Constitutional Rights Test #2

Florida v. Jardines (2012)

Officers used drug-sniffing dog at Jardines property to sniff our marijuana. issue: whether use of specially trained drug dog to sniff around someone's front porch constitutes a "search" within the meaning of 4th amendment holding: drug dog sniffing exterior of car did not violate reasonable expectation of privacy and long as it was brief. Dog sniffing luggage at an airport did not constitute a search. area immediately surround/associated w/home is part of home itself for 4th amendment purposes. Because drug dog sniffed upon curtilage (area outside of home that is so intimately connected to family life its considered home), it violated the defendants property interests.

Deleware v. Prouse (1979)

Prouse was pulled over, but hadn't violated any traffic laws nor acted in a suspicious manner. Officer noticed marijuana "in plain view" and arrest for possession of a controlled substance. issue: should the evidence of marijuana be suppressed on the grounds that the stop had been illegal since it was not based on any reasonable suspicioun? holding: Court agreed w/local court that marijuana evidence should be suppressed. A police officer may only stop a person for investigative purposes if officer has reasonable suspicious to believe law had been broken. contraband would not have been in plain view if officer had not illegally pulled Prouse over. evidence constituted "fruit" of the illegal stop and is subject to the exclusionary rule.

Riley v. California (2014)

Riley arrested for driving w/expired tags. he was arrested, but during arrest police found phone in his pants pocket and examined contents of his phone as part of 'search incident to lawful arrest'. Riley was later convicted of a gang-related shooting that occurred before traffic stop. issue: does the search of the contents of a mobile phone violate the 4th amendment, despite the long-recognized exception that searches incident to lawful arrests do not ordinarily require search warrants? holding: searches incident to arrest will not be deemed to cover the internal data of mobile phones. modern cell phones have extraordinary privacy implications. police must get a warrant before making the search, otherwise the 4th amendment is offended.

In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the Supreme Court found that prosecutorial retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional or statutory right was a violation of ____.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Utah v. Strieff (2016).

UT detective Fackrell received tip about selling of drugs in SL residence and began surveillance. Fackrell saw Strieff leaving residence and questioned him. Fackrell found outstanding warrant and arrested him. Methamphetamine was found on strieff during arrest. Prosecutor stated that Fackrell did not have enough evidence to conduct involuntary seizure of defendant. issue: was the evidence discovered lawfully conducted and seized. Should the evidence be suppressed as a remedy for the illegal stop. Trial court ruled attenuation exception to exclusionary rule. holding: Court determined that the evidence should have been suppressed because warrant that was the basis for arrest was only discovered during an unlawful investigatory stop. Evidence obtained in violations 4th amendments protections should nevertheless be admitted into evidence when application of the three-part attenuation test suggests the costs to society of its exclusion outweighs the benefits of its deterrent effect to change officer behavior.

In United States v. Booker (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that:

a fact that could increase the defendants sentence by eight years could not be sentencing fact, but was instead a trial fact that ought to have been determined by jury

CSLI

cell-site location information -probably cause warrant

United States v. Wade (1967)

disguised man entered bank/robbed it at gunpoint, two workers (cashier/banks vice president) witnessed robbery. He was arrested and was declared by witnesses to be suspect. issue: problems with initial lineup (1) lineup was allowed to take place w/out Wades' lawyer present (2) both witnesses spotted wade standing in hall next to FBI agent was he given a fair trial due to tainted lineup? holding/reasoning: Court ruled defendant had right to an attorney present and the lineup was critical stage of prosecution. Court agreed that witnesses were tainted. Rejected FBI's attempt to characterize the lineup as mere preparatory step. Prosecutorial Crafiness. Lack of attorney at lineup and unfair lineup, wades 6th and 14th amendment were denied.

Third Party Doctrine

information disclosed to a third-party is generally no longer clothes with a reasonable expectation of privacy

Katz v. United States (1967)

issue: Katz accused of transmitting gambling information over public phone. The police tapped the phone without a warrant and he was convicted of illegal transmissions holdings: It is unconstitutional under 4th amen. to conduct search and seizure w/out warrant anywhere that a person has reasonable expectation of privacy Decision: 4th Amendment-illegal search and seizure of wiretapping (law protects people not places). Evidence of recordings was suppressed due to lack of search warrant. Police violated reasonable expectation of privacy

California v. Greenwood (1988)

issue: Greenwood dealing drugs. Left trash on street, police collected trash to examine for any clues about drug dealing. holdings: does person have reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left at curb for pick-up decision: plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." Since anyone can lawfully go through someone's abandoned trash, so too can the police without a warrant. No constitutionally protected "search" had occurred.

The holding in Katz v. United States (1967):

it is a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment when the government violates a reasonable expectation of privacy

According to the Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama (1969), in order for a judge to lawfully accept a guilty plea, the judge must be convinced that the guilty plea is both a ____ and a ____. (select all that apply)

knowingly entered plea & voluntarily entered plea

entrapped

lured into committing a crime

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

officers responded to Lawrence residence after receiving report of weapons disturbance. Officers legally entered home and found him engaging with sexual act w/man. Charged both men with "deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex". Both were convicted and fined. issue: right of someone to engage in a "peronal relationship" that it now ruled was clearly private and part of the "fundamental liberty" guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. holding: Court stated that government must respect the private lives of citizens, State cannot control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime and that 'there is a realm of personal liberty which the governemtn may not enter'. Court make clear that no legitimate state interest can justify governmental 'intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual

The Supreme Court reasoned that is is not a violation of the 4th Amendment for police officers to conduct a warrantless search of trash left out for pickup because:

plastic garbage bags left out for pickup are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, and snoops, providing no reasonable expectation of privacy

State v. Jim (202)

police showed up to San Juan shopping center because defendant would not leave and refused when asked by security. He was arrested for trespassing and his car was impounded. Police looked through locked truck and found drug which were seized and a locked gun safe. everything was seized w/out warrant. issue: whether the warrantless search of locked gun safe during course of automobile inventory search violated article II section 10 of New Mexico constitution. holding: the search of the locked gun safe had little utility for inventory purposes and thus was reasonable under the New Mexico Constitution

State Courts can do the following regarding constitutional rights: [hint: see State v. Jim case]

recognize increased protections for defendants under state constitutional provisions (i.e additional constraints for law enforcement)

In the Supreme Court case of Carpenter v. US:

repealed the third-party doctrine so to make all information which might be within a defendants reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of who owned the information or who it was shared with, subject to the 4th Amendment

Predisposition Test

test where jury is supposed to determine whether or not defendant had been predisposed to commit crime in question

In order to determine that a defendant has been entrapped (lured into committing a crime), a jury must find:

that the defendant had not been predisposed to commit the crime in question

crafty

that. is, too sly, clever, cunning, or deceitful in achieving their ends

Curtilage

the area outside of the home that is intimately connected to family life and activities, considered to be apart of the home unlawful search of curtilage violates property interests

viability

the point at which the developing fetus has a chance to survive outside of womb

The holding of State v. Jim is:

the search of the locked gun safe had little utility for inventory purposes and thus was reasonable under the New Mexico Constitution

Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion in the Dobbs case, and would have _________.

upheld the Mississippi statute banning abortion after 15 weeks, but left for another day whether Roe v. Wade needed to be overruled

In ruling on the criminalization of abortion, the Supreme Court held in Roe v. Wade (1973) that prior to the point of ______, a woman's right to privacy outweighs the state's interest in protecting potential human life.

viability

Intrusivness

violations of our privacy / autonomy

Writs of Assistance

watered-down version of search warrants that lasted for the life of the monarch, and which did not require the agent seeking one to first describe where exactly he wanted to search, what exactly he expected to find, or even why he believed he would indeed find anything

In U.S. v Knapp, the 10th Circuit looked to previous 10th Circuit precedent that had rejected a constitutional search incident to arrest in the following circumstances:

when arrestee was handcuffed behind their back and unable to reach into nearby nightstands and dressers

The third-party doctrine says that:

you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed to a third party, and thus the government can acquire it without a warrant

In US v. Knapp, the 10th circuit US Court of Appeals reasoned: (check all that apply)

- containers, such as purses, found about an arrestee's person, but not part of their clothing, are subject to a reasonability analysis when deciding whether warrantless search incident to arrest was justified, and that analysis includes such factors as whether the person is handcuffed (and thus less able to reach into containers) and the relative number of arrestees and officers present, among other things - the state's argument that purses and other containers which may have been held by the arrestee at the time of their arrest should be treated as part of the person of the arrestee, should be rejected as unworkable as it would raise difficult issues of exactly when a person was arrested, grabbed or dropped the container and erode the legal distinction in U.S. Supreme Court precedent between the person of the arrestee (along with clothing) versus the area within the arrestee's immediate control

In order to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, an alleged victim of selective prosecution must prove: (select all that apply)

- discriminatory effect - discriminatory intent

In Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Clinic (2022), the Supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade relying on the following reasoning: (select all that apply)

- the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - there was no support in American case law for a right to abortion until just a couple years before Roe v Wade, and further abortion had long been a crime in every single state and also was a crime at common law at least for some stages of pregnancy--therefore the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions - five factors weigh against following the Roe v Wade precedent, including the nature of the legal error, the quality of legal reasoning in Roe, the workability of the rules stemming from Roe, the disruptive effect of Roe on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance upon the Roe precedent

In the case of Florida v. Jardines: (select all that apply)

- the Supreme Court held that entering the curtilage with a drug sniffing dog was a search within the meaning of the 4th Amend. & would require a warrant - SC reasoned that in other instances, such as airport luggage, where drug dog sniff was not considered a search, here the entering of defendants property, curtilage of home, did constitute 4th Amend. search - 4 Justices dissented form decision, arguing this was a knock/talk and officers were constitutionally permitted to do this since society recognized implied permission for people, like Girl Scouts/police officers, to approach front door to seek entry/speak with occupant of home

The dissenting opinion in the Dobbs case argues or points out: (check all that apply):

- the viability line established in Roe v Wade (and reaffirmed in Casey) was more workable than any other place marking when a woman's liberty interest gives way to a state's efforts to preserve potential life, and the point at which a second life was capable of independent existence - the lone rationale for the majority is that the right to elect an abortion is not deeply rooted in history, but the same could be said of most rights the majority claims not to be touching (e.g. right to contraception, right to same sex marriage, right to interracial marriage, etc), so either the majority does not believe its own reasoning or all rights without a history before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment are under threat of being overruled - nothing in the majority opinion stops the federal government from prohibiting abortions nationwide from the moment of conception, which would challenge women seeking an abortion to finance a trip not to New York (or other abortion providing state), but to Toronto (or another country)

Stop v. Arrest Criteria

1) duration of the encounter 2) level of intrusiveness that has occurred

According to the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the ______ were the source (via penumbras) to reveal the general right to privacy.

1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments

(Essay Question #4) What standard does majority develop in its opinion addressing admissibility of evidence? What does dissent argue?

3-Part Attenuation Test: 1) temporal proximity of the discovery the evidence to unconstitutional conduct 2) intervening circumstances 3) level of police misconduct dissent: 4th amendments exclusionary rule was intended to prevent police from taking advantage of their own unconstitutional conduct

Carpenter v. United States (2018)

4 men had series of robberies. Timothy Carpenter confessed to crimes and gave FBI cell phone number of him/accomplices. Charged w/6 counts of robbery/related firearms charges. issue: is CSLI a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment necessitating a full search warrant based on probable cause holding: government generally needs warrant to access privately held CSLI. 4th amendment protects not only property but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Ruled that when gov. obtains CSLI this intrudes upon reasonable expectations of privacy. This extended third-party doctrine

inflaming a jury

Causing passions to overwhelm reason

The case of State v. Jim was decided by:

New Mexico Court of Appeals

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.

attenuation exception

attenuation is time or other factor that helps dissipate the taint of the illegal stop upon the legitimacy of evidence subsequently found

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Executive direct of planned parenthood league and her physician provided clients w/various instructions on how to prevent pregnancies/birth control devices. This violated state law at the time that forbade any from using anything to prevent conception. Both Grisowld and Buxton were convicted of assisting 3 women in violating anti-birth control statue. issue: do women have a constitutional right to engage in birth control and does planned have right to assist them. did this right fall under 'right to privacy' holding: Supreme Court found that there is a general right to privacy. This holding deals with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment. Court found that birth control constituted as general right to privacy as well. Constitution protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.

Jacobson v. United States (1992)

Jacobson had subscription to some magazines involving naked, preteen boys. At time of purchase, these magazines were not against law. Later, federal legislation made crime to possess child pornography. Federal agents send him solicitations urging him to purchase child pornography for 2 years. Jacobson presented entrapment defense. issue: Was Jacobson lured into committing a crime of purchasing child porn magazines? holding/reasoning: Court found that the proof of entrapment was plain and simple. Opined that there simply was no evidence to suggest that Jacobson was predisposed to purchase forbidden material. "evidence of predisposition to do what once was lawful is not, by itself, sufficient to show a predisposition to do what is now illegal, for there is a common understanding that most people obey the law even when they disapprove of it." "gov. agents may not originate criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Jane Roe (alias) became pregnant, claimed she had been raped to receive abortion in Texas. Roe wanted legal abortion but could not obtain one, therefore sued Henry Wade (Dallas district attorney) stating that anti-abortion statute was unconstitutional. issue: "right to privacy," covered not only laws criminalizing birth control but also laws criminalizing elective abortions. holding: Supreme Court ruled that elective abortions (up to a point in pregnancy) were indeed protected by the general constitutional right of privacy. Ruled that state could not outlaw abortions up to the point of viability later overturned on June 24, 2022

United States v. Knapp (2019)

Knapp called police to report theft. During questioning they found that Ms. Knapp had warrant for her arrest. She grabbed purse which was zipped. Officer asked to search purse but was declined. Officer put Knapp in handcuffs behind her back. Found gun in purse. issue: whether the search of defendants purse was one of her persons and if the search nevertheless justified because it was within the area she might have gained access to holding: Search of her purse was not one of her person