Crim Pro: Investigations

Tucker-Quarles-Elstad

Tucker a. Miranda violation - distinction between constitutional violation versus Miranda b. But Court chose to deny that Tucker's constitutional rights had been violated in the first place. i. Miranda warnings "are not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected]" ii. Prophylactic rule that is judge made Quarles, pg.652 - public safety exception a. Motion to suppress gun and other statements, because of failure of Miranda warning for the statement "the gun is over there," (but then gave Miranda warning after that statement) i. Question --> answer --> seizure --> gun (no attenuation) b. Court grants "public safety exception" i. Similar to other cases, exigency & special needs ii. Objective view, not subjective view of cop c. Anaylze question i. whether it was to ensure Safety of officer and public versus questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from suspect 3. Oregon v. Elstad, pg.662 - no fruits doctrine a. First question him in his house, and gives confession ("Yes I was there,") i. No Miranda warning given b. Then goes to interrogation room i. Gives Miranda warning, but D waives his rights ii. And confesses again c. "Fruits" issue i. Issue - Whether second confession is a fruit of the first confession, court says no. 1. Missouri v. Seibert, pg. 678 a. Officers, by design, get suspect to talk, it is not Mirandized, but then do a second conversation with the suspect, this time Mirandized b. i.e. repetition of confession after Miranda warnings where first conversation was unMirandized à not admissible i. however, to cure, look at these factors: 1. the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation, 2. the overlapping content of the two statements, 3. the time and setting of the first and the second, 4. the continuity of police personnel, 5. the degree to which the interrogator's questions treated the second round as continuous with the first.

Blood/breath tests of drunk driver without a warrant

When a driver is *unconscious* and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. - Mitchell v. Wisconsin Justification is to preserve and prevent destruction of evidence. no search warrant needed. However, you generally cannot do warrantless Blood test if only under SITA. - Schmerber. But you can do warrantless BREATH test under SITA.

Kyllo

When 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 presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. "We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house."

Are pretextual stops of cars valid?

Yes. The Fourth Amendment does not bar pretextual police stops of automobiles, as long as there is a valid and legal reason for the stop. - Whren v. United States Ex: cops want to nab someone for drug-dealing, don't have reasonable suspicion for drugs or drug trafficking, but just saw the guy violate a traffic law. can pull over. if plain view, then probable cause to arrest.

Hypo: Police lawfully seize a syringe from driver of vehicle who admits that he uses it to take drugs. Does that give rise to probable cause to search the whole car? Twist: what about passengers?

Yes. Wyoming v. Houghton. And during car search, police discovered a purse in the back seat that one of the passengers, H, claimed belong to her. At the time, officers did NOT have probable cause to suspect her of drug use, nor was the driver under arrest. Holding - police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect any passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search. However, does NOT give rise to searching passenger themselves.

Adam v. Williams

a "non-frisk" frisk situation If you don't need the frisk because you can simply seize the gun without doing a whole frisk, that's allowed (a "non-frisk" frisk), if there is reasonable suspicion.

Terry Stop compared to Terry Frisk

a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest. i. Reasonable suspicion is an articulable measurement, requires actual, articulable facts by cop Terry Stop = articulable basis to believe that crime is afoot, which allows them to inquire and do a short investigatory stop. Terry Frisk = requires articulable basis to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.

Definition of Open Field and Open Field Cases

area outside of curtilage of a home. In Oliver, the cops, without a warrant or probable cause, trespassed on defendant's rural property, even ignoring "No Trespassing" signs, and discovered fields of marijuana. a. Court ruled that an open field does not constitute a "person, house, paper, or effect." b. Court also found that entry of an open field does not constitute a "search" under Katz analysis. no legitimate expectation of privacy. c. even fences won't prevent something from becoming open fields

Protective Sweep

automatically justified in order for you and the other cops to be safe from harm from hidden attacker. Can conduct "Terry frisk" of the house, don't need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so. - Buie a. However, need articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. *Don't linger rule, can't last longer than necessary to dispel RS of danger

What are you allowed to search under SITA doctrine?

can search one's person, including pockets and containers, and can search area within immediate control. - Chimel

Rodriguez v. United States

dog sniffing adds and prolongs stop, then invalid. "a seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission."

Mapp v. Ohio

grounds exclusionary rule in deterrence and incorporates rule to the States.

Payner

i. Facts: In 196, the IRS launced an investigation into the financial activities of American citizens in the Bahamas. The project known as "Operation Trade Winds," was headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla. Suspicion focused on the Castle Bank in 1972. Special Agent Richard Jaffe of the Jacksonville office asked Norma Caspe, a PI and occasional informant, to learn what he could about the Castle Bank and its depositors. 1. To that end, Casper cultivated his friendship with Castle Bank vice president W. Casper introduced W to K, a private investigator and former employee. 2. When Casper discovered that the banker intended to spend a few days in Miami in January 1973, he devised a scheme to gain access to the bank records he knew would be carrying in his briefcase. 3. Agent Jaffe approved the basic outline of the plan. a. W arrived in Miami on January 15, and went directly to K's apartment. b. Later, two left for dinner at restaurant. Shortly thereafter, C entered the apartment using a key supplied by K. c. He removed the briefcase and delivered it to Agent J. d. While the agent supervised the copying of approximately 400 documents taken from the briefcase, a "lookout" observed K and W at dinner. e. Briefcase was replaced. ii. Didn't happen in his place (property), didn't infringe on his privacy iii. So Payner here wasn't the target of the conduct and didn't have standing, because it wasn't his briefcase, and wasn't his hotel room!

Carter

i. The claim is that the looking in the blinds from public space is a "search" in 4th Amendment (no entry to curtilage) 1. We never get to that question though because of bifurcation of standing req 2. They were there only for a commercial purpose, no reasonable expectation of privacy a. Commercial purpose b. Short time period c. Not family, not overnight guest d. Not their home

Mimms / Wilson

officers in the course of a legal stop of an automobile have an AUTOMATIC RIGHT under Terry to order the driver and passengers out of the vehicle.

Minnesota v. Olson

overnight guest has same protection as homeowner. police learned that the second man was hiding with 2 women in the upper unit of a duplex. Hours later, the police surrounded the dwelling and, without permission or a warrant entered the upper unit and arrested the suspect.

No-Knock

permitted in the execution of search warrant if exigent circumstances exist. That means if knocking will be dangerous, futile, or cause destruction of evidence.

Schmerber

"Probable cause plus" required to take blood sample from motorist arrested for drunk driving, because it involved an intrusion into a human body. - requires a clear indication that in fact such evidence of intoxication will be found.

Bright line quote from Kyllo

"We have said that the 4th Amend draws 'a firm line at the entrance to the house.' That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright." - Scalia

Arizona v. Hicks

- Bullet fired through an apt. floor, police enter looking for shooter/victims/weapons, they seize weapons and then notice stereo equipment, wrote down serial numbers but had to move other things in order to write it down. - Act of moving the things to reach vantage point to write down serial numbers constituted a "search," and - exigent justification for that search (hot pursuit) was already "used up." Search here was a search separate and apart from the lawful search for the shooter himself. If the equipment moved was large enough to hold a man who was hiding, (and by doing so find stereo equipment) then will win argument that this exigent circumstance allows this search and allows to seize these stereos, but that is not the case.

Pringle

1 in 3 case The officer questioned the men about the ownership of the drugs, after lawful search, and warned them that if they did not answer he would arrest all three of them for possession of the cocaine, which he did when nobody admitted ownership. Supreme Court unanimously upheld Pringle's arrest.

Knotts Karo Jones

1) Knotts Police used beeper placed in chloroform container coupled with visual surveillance to track suspect. Police use of enhanced surveillance capabilities to monitor areas where there is no legitimate expectation of privacy does not violate the 4th. Visual surveillance obtained from public places/roads or open fields would have revealed all of the information. 2) Karo Beeper goes inside the house, which makes all the difference. Monitoring of a beeper a violation of 4th when it reveals information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance. Though less intrusive/informative, it does reveal a critical fact about the interior of the premises that the gov't is interested in knowing and could not have obtained w/o a warrant; the beeper was inside the house. 3) Jones The installation of GPS tracking device on vehicle was a violation of 4A rights over property rights. "Where, as here, the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search had undoubtedly occurred."

Plain view elements

1) Lawful vantage point 2) its seizable nature is immediately apparent

Define probable cause

1) Seizure officer has enough information to warrant a man of reasonable caution that an offense has or is being committed. - Carroll 2) Search officer has enough information to warrant a man of reasonable caution that evidence subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched.

Rawlings

1. Court finds that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he dumped the drugs in a friend's purse 2. By stashing it out to here purse, it's like he is throwing it out the window a. So he has no standing

Four objects that are subject to seizure

1. Fruits of the crime 2. Instrumentalities/Weapons 3. Contraband 4. Mere evidence

Types of Exigent Circumstances

1. Hot pursuit 2. Destruction of Evidence 3. Blood test w/o warrant 4. Emergency assistance (i.e. community caretaking)

Search Warrant elements

1. Probable cause 2. Supported by oath or affirmation 3. Neutral and detached magistrate 4. particularity requirement - "particularly describe the thing to be searched/seized"

Byrd

1. Unauthorized driver (Bob) of rental car is searched through an entry to curtilage, 2. Holding - Bob had standing to challenge the police search, even though he is not the authorized driver of the vehicle in a rental agreement (and even if the rental agreement states that only Alice is permitted to drive the car) *in the abstract* a. People toss the keys to each other, realities of the world we live in b. Essential to the Court's holding was the finding that the driver in this case was in lawful possession; indeed, the driver of a stolen vehicle lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car he may be driving.

Franks hearing

A pretrial proceeding that allows a defendant to challenge the veracity of an affiant's statements in the affidavit that supports the issuance of a search warrant. Franks does not authorize a hearing if the D claims that an informant lied to an innocent affiant. Only if the affiant police officer intentionally lied.

What are the measures of seizure?

A seizure occurs if 1) looking at the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. - Mendenhall or 2) a reasonable person would not free to terminate the encounter. - Bostick Can be made by (i) show of authority, where subject shows submission to the authority (submission is required) (ii) physical force that brings subject under control - Hodari

Definition of "seizure" Jacobsen Karo

A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in that property. administering cocaine test is not a "search" or "seizure" because of binary result - Jacobsen Karo - With GI's consent, agents substituted their own can containing a beeper for one of the cans in the shipment and then had all 10 cans painted to give them a uniform appearance. - Although the can may have contained an unknown and unwanted foreign object, it cannot be said that anyone's possessory interest was interfered with in a meaningful way. - at most there was a technical trespass on the space occupied by the beeper, which is not enough to constitute a "seizure," - D takes the container "as is" compare to Jones - where GPS was tacking car. there it was an unreasonable search/seizure because NO consent and government intruded.

Utah v. Strieff

A valid pre-existing warrant makes the illegality of the Terry stop not decisive, sufficient break in connection under attenuation doctrine.

Michigan v. Summers Ybarra

A warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted. However, in order to search physical persons on the scene when executing search warrant, need to specify that in the warrant itself, backed up by probable cause.

Alabama v. White

Anonymous informant called and told police that woman will be leaving apartment with a bag and enter some car and drive to motel and there are drugs in the bag. Police observed the woman and her actions and then pulled her over and with her consent searched the bag and found marijuana. Court upheld the limited search. According to the Court, the corroboration by the police of informant's information was enough to provide reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. Same Aguilar/Spinelli twin prong analysis under totality of the circumstances approach.

Gates

Anonymous letter detailing drug buy in Miami, tip leads to search warrant for house Anonymous tip standing alone is never enough for probable cause Corroboration is highly valuable when taking the "totality of the circumstances" approach, helps credit the hearsay statement of an informant's tip. TWO pronged approach: 1) Veracity 2) Basis of information

MacArthur

Approves officers reasonable steps to secure scene and prevent destruction of evidence while they await a warrant a. They had probable cause there were drugs in the home, but needed to get a warrant b. Had reason to believe guy could destroy 2. Second officer did not let guy reenter his trailer without supervision while first officer went to get a warrant

Payton

Arrest Warrant in Home Probable cause + On the Scene knowledge (backed up by probable cause) Justification for req is because if you're inside the house to arrest someone you also are able to see what's inside the house, and that may not have been backed up by probable cause. Don't want cops to get 2 for 1 deal where they get to search without a search warrant. Curtilage is not included! Once you step outside, under arrest.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada

Arrest pursuant to Stop and identify statutes are allowed. 1. You are allowed to not respond to police officer when you are stopped by the cops, unless you are in a jurisdiction that has a "stop and identify" statute, but a. Must be a lawful stop i. Stop and identify statutes cannot be enforced if the stop—the initial seizure that presages the request for identification—is unlawful for lack of reasonable suspicion.

Steagald

Arrest warrant wasn't enough to search friend's house for guy they wanted to arrest. to do so, need that info in arrest warrant itself, specifying location.

Collins v. Virginia

Automobile exception does not apply if the vehicle is within the curtilage of the home. Here, because motorcycle was parked in curtilage of home, it is entitled to the same protections that a home would receive. Need a warrant.

Ciraola

Backyard where D was growing weed, enclosed by fence = curtilage, but doesn't matter because no legitimate expectation of privacy for aerial surveillance. Aerial surveillance of curtilage is not a search, no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Cars and Containers

Can search a car under three ways: 1. Search Incident to Arrest - Gant 2. Automobile Exception - Carroll, Chambers, Carney 3. Inventory SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST - Police may search a vehicle incident to arrest of recent occupant if (1) the arrestee is within reaching distance of passenger compartment at time of search (and arrestee is unsecured) (2) reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest , even if recent occupant is already arrested. under number 2 above, trunk access is unclear. Remember that justification is twin prongs of officer safety and preventing destruction of evidence. AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION 1. Police can search the car, without a warrant, if they have probable cause to believe that the car contains articles which the officers are entitled to seize. This is due to the mobile nature of cars, by the time you get a warrant, car is long gone. - Carroll 2. if you have probable cause to search the car, you have probable cause to search all the containers within the car, provided that it is large enough to hold the evidence for which you are looking for. - Ross 3. However, you only go where the probable cause takes you. If you have probable cause to believe contraband is in the trunk, for example, then you only get to go the trunk. - Acevedo. INVENTORY As long as police have routine, standard procedure and policy in place, can search everything in the car once it gets impounded and inventoried. - In Florida v. Wells, police officers were not entitled to permit locked suitcase in car because they did not have a policy regarding the opening of closed containers found during inventory search.

Frasier v. State

Child porn images were immediately seizable because lawful right of access and immediately apparent, plain view doctrine applies What about additional search? a. Must be connected to particularity of warrant itself, which in this case was documents and computer files for marijuana sales themselves

Definition of Consent Who has burden of proving consent?

Consent must be freely and voluntary given; not a product of coercion. Voluntarines of the consent is an objective analysis. Totality-of-the-circumstances analysis for Voluntariness. ex: -did cops draw a weapon to coerce consent? -is this person a repeat criminal, who knows that he can consent? Burden of proving consent is on Government

Miller

Court held that a bank depositor has no legitimate expectation of privacy in financial information he "voluntarily conveyed to banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business."

K9 Dogs Place / Caballes

Court held that a dog sniff that discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics does not constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the 4A. Not an independent fourth amendment event - Place Caballes - The Constitution did not require police to have reasonable suspicion to use a drug-detection dog on a car during a legal traffic stop. No legitimate privacy was at risk, the Court argued, because the dog only alerted to an illegal drug. No legitimate expectation of privacy in possessing contraband.

Greenwood

Court held that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left outside the curtilage of a home. must be outside of curtilage.

Innis

Court says that the functional equivalent of questioning in interrogation is when the government uses words or engages in actions that the police should have known were likely to initiate an incriminating response. a. It is a likelihood test. b. not an intent test! Not concerned with subjective belief of officers

Ker-Frisbie Doctrine

Criminal defendants can be put on trial in U.S. courts even if the way you obtained custody was not valid. Exclusionary rule does not apply to human seizure, so won't release defendant if arrest was not valid. Any other objects that are part of the seizure, however, that is suppressible, but the actual human part of the seizure is not suppressible. Ex: Under Payton, if you don't have on the scene knowledge backed up by probable cause that the guy is there, won't just let the guy go cause you have arrest warrant. But anything you see in the house cannot be brought into evidence.

Terry Stop vesus De-Facto Arrest What are the two distinct measures of seizure?

De-Facto arrest requires probable cause, which won't be met if all you have is Terry-level reasonable suspicion. Dunaway Guy here wasn't allowed to leave, was taken and transported to a police interrogation room, and was physically restrained if he had tried to leave i. Dunaway factors: 1. Outnumbered 2. Cuffed 3. Transported 4. Not mirandized 5. Booked, 6. In a different room a. ALL without requisite probable cause Florida v. Royer Officers held the guys ticket and passport in airport. a. "officers had R's ticket, they had his ID, and they had seized his luggage. R was never informed that he was free to board his plane if he so chose, and he reasonably believed that he was being detained. At least as of that moment, any consensual aspects of the encounter had evaporated." Furthermore, court says in Royer that when an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police, and go about his business.

Butler (Waiver of Miranda)

Defendant advised of rights, he said he understood but refused to sign the waiver. Here, he waived his rights, waiver can be inferred from actions/words of person interrogated.

Confessions: Due Process

Due Process *voluntariness,* i.e. the act of free will, of confessions, free from coercion. Factors: a. Background b. Age c. Mental capacity d. Totality of the circumstances e. Threat of violence f. Psychological coercion 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination is different than Due Process, a. Protects accused only from being testified against himself b. 5th Amend privilege violation occurs when documents are attempted to be brought in c. Due Process violation occurs when coercion occurs Spano i. The psychological nature of the cops using the D's friend/police academy recruit to extract a confession from Spano was coercive, the tactic overbears free will. 1. Foreign born 2. History of emotional instability 3. High school education 4. Questioned for 8 straight hours 5. Friend told him his family + job were in jeopardy ii. Not a voluntary confession 1. This is a DPC violation. Rogers case i. "Don't make us call your wife," ii. Psychological technique in violation of DPC

Weeks

Established exclusionary rule, evidence gotten without a warrant isn't admissable in a federal court. Deterrence rationale + judicial integrity rationale

Herring v. United States

Exclusionary rule doesn't apply to contraband found during a search incident to arrest stemming from the police's mistaken but objectively, good faith belief that there is an outstanding warrant. We do not suggest that all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from the exclusionary rule. In this case, however, the conduct at issue was not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion. a. If the police have been shown to be reckless in maintain a warrant system, or to have knowingly made false entries to lay the groundwork for future false arrests, exclusion would certainly be justified under our cases should such misconduct cause a 4A violation. b. Police must be Sufficiently deliberate + sufficiently culpable --> exclusionary rule kicks in order for deterrent effect to mean something

Ceccolini

Exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a 4A violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object i. Witnesses often come forward out of their own volition ii. Exclusion would disable witness from testifying about relevant facts

White

False Friend Doctrine No legitimate expectation of privacy that one you converse with is not a CI or will relay conversation to police. In White, GI wore concealed radio transmitter. Hoffa - however strongly a D may trust an apparent colleague, his expectations in this respect are not protected by the 4A when it turns out that his colleague is actually a government agent regularly communicating with the authorities. Lewis - no 4A protection when the government sends to D's home a secret agent who conceals his identity and makes a purchase of narcotics from the accused. Lopez - when same agent as above, unbeknown to the defendant, carries electronic equipment to record the defendant's words.

Wardlow

Flight from police + high crime area = reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot, justifies Terry stop.

Draper

Government informant (NOT anonymous) did not state the way in which he had obtained his information, but did report that D had gone to Chicago the day before by train and that he would return to Denver by train with 3 ounces of heroin on one of two specified mornings. Moreover, GI went on to describe, with minute particularity, the clothes that D would be wearing upon his arrival at the Denver station. Court finds that a magistrate, when confronted with such detail, could reasonably infer that the informant had gained his information in reliable way. So enough probable cause for arrest. Independent police work in that case corroborated. Police, upon meeting the inbound Denver train on the second morning specified by H, saw a man whose dress corresponded precisely to H's detailed description. Tip + Corroboration = probable cause

What case says that inadvertance is not a requirement for plain view?

Horton

Exigent circumstances - minor crimes

If justification is hot pursuit, ok. If justification is preventing destruction of evidence, not ok. - Welsh

Inevitable discovery

If the cops would have hypothetically gotten this information, regardless of the government action, then its still admissible. b. IMAGINARY hypothetical tree, as opposed to other good tree that actually exists. 2. Nix v. Williams, pg. 528-529 a. Facts: Williams was arraigned for the abduction of Pamela Powers, a 10-year-old girl who disappeared from a YMCA building in Iowa, where she had accompanied her parents to observe a sporting event. i. While in custody, the police subjected Williams to a so-called "Christian Burial Speech" that motivated him to lead authorities to the victim's body, so that she could receive a "Christian burial." ii. At the time, a search for her body was underway and one search team was within two-and-a-half miles of the victim, but the search effort was called off when Williams agreed to cooperate. iii. Incriminating statements were used to convict him of first-degree murder. 1. Statement also led to physical fruits, which was used as evidence in trial. b. Violation of D's 6th Amend right to counsel inevitably leads them to the body of the girl c. Burden is on the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they inevitably would have discovered the evidence legally i. D's statements to the police and that D led the police to the body is STILL excluded because you would need Government to make the argument that they would have gotten the statements and D would have led the police to the body outside of the 6th amendment violation, and they can't do that. 1. Is too close in time and too connected ii. But rest of evidence: body itself, articles and photos of clothing, and results of medical test - admissible due to Inevitable discovery doctrine

Miranda doctrine

If there is 1) custody + 2) interrogation then must give Miranda warnings. You get the right to remain silent, and right to counsel. Note that there may be some tactics that are Miranda violations but not Due Process violations a. Shaded area in between (coercive tactics, etc. etc.) Right to Counsel - Court has said that the right to counsel, i.e. attorney, is a 5th Amen privilege, for limited purpose of answering the questions in the interrogation - Attorney can also serve as a witness, if he later gets called at trial Invocation - to invoke Miranda rights, must be clear, unambiguous statement. - Berghuis Waiver - to waive Miranda rights, can analyze through conduct and can be implicit. Prosecution bears the burden of proving waiver. CUSTODY - Objective analysis i. Places, ii. Time of day iii. Persons present iv. Objective indicia of arrest (guns, cuffs, etc) v. Who initiaties the interview vi. Length of time involved vii. Form of discourse i.e. badgering but careful cause this is a "bleeding" factor - don't want to bleed with interrogation analysis absence of freedom of movement, there can be no custody. would a reasonable person feel free to leave or terminate the encounter? INTERROGATION i. (i) Direct questioning or (ii) "functional equivalent" 1. Functional equivalent - objective test a. Is the practice designed to produce incriminating statements? b. Knowledge or suspectable of D's weaknesses ii. What about a volunteered statement while you are in custody? 1. Ex: making volunteered statements while you are in jail, is by definition is not interrogation. You gave the cops a gift. 2. Ex 2: a. D = "I did it!" b. Jailer - "you did what?" ß is this interrogation? c. Answer - "I killed everyone in the house." i. Would you suppress statement for failure to Mirandize? ii. Court says no, because it gives some leeway. A little, limited follow up questions to a volunteered statement is still within volunteered statement area. Functional Equivalent of Interrogation i. Objective test - objective likelihood of eliciting incriminating response? 1. The absence of cop's intent does not have anything to do with whether this is an interrogation. (With caveat if the officers know about the D's susceptibility) 2. Footnote 8 on page 704 - if the officer's knowing of a susceptibility, and engaging in that susceptibility, court would look that into a subjective belief 3. However, the absence of evidence that the officer's know about the susceptibility, makes it harder to show likelihood ii. Note 4A, pg.709 1. D knows they're stolen furs - furs the police received from co-D 2. Court holds that the only possible objective of this conduct is to elicit an incriminating response a. On those facts, is it reasonably likely that someone will confess? b. Yes, court holds that this was an "interrogation" of the D so need to Mirandize him beforehand, because they did not, then statements are suppressed.

You are a cop and want to seize a container you see on the street. Are you allowed to do so? Need probable cause?

If you have reasonable suspicion that a container has seizable items, can seize the container itself to conduct a short investigatory stop under reasonable suspicion. Cannot open without a warrant however. Detention must be properly limited in scope. - Place

Florida v. Jardines

Implied Licensure case Police gathered K9 information by physically entering and occupying the front porch of a house. - unreasonable search and 4A violation; requires warrant - not something that a normal citizen would normally i. a limited purpose licensure: by having a walkway, you are implying allowing people to walk up to ring the door, but NOT to have dogs sniffing around your front porch.

Brigham v. Stuart

Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Cops, outside the screen door, see fight happening in kitchen.

Navarette

Low standard to meet reasonable suspicion for Terry stop. issue was not whether there was reasonable suspicion had a crime had occurred—but rather whether there was reasonable suspicion that a crime was occurring, namely, drunk driving. 911 call saying a driver was driving erratically was enough, even where the cops, when arriving on the scene, saw the driver driving perfectly fine.

Who may consent? (4 cases)

Matlock- co-inhabitant, without other person present, can consent to search of premises. Rationale is that a person assumes the risk that those who have access to and control over his shared property might consent to a search. Georgia v. Randolph - court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant, Rodriguez - Some reasonable belief in her authority and ability to consent is enough. Fernandez- When other person is not present, even after saying no consent, and gets arrested (on lawful grounds), cops can obtain consent from other homeowner

Hot Pursuit

May enter a place for the purpose of search and seizure if you are in fresh pursuit of a fleeing suspect. - Warden v. Hayden. In that case, weapons that were found in bathroom admissible, even if they didn't find suspect. Hot Pursuit requires bilateral awareness! Stanton v. Sims - even if minor crime, hot pursuit is ok.

Berkemer

Miranda does not apply to Terry stops. And whether it is a minor crime or misdeameanor, doesn't matter.

Perkins

Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect gives a voluntary statement made to someone who is an undercover officer. While being held in jail, Perkins freely confessed to committing a murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as another inmate. Court held that this was NOT interrogation, but yes for the custody part. But miranda violation requires both custody+interrogation!

Bumper v. North Carolina

Misrepresentation of legal authority is enough to destroy consent even if given. Because this is coercive. Can't lie and say "yes we have a warrant" when you actually don't.

Smith v. Maryland

No search for the police to use a "pen register" device that records all phone numbers dialed form a particular phone. The Ct. concluded that D could claim no legitimate expectation of privacy because when he used his phone he "voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and exposed that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business" and thereby assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the number he dialed. ".We therefore conclude that petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and that, even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate.""

Watson

No warrant required to arrest in public space if you have probable cause to make the arrest right there.

Is there an exlcusionary rule for knock-and-announce violation?

No.

Police officers lying that they have a warrant, to gain consent into entry of the home. Is that valid?

No. Bumper v. North Carolina

Can you use a terry stop and frisk to search for drugs?

No. - Sibron v. NY Note, that under a Terry stop of a car, can't search vehicles for evidence of drugs. But if you have probable cause to believe that the car has drugs, can search anywhere in the car where you believe the drugs are. And if you have probable cause to believe to arrest a person on the street for drug-trafficking, can arrest and then do SITA to search for drugs (to prevent destruction of evidence).

What happened in Floriday v. Royer

Officers seized the individual on basis of Terry stop, but then became de-facto arrest because "looking at the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.'

Independent source

Other, clean, tree that exists which is attached to the fruit. "Would they have sought a warrant without this information" - Murray. Murray v. United States, pg. 522 a. Facts: Based on information received from informants, federal LEO agents had been surveilling M and several of his co-conspirators. i. At about 1:45pm, they observed M drive a truck and C drive a green camper, into a warehouse in South Boston. ii. When the petitioners drove the vehicles out about 20 minutes later, the surveillance agents saw within the warehouse 2 individuals and a tractor-trailer rig bearing a long, dark container. iii. M and C later turned over the truck and camper to other drivers, who were in turn followed and ultimately arrested, and the vehicles lawfully seized. Both vehicles were found to contain marijuana. iv. After receiving this information, several of the agents converged on the South Boston warehouse and forced entry. 1. They found the warehouse unoccupied, but observed in plain view numerous burlap-wrapped bales that were later found to contain marijuana. 2. They left without disturbing the bales, kept the warehouse under surveillance, and did not reenter it until they had a search warrant. 3. In applying for the warrant, the agents did not mention the prior entry, and did not rely on any observations made during that entry. 4. Warrant was issued approximately 8 hours after the initial entry—agents immediately reentered the warehouse and seized 270 bales of marijuana and notebooks listing customers for whom the bales were destined. b. Uses clean, other bases, that is presented to magistrate judge that satisfies search warrant probable cause requirement i. But before that, they already have kicked in the door and have violated the fourth amendment ii. But is the clean, bases, an independent source? 1. Court says yes. If they could have gotten the info in another way, untainted, sufficient probable cause a. Yet note, that the only reason the government took the time to write the warrant was because they were already inside of the barn! b. So is it really independent? 2. Court remands whether the search pursuant to the warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the information a. We are trying to figure out whether the agents would have applied for the warrant had they not seen what was in the barn. i. "if you have never entered without a warrant, would you have put the application for a search warrant?" ii. "yes. we had recordings, surveillance, etc." b. If you demonstrate a pre-existing motivation that you would have gotten the information regardless because you had probable cause, then you are ok. i. If the illegal action occurred before they had enough probable cause to get a warrant, law enforcement officers would most likely fail argument because argument is that it had to be motivated c. Remand, call the cop on the stand, and have him say "yea we definitely would have gone to the scene."

Attenuation doctrine

Outside of intervening act of free will, do proximate cause analysis and Brown factors on note 2 page 534: i. (1) the length of time that has elapsed between the initial illegality and the seizure of the fruit in question ii. (2) the flagrancy of the initial misconduct (dissipation of bad-faith violations takes longer than with good-faith violation) iii. (3) the existence or absence of intervening causes of the seizure of the fruit iv. (4) the presence or absence of an act of free will by the defendant resulting in the seizure of the fruit

Curtilage factors

PENS - Dunn factors 1. Proximity of area to home 2. Whether area is Enclosed with home 3. Nature of uses for area 4. Steps taken to protect area from observation by passersby

Florida v. JL

Plaid shirt anonymous tip exhibited insufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion for Terry stop. - provided no predictive information - only gave ID - no means to test basis of knowledge + reliability - "readily available and common nature" of this scene is backdrop

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Plain touch Only things who seizable nature is readily apparent by touch/pat down can be seized under plain touch.

Florida v. Riley

Plane over greenhouse case. D could not reasonably have expected the contents of his greenhouse to be immune from examination by an officer seated in a fixed-wing aircraft flying in navigable airspace above.

Kentucky v. King

Police officers can use the exigent circumstances justification to conduct a warrantless search even when their own actions, such as knocking loudly on the wrong door in an apartment building, lead to the sounds (flushing of drugs for ex) inside the dwelling that trigger the belief in the necessity of an immediate search. As long as the police officer's actions are LEGAL. covering peephole, for example, is unreasonable. still requires probable cause for initial search

Rakas

Rakas was a passenger in the car, and didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because he didn't own the car and didn't own the objects seized Leaves question open as to whether passengers don't have legitimate expectation of privacy in trunk, glove box, or area under the seat. so no standing!

Hein

Reasonable mistake of law is acceptable under Terry stop.

Search of phone incident to lawful arrest

Riley v. California Need warrant to access and search phone. Balancing between privacy interests involved (everything in your life is in your phone) versus minimal burden on government to prevent destruction of evidence. Normally, just inventory the phone and then get search warrant for phone while it is in possession of the cops back at the station and guy is under arrest.

"because an informant is right about some things, he is more probably right about other facts,"

Spinelli concurrence

Massiah

The Supreme Court held that incriminating statements deliberately elicited by federal agents in the absence of counsel after the proceeding has begun violate the Sixth Amendment. 6th amend right attaches once judicial proceedings have begun.

Scope of Consent

The standard of measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under 4A is that of "objective" reasonablness--what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect? ex: consenting to car of search means that you consent to containers in car. ex: consenting to search trunk doesn't mean you consent to search of locked briefcase in trunk.