their lives or the lives of others and lead to the escape of the alleged perpetrator.

New York Vs. Quarles

A suspect can be questioned in the field without a Miranda warning if the information the police seek is needed to protect public safety. For example, in emergency, suspects can be asked where they hid their weapons. This is known as the public safety doctrine.

Aguilar Vs. Texas (1964)

A two part test for issuing a warrant on the word of an informant. The police had to show (1) why they believed the informant and (2) how the informant acquired personal knowledge of the crime.

Warrant requirements

A warrant cannot be issued unless it is based on probable cause, which is typically defined as reasonable belief, based on fact, that a crime has been committed and that the person, place, or object to be searched and or seized is linked to the crime with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Search incident to a lawful arrest

An exception to the search warrant rule, limited to the immediate surrounding area.

Search warrant

An order, issued by a judge, directing officers to conduct a search of specified premises for specified objects.

Arrest warrant

An order, issued by a judge, directing, officers to arrest a particular individual.

Open Field

Any unoccupied or underdeveloped real property outside the curtilage of a home. Ex. park, public streets, remote/unprotected area on private property.

The doctrine of plain view was applied and further developed in

Arizona Vs. Hicks (1987). In that case the court held that moving a stereo component in plain view a few inches to record the serial number constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. When a check with police headquarters revealed that the item had been stolen, the equipment was seized and offered as evidence at James Hick's trail. The court held that a plain view search and seizure could be justified only by probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, and suppressed the evidence against the defendant. In this case the court decided to take a firm stance on protecting the fourth amendment rights.

What does the Fourth Amendment not mention

Arrests but it does mentions seizures.

Crimes Committed in an Officer's Presence

As a general rule, if the police make an arrest without a warrant the arrestee must be promptly brought before a magistrate for a probable cause hearing.

If a person abandons his or her property, such as by placing trash at the side of the road for pickup, that person cannot

Continue to assert privacy in in the property (California Vs. Greenwood, 1988)

Exigent circumstances

Emergency or urgent circumstances. Ex hot pursuit, danger of escape, threats to evidence, and threats to others. In each situation the officer must have probable cause.

Which Amendment protects criminal suspects against unreasonable searches and seizures by placing limitations on what the police can do in their efforts to catch lawbreakers and collect evidence.

Fourth

Those who consent to a search waive their constitutional rights under

Fourth Amendment

Unless there is at least reasonable belief that a motorist is unlicensed, that an automobile is not registered, or that the occupant is subject to seizure for violation of the law, stopping and detaining a driver to check his or her license violates the

Fourth Amendment

Curtilage

Grounds or fields attached to a house. Ex yard surrounding house, fenced in and secure portion of private property (such as with "No Trespassing" signs, and secured outbuildings, such as a detached workshop.

Nix v. Williams (1984)

Inevitable discovery rule

California Vs. Greenwood, 1988

Investigators, found incriminating information in a person's garbage that was set to be picked up. Allowed for the seizure of abandoned property.

Police and the courts

Once a crime has been committed and an investigation begun, the police may use various means to collect the evidence needed for criminal prosecution. A number of critical decisions must take place: Should surveillance techniques be employed to secure information? How can information be gathered to support a request for a new search warrant? If the suspect is driving a vehicle, can the car be searched without a warrant? Can a suspect's phone be tapped or her conversations recorded? Is there reasonable suspicion to justify stopping an frisking suspect? can a legal arrest be made? If a suspect has been detained, what constitutes an appropriate interrogation? Can witnesses be brought in to identify the suspect?

When does a Fourth Amendment search occur

Only when a government actor infringes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy

Consent Searches

Ordinarily, courts are reluctant to accept such waivers and require the state to prove that the consent voluntarily given. consent must be given intelligently, and in some jurisdictions, consent searches are valid only after the suspect is informed of the option to refuse consent.

Chimel v. California (1969)

Permissible scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest.

California v. Ciraola (1984)

Permission for fly-overs.

A legal arrest occurs under what conditions

Police officer believes that sufficient legal evidence-that is, probable cause-exists that a crime is being committed or has been committed and intends to restrain the suspect. Police officer deprives the individual of freedom. The suspect believes that he is in the custody of the police officer and cannot voluntarily leave. He has lost his liberty.

Particularity

Recall that the fourth amendment states, in part, that warrants must particularly describe, "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". This particularity requirement was included in the fourth amendment to counteract the use of general warrants by government agents.

Miranda v. Arizona

Supreme Court held that suspects in custody must be told they have the following rights: 1) They have the right to remain silent 2) If they decide to make a statement, the statement can and will be used against them in a court of law 3) They have the right to have an attorney present at the time of the interrogation, or they will have an opportunity to consult with an attorney. 4) If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them by the state.

Alabama Vs. White (1990)

Telephone tips.

Informants

The U.S Supreme Court has been concerned about the reliability of evidence obtained from informants. The court has determined that hearsay evidence must be corroborated to serve as a basis for probable cause and thereby justify the issuance of a warrant. Informant can include victims, witnesses, accomplices, and people familiar with the crime or suspects in question.

Booking

The administrative record of an arrest, listing the offender's name,address, physical description, date of birth, employer, time of arrest, offense, and name of arresting officer. It also includes photographing and fingerprinting of the offender.

Illinois Vs. Gates

The court eased the process of obtaining search warrants by developing a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine probable cause for issuing a search warrant. The court ruled that to obtain a warrant, the police must prove to a judge that, considering the totality of circumstances, and informant has relevant and factual knowledge that a fair probability exists that evidence of a crime will be found in a certain place.

Probable cause

The evidentiary criterion necessary to sustain an arrest, or the issuance of an arrest or search warrant: a set of facts, information, circumstances, or conditions that would lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense was committed and that the accused committed that offense.

Five requirements that must be met for a warantless search by claiming hot pursuit

The police must have probable cause that he suspect is on the premises to be searched. The police must have reason to believe that immediate apprehension is necessary. Hot pursuit must be commenced from a lawful vantage point. The offense in question must be serious, usually a felony. The pursuit must occur prior to or close to apprehension of the suspect.

Inevitable discovery rule

The principle that evidence can be used to in court even though the information that led to its discovery was obtained in a violation of the Miranda rule if a judge finds it would have been discovered anyway by other means or sources.

Plain view

The principle that evidence in plain view of police officers may be seized without a search warrant.

Exclusionary rule

The principle that prohibits using illegally obtained evidence in a trial.

Miranda warning

The requirement that when a person is custodially interrogated, police inform the individual of the right to remain silent, the consequences of failing to remain silent, and the constitutional right to counsel.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Stop and Frisk

The situation in which police officers who are suspicious of an individual run their hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine whether the is a carrying a concealed weapon; also called a threshold inquiry or pat-down.

Two components for stop and frisk search

The stop, in which police officer wishes to briefly detain suspicious person in an effort to effect crime prevention and detection. The frisk, frisk in which an officer pats down, or frisk, a person who is stopped in order to check for weapons. The purpose of the frisk is protection of the officer making the stop.

Independent source exception

This rule allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. So police enter a drug dealer's home with an arrest warrant and while, arresting him, illegally search for and seize evidence such as drug paraphernalia, the illegally seized material may be allowed in court if, independently, a warrant had issued to search the apartment for the same evidence but had not yet arrived at scene.

Arrest is one of the most common types of seizures

True

Johnson v. US (1948)

Warrants only issued by neutral and detached magistrates. Ay judge is considered a neutral and detached magistrate.

When do private citizens have the right to make an arrest

When a crime is committed in their presence.

lineup

a suspect is placed in a group for the purpose of being viewed and identified by a witness. Lineups are one of the primary means that the police have of identifying suspects.

The Katz doctrine

is usually interpreted to mean that the government must obtain a court order if it wishes to listen in on conversations in which the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in their own homes or on the telephone.

Arrest

occurs when a police officer takes a person into custody or deprives a person of freedom for having allegedly committed a criminal offense. (need probable cause)

Pretext Stops

one in which police officers stop a car because they suspect the driver is involved in a crime such as a drug trafficking, but lacking probable cause, they use a pretext such as minor traffic violation to stop the car and search its interior.

The case of Bumper v. North Carolina (1968)

police officers searched the home of an elderly woman after informing her that they possessed a search warrant.

• Georgia Vs. Randolph

police were called to Scott Randolph's home because of a domestic dispute. His wife told police that Randolph had been using a lot of cocaine and that drugs were on the premises. One officer asked Randolph whether he could conduct a search of the home, and Randolph said no. Another officer asked his wife for permission, and she not only said yes but also led the officers upstairs to a bedroom where he allegedly found cocaine residue. The Supreme Court held that because Randolph was present when the police came to his home, they were required by the 4th amendment to heed his objection to the search; the seizure of the drugs was ruled illegal.

Whren v. US

pretext stops

Fruit of poisonous tree

secondary evidence obtained from a search that violates exclusionary rule.

In Michigan Dept of State Police Vs. Sitz (1990)

the Court held that brief, suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving were constitutional.

In Delaware Vs. Prouse (1979)

the Supreme Court forbade the practice of random stops in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that some traffic or motor vehicle law has been violated.

Oliver Vs. United states (1984)

the U.S Supreme Court distinguished between the privacy granted persons in their own home or its adjacent grounds and fields (curtilage) and the lack of expectation of privacy in open fields.

United States Vs. Wade (1967) and Kirby Vs. Illinois (1972),

the accused has the right to have counsel present at the post indictment lineup or in show-up.

Neil Vs. Biggers (1972),

the court established the following general criteria by which the judge the suggestiveness of pretrial identification procedure: 1) The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime 2) The degree of attention by the witness and the accuracy of the prior description by the witness 3) The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness 4) The length of time between the crime and the confrontation

US V Leon (1984)

the court ruled that evidence seized by police relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate can be used in court proceeding, even if the judge who issued the warrant erred in drawing up the document. In this case the court articulated a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained with a less than adequate search warrant may be admissible in court if the police officers acted in good faith when obtaining court approval for their search. (Good Faith Exception)

United States v. Matlock (1974)

the court ruled that it is permissible for one co-occupant of an apartment to give consent to the police to search the premises in the absence of the other occupant, as long as the person giving consent shares common authority over the property and no present co-tenant objects.

In Katz Vs. United States (1967)

the court ruled that when federal agents eavesdropped on a phone conversation using a listening device that could penetrate the walls of a phone booth, they had conducted an illegal search and seizure.

Riverside County Vs. McLaughlin

the court said that the police may detain an individual arrested without a warrant for up to 48 hours without a court hearing to determine whether the arrest was justified.

With approval from the court and a search warrant, law enforcement officers place listening devices on telephones to overhear oral communications of suspects. Such devices are also often placed in homes and automobiles. The evidence collected is admissible and can be used in the defendants trial.

true

Florida Vs. Bostick

upheld the drug interdiction technique known as the bus sweep, in which police board buses and, without suspicion of illegal activity, question passengers, ask for identification, and request permission to search luggage.

The major legal issue in most consent searches is

whether police can prove that consent was given voluntarily.

In Carroll v. United States

which was decided in 1925, the Supreme Court ruled that distinctions should be made among searches of automobiles, persons, and homes. An automobile can be searched without a warrant if the police have probable cause.

The oldest and most widely used form of electronic surveillance is

wiretapping

US v. Ross (1982)

with probable, police can search an automobile without a warrant, including any containers within.