CRIM PRO - CASES
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
(1) The Fourth Amendment permits officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon to enter a home, into which the suspect had fled, and search the home without a warrant. (2) The Fourth Amendment permits officers to seize mere evidence of a crime that is not either a fruit or instrumentality of crime or contraband.
Powell v. Alabama
(1932) The Supreme Court ruled here that the right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials. Judge tried to appoint "all members of the Bar" H: due process clause protects fundamental rights form state interference (including bill of rights)
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
- Although fleeting nature of blood alcohol evidence alone is not enough to bring BAC testing within exigency exception to warrant requirement - Delay caused by suspect creates exception to warrant - Unconscious driver requiring transport to hospital: no warrant required to draw blood
Muehler v. Mena
-*Officers may handcuff individuals present when they execute a dangerous search warrant at a residence* -Subjects may remain handcuffed during the remainder of the search -- they were in the home
Birchfield v. North Dakota
1. Collection of three cases where defendants challenge state statutes criminalizing refusal to submit to a chemical test (for alcohol). Defendants argued the statutes violated their 4th amendment rights to be from unreasonable searches and seizures when no probable cause would support a warrant for the test. 2. A state statute may not criminalize a suspect's refusal to submit to a blood test (for alcohol) in the absence of a warrant. 3. Warrantless blood tests incident to an arrest violate the 4th amendment (although warrantless breath tests incident to an arrest for drunk driving do not). Breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns, involve minimal physical intrusion, reveal a limited amount of information, and do not enhance embarrassment beyond the arrest itself. Blood tests do the opposite. There are reasonable alternatives to blood tests (ie. breath tests).
Katz test:
1.) Subjective (actual) expectation of privacy? 2.) Is expectation one society wil recognize as reasonable?
Samson v. California
6-3 decision saying that police officers may conduct random searches of people who are on parole, without the need to show any basis for suspecting the parolee of a crime. Therefore upheld the law that requires every prisoner who is about to be released on parole to sign a statement agreeing to be subject to search with or without a search warrant and with or without cause.
Florida v. Harris
A drug dog detection at the exterior of a car is probable cause to search a car. Harris was in possession of pseudo with the intention of making meth and was arrested. Dog alerting may or may not equal probable cause, requires ToC.
Maryland v. Pringle
A police officer stopped a car for speeding, searched the car, and seized money from the glove compartment and cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest. The officer arrested the car's three occupants after they denied ownership of the drugs and money. A state court sentenced Pringle, the front-seat passenger, for possessing and intending to distribute cocaine after he signed a written confession. Rule: For drugs, the law changed that you only have to have dominion and control to possess - for reasonable belief it is sufficient to be in the car with drugs
Groh v. Ramirez
A warrant that does not specifically describe the person or property to be searched or seized or incorporate supporting documents with those descriptions is invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Must be in BOTH the affidavit and search warrant
Lange v. California
Absent exigent circumstances, police cannot enter a home without a warrant in pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanant. Homes are the most protected areas of the constitution
California v. Greenwood
Court held that it is not an unreasonable search and seizure to obtain evidence without a warrant from garbage left for collection outside the grounds of a home. It is not considered (curtilage of the home)
National Treasure Employees Union v. Von Raab
Court upheld the US Customs Service program requiring drug testing through urinalysis for customs workers upon their transfer or promotion to positions having direct involvement in drug interdiction or requiring the carrying of firearms.
United States v. Place
Dog sniffs are not searches because (1) the search is minimal and (2) is geared toward finding contraband.
Dog Sniffs = Suppression?
Evidence of two things can lead to suppression 1. You have been detained past time time (Rodriguez) 2. Dog Record not very good SMELL ITSELF IS NOT A SEARCH -- LOOK AT TOC
Illinois v. Gates
F: Anonymous letter implicating D in an elaborate illegal drug scheme. The letter contained many details about the couple and their drug business. Based on this information, the police department conducted its own investigation which revealed that parts of the informant's tip were true; submit to judge, get warrant. The police were able to secure a search warrant of the Gate's home and car where they found drugs, weapons, and other contraband. Holding: Corroborated statements by an unknown informant can amount to probable cause. Here, it was critical that the Gates had a car with the wrong license place and flying down and driving back coupled with the tip showed probable cause
Smith v. Maryland
F: D was convicted of robbery. Over Smith's objection, a pen register tape that showed he had called the woman he had robbed was introduced at trial. H: The use of a pen register did not constitute a violation of the legitimate expectation of privacy, since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.
Duncan v. Lousiana
F: Duncan was convicted of simple battery. State law said battery is up to 2 yrs in prison and jury trial for hard labor and capital cases H: Trial by Jury in criminal cases meets the tests and is fundamental to the American scheme of justice Jury trial is a right for anything punishable for more than 6 months
Patterson v. Former Chicago Police Lt. Jon Burge
F: Patterson was threatened and tortured until he confessed. He claimed coercing false testimony. H: for § 1983 claim P must allege that D obstructed justice or withheld evidences necessary to ensure the P get a fair and impartial trial
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
F: The trial court sentenced him to one year of home detention and fees totaling 1,203. The Police seized his vehicle, a land rover which was purchased for 42,000. The police brought a civil suit for forfeiture. H: Supreme Court added excessive fines as a constitutional provision states must recognize.
LA v. Rettele
F: Warrant for house and search for the house Suspects moved out 3 mo earlier. They sued under violations of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. --> when innocent people get caught up with 4th amendment H: Presence of white people did not mean that the suspects were not in the house, there could still be weapons in the house. It was reasonable therefore no §1983 violation.
United States v. Ramsey
Fact: D brought drugs into US by mail. Customs inspector intercepted envelopes the envelopes and believed the envelopes contained contraband and opened them. Rule: Mail entering the country is subject to search without probable cause or a warrant. Need reasonable suspicion to search parcels.
Rodriguez v. United States
Facts: : D was pulled over for routine traffic violations. Officer questioned D and asked for drivers license, registration, and insurance. Officer requested backup and background checks and issued written warnings. Officer then asked permission to conduct dog sniff. D refused. After warning issued back up arrive and officer led his dog around vehicle and alerted. A routine traffic stop "become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a ticket for the violation"
Chimel v. California
Facts: Believe there was a burglary of a coin store, the wife lets the police into the home. Police have an arrest warrant and wait for defendant to arrest him. They ask for consent to search, he says no butt the police searched the house anyway. Rule: Incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search of the area in possession and control of the person under arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
South Dakota v. Opperman
Facts: Car towed and brought to impound low. Officer saw watch and other property in the car and did a routine inventory search. Officer unlocked the gove box and found drugs. Rule: Towed cars - officers searched with checklist as part of a booking procedure. Warrants/probable cause requirements don't apply to routine inventory searches
United States v. Mendenhall
Facts: D arrived in airport. Agents asked to see ID and plane ticket. ID and ticket did not match; made a quick trip from Detroit to LA. DEA asked to search her and told her she could decline. D consented multiple times (move to office, search bag, take off clothing). Rule: A Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave police custody.
United States v. Montoya-Hernandez
Facts: D flew from Columbia to LA. Customs officials stopped her and did a patdown and strip search revealed that Montoya de Hernandez was wearing two pairs of underwear and her stomach was firm. Officials believed Montoya de Hernandez was smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal. After the inspector was unable to book a return flight to Columbia, Montoya de Hernandez was held for observation for over 16 hours until a court order authorizing an x-ray and rectal exam was obtained. Drugs were found, and Montoya de Hernandez was arrested. Montoya de Hernandez was convicted by bench trial for federal drug crimes. strop search. Rule: A person entering the country may be subjected to more intrusive searches than routine border searches, if there is reasonable suspicion that drugs are being smuggled in that person's alimentary canal.
Torres v. Madrid
Facts: D got into car and was coming off meth. Officers approached the car to speak with eher. D hit the gas to escape believing the officers were carjackers. Officers fired 13 shots at D's vehicle and two hit D. D escaped and was later arrested. D sued officers under 1983 Civ. Rights Act. Rule: The use of physical force with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the force used does not successfully restrain the subject.
Illinois v. Cabellas
Facts: D was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Trooper radioed and another trooper came with his narcotic-detection dog. Conducted drug sniff while other trooper was writing warning ticket. Drugs were detected and total time took 10 minutes. H: The officers had a basis to stop the D. The 4th amendment does not require reasonable articulable suspicion to administer a canine sniff test during a routine traffic stop.--Timing issue can't wait for the canine unit to arrive
Riley v. California
Facts: David Riley was stopped for a traffic violation, which eventually led to his arrest on weapons charges. An officer searching Riley incident to the arrest seized a cell phone from Riley's pants pocket. The officer accessed information on the phone and noticed the repeated use of a street gang term. Question: Is a search incident to arrest of an arrestee's cell phone permissible without a warrant? Conclusion: Under the 4th Amendment, warrantless searches are "per se unreasonable" and subject only to a few, very narrow exceptions, as in specific emergency circumstances such as "child abduction and the threat of bombs being detonated". -The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested absent exigent circumstances.
US v. Drayton
Facts: Drayton traveling on a bus in Florida. Police ordered a bus on routine drugs. Officer did not inform passengers of their right to refuse to cooperate. Asked Drayton if they could check his person. They find cocaine Issue: must police officers, while searching buses at random to ask questions ask for searches, must they advise passengers on right not to cooperate. Holding: No Rationale: Search of person and bags was voluntary. Officer asked if he rejected, indicated he was free to refuse. Officers need not always inform right to refuse. Totality of the circumstances indicates that the consent was voluntary and searches was reasonable ROL: The 4th amendment doesn't require police to advise bus passengers on their right to cooperate and refuse right to consent to searches
Arizona v. Grant
Facts: Grant was pulled over after officers get a tip for driving with a suspended license. He was arrested and put in the pack of a police car and his car was searched. Rule: Police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that crime-related evidence is located in the vehicle.
United States v. Watson
Facts: Informant alerted postal inspector of D having stolen credit card. D was arrested and asked to search his car, and D consented. Rule: A warrantless arrest is permitted if there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a felony.
New York v. Burger
Facts: Junkyard is searched without warrant and stolen cars and parts are found Rule: A business in a closely regulated industry may be searched without a warrant so long as the searches are necessary, there is a substantial government interest, and the authorizing statute serves the functions of a warrant.
California v. Acevedo
Facts: Man came home carrying a package the police had probable cause to believe it contained marijuana. D arrived at the house and left carrying a paper bag the same size as the package. D put bag in the trunk and drove away. Police followed D, pulled him over, opened the trunk and looked inside the paper bag, finding marijuana. Rule: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband.
Brigham City v. Stuart
Facts: Officer breaks up house party fight between drunk juveniles. Police officers have the right to enter a home without a warrant when they reasonably believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with a serious injury
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Facts: Officer pulled over 6 passenger car with lights out. Divre did not have license, brother of the cars owner was asked to search the vehicle and he said "sure." Three stolen checks were found. Rule: The court must look at the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether consent to a warrantless search absent probable cause was freely and voluntarily given.
California v. Hodari
Facts: Officers were on patrol in high-crime Oakland area when they D and four other youths huddled around red car parked at the curb. When they saw the officers, they panicked and took flight. The officers became suspicious and chased them. D tossed away a crack rock, officer tacked D, handcuffed him and radioed for assistance. He was arrested. State conceded there was no reasonable suspicion. Rule: A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs where the police exercise physical force over a subject or where a subject submits to an officer's show of authority.
Illinois v. Lafayette
Facts: On September 1, 1980, a Kankakee City Police Officer arrested Lafayette (defendant) for disturbing the peace. During booking at the police station, the officer emptied the shoulder bag Lafayette was carrying and found drugs. Lafayette was also charged with violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. Rule: Police may constitutionally perform an inventory search of the personal effects of an arrested person during booking.
Collins v. Virginia
Facts: On two occasions, a particular unique-looking motorcycle evaded Albemarle police officers after they observed the rider violating traffic laws. After some investigation, one of the officers located the house where the suspected driver of the motorcycle lived and observed what appeared to be the same motorcycle covered by a tarp in the driveway. The officer lifted the tarp and confirmed that it was the motorcycle (which was also stolen) that had eluded detainment on multiple occasions. The officer waited for the suspect to return home, at which point he went to the front door to inquire about the motorcycle. Initially the suspect denied knowing anything about it but eventually confessed that he had bought the motorcycle knowing that it had been stolen. The officer arrested the suspect for receipt of stolen property. Ruling: The Fourth Amendment's automobile exception does not permit a police officer without a warrant to enter private property to search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house. The Court held that its own Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding the home and the "curtilage" of one's home (the area immediately surrounding it) clearly prevents officers from entering and searching without a warrant, even if the object searched is an automobile. The Court found that the area searched (the back of the driveway) was indeed the curtilage of the defendant's home, and thus the Fourth Amendment's highest degree of protection applies there.
Carpenter v. United States
Facts: Police arrested four men in connection with a series of armed robberies. One of the men confessed to the crimes and gave the FBI his cell phone number and the numbers of the other participants. The FBI used this information to apply for three orders from magistrate judges to obtain "transactional records" for each of the phone numbers, which the judges granted under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2703(d). H: Government entities must obtain a warrant to access to access the sites you traveled to from cellphone companies
California v. Carney
Facts: Police conducted a warrantless search on a fully mobile motorhome located in a public place. Got a tip from a youth who exchanged sex for marijuana that the owner of the motorhome sold it to him. Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, a vehicle that can be readily moved and that has a reduced expectation of privacy due to its use as a licensed motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant provided probable cause exists
Ohio v. Robinette
Facts: Police stopped D for speeding. Officer ran plate and they cam back clean and issued verbal warning for speeding to D and returned his documents. Officer then asked if D had any drugs in the car and D said no and consented to a search. Officer found drugs. Rule: An express indication from a detaining officer that the detainee is free to go is not a prerequisite to a voluntary consent to further interrogation.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
Facts: Police stopped a predetermined number of vehicles to try and intercept drug smuggling. The driver was asked to show their license and car registration. Then, a dog was used to sniff the car in sequence. Holding: The Court sided with Sitz because the government's interest was not to keep people safe: it was for crime control. They should have gotten a warrant to search for drugs instead.
Kentucky v. King
Facts: Police were doing a controlled buy. They did not know which apartment the person went into and smelled marijuana coming form one of the apartments H: The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to an officer-created exigency if the exigency does not arise from the officer's unreasonable or unconstitutional conduct. Dissent: The Court mistakenly finds that law enforcement did not create the exigency which led to their entry into the apartment. Circumstances are "exigent" when there is imminent risk of death or serious injury, or danger that evidence will be immediately destroyed.
Mapp v. Ohio
Facts: Search for gambling, they find this and obscene materials; bomber threat. D asks for a warrant, cops give her a fake warrant, forcibly open door, grab her. D called her lawyer, her lawyer was at the door but police would not let him in. Rule: Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 4th amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings.
Chambers v. Maroney
Facts: Service station was robbed by two men who were displaying guns. Two teenagers saw the robbers leave in a station wagon and alerted the police and that one of them was wearing a green sweater and the other a trench coat. The police stopped a car matching the description. Men arrested, car driven to police station and searched. Gun found under dashboard. H: A warrantless search of a car made at a police station. The automobile exception still applies.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
Facts: State police used random checkpoints to catch drunk drivers. A group of Michigan residents sued, believing that their Fourth Amendment rights prohibited unreasonable search and seizure were being violated. If a police officer suspected that the driver was drunk, they were pulled to the side for a sobriety test. Ruling: The Court sided with the government, saying that the government was applying a balancing test, it's in its interest in keeping people safe, and the invasion of the person's privacy was minimal.
Richardson v. Wisconsin
Facts: The police obtained a search warrant to search D's hotel room for drugs. When the police arrived, they hid their true identity. D cracked the door open with the chain still on, and they kicked the door to gain entry. They found cash, cocaine, and Richards as he was trying to escape. Holding: There can be no blanket rule. - The state supreme court's blanket rule exempting the police from such a determination is misguided because it makes assumptions about the culture of a specific category of criminal behavior.
United States v. Jones (gps)
Facts: The police put a tracker in the D's car after the date given in the warrant and outside of their jurisdiction and tracked his movements for 28 days. Held:The warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the vehicle was a trespass. They used the trespass theory that the police trespassed into the D's car when the placed the tracker. Rule: As long as the officers are only seeing things they could see if they were following the D then it is okay to use the GPS information.
Carroll v. United States
Facts: Undercover prohibition agents met with Carroll in an apartment to buy illegal whiskey. Carroll said his source wasn't in and that he would deliver it the next day. A week later, the agents saw Carroll in a vehicle going from Grand Rapids to Detroit. They gave pursuit but lost the car. 2 months later, Carroll was spotted driving from Detroit to Grand Rapids. The agents stopped Carroll and searched the car without a warrant and found 68 bottles of illegal whiskey. Holding: The police had probable cause for the search and seizure. Warrant was not needed to search the car.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender. The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
If state allows then you can be arrested for finable offense
Missouri v. McNeely
In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency that in every case is sufficient to justify conducting an involuntary blood test without a warrant.
Wilson v. Arkansas
Knock & announce requirement could be waved for threat of violence or possible destruction of evidence
Kyllo v. United States (dissent)
Members of the general public are capable of determining on their own if one home is hotter than another through the use of their ordinary senses, such as by observing where ice is melting the fastest. Furthermore, the thermal-imaging device does not constitute a search because it detects heat emanating through the side of the house, not heat still in the house
United States v. Bailey
Once an occupant is beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, the search-related law enforcement interest are diminished and the intrusiveness of the detention is more severe.
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Plain Feel: Must be there legally, must immediately recognize contraband, & must not manipulate
Florida v. Riley (NOT BINDING)
Plurality: 5 say: FFA does not determine whether this is a search 4 say: Follow the FFA rules Dissent: Says needs to be the 1,000 feet.
Caniglia v. Strom
Police cannot enter a home without a warrant to prevent a potential in-home emergency.
Oliver v. United States
Police get anon. tip and searched his land even though there was a "No Trespassing: Violators will be shot" sign Did not count as a "search" because they did not intrude on the curtilage. Open fields doctrine - Police can enter and search a field without warrant
United States v. 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 or open fields would have revealed all of the information.
Dunaway v. New York
Probable cause is needed for the stationhouse detention of a suspect if such detention is accompanied by an interrogation
United States v. Flores-Montano
Reasonable suspicion is not required for the routine search of the gas tank of a vehicle attempting to enter the United States.
City of Ontario v. Quon
Rule: A government employer's intrusion on an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it was for non investigatory, work-related purposes and reasonable under the circumstances.
Ferguson v. City of Charleston
Rule: A state hospital may not drug test pregnant women without a warrant or informed consent for law enforcement purposes under the Fourth Amendment.
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington
Rule: A strip search in jail for those who commit minor offenses does not require reasonable suspicion. There is a compelling government interest in conducting theses searches. Dissent: because their are other ways to not have strip searches that should be enough.
Vernonia School District v. Acton
Rule: Students participating in athletic programs may be drug tested without a warrant or suspicion.
Board of Education v. Earls
Rule: Students who participate in extracurricular activities may be subjected to drug testing without a warrant or individualized suspicion.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Rule: Under the plain-view doctrine, police may not conduct a warrantless search of an automobile if they expected in advance to find evidence and failed to secure a warrant.
Maryland v. King
Rule: When officers make an arrest for a serious offense that is supported by probable cause and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is a legitimate police-booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Maryland v. Garrison
Supreme Court case that established the "honest mistake" exception to the exclusionary rule. - Good faith mistake It is about deterring police misconduct
United States v. Knights
Supreme Court case that held that searches of parolees based on reasonable suspicion are permitted because there is enough likelihood that criminal conduct is occurring
Florida v. Royer
Taking an suspect from the pubic area into a small room constituted an arrest.
Illinois v. 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. Cannot detain past the point of the stop being over. Dissent: The dog is not as good, need to look at how good the dog is in the past.
New Jersey v. TLO
The Court held that school officials could search a student's purse based on reasonable suspicion, there did not need to be a warrant or probable cause.
Payton v. New York
The Court struck down a New York statute providing for warrantless entries to make felony arrests because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant.
Skinner v. Railway Exec. Assn.
The Court upheld Federal Railroad Admin. Regulations requiring drug testing of railroad workers involved in accidents
Andresen v. Maryland
The addition of a catchall phrase to a list of items to be searched for and seized in a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment's specificity requirement so long as it is limited by the language of the warrant to items relating to a specific crime.
Florida v. Riley Dissent (Brennan)
The question is not whether any member of the public could legally view the area, no matter how inconceivable, but rather whether such observation occurred so frequently that Riley could not reasonably have expected privacy.
Chandler v. Miller
The statue requiring drug testing for all candidates for state offices violated the 4th amendment
Smith v. Maryland
The use of a pen register did not constitute a violation of the legitimate expectation of privacy, since the numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway. Dissent: The question whether we expect the government to monitor those numbers.
California v. Ciraolo
The warrantless police observation of an enclosed area within the curtilage of a home from an airplane at an altitude of 1,000 feet does not intrude upon any constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.
City of Los Angeles v. Patel
The warrantless search of hotel records for general inspection purposes does not fall under the administrative-search exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
There are three tests to determine whether we are going to allow amendments (5 or 6th) to apply to states 1. Whether a right is among those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lies at the base of all of our civil and political institution s 2. Whether it is basic in our system of jurisprudence 3. Whether it is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial
Katz v. US
This 1967 Supreme Court case prohibited illegal eavesdropping and extending the zone of privacy to include the home, office, person, and immediate public arena. -- Wire tapping a public phone booth is a 4th Amend. search and seizure
Terry v. Ohio
Two types of seizures.
Illinois v. Gates
U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the flexible totality of circumstances test for determining the existence of the probable cause needed for obtaining a search warrant
Florida v. Jardines
Using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. two very different sides of the argument 1. We invite people to walk up on the path so we are saying people can come up and knock on the door (Scalia) 2. Dog is the same thing as looking the window Equivalent of high tech instrument going on your door. (Kagan)
US v. Dunn
Was it in an open field? Open fields can be searched without a warrant (Hester )Even if the open field is gated, it is still subject to the open field doctrine (Oliver)Four Factor Curtilage Test (look to case presidents) (Dunn)(1) Closeness of the the area to the home(2) Was it inside the home's fence or enclosure(3) The way the area is used(4) Owner's effort to block the area from public view
Kyllo v. US
When the gov't uses a device not in general public use to explore details of the home previously unknown (without physical intrusion), the surveillance is a 'search' and unreasonable without a warrant
Fernandez v. California
When the objecting occupant is ABSENT, the remaining tenant can consent to a search of the home
Probable Cause
Whether the facts and circumstances before the officer are such to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed. (Stacy v. emery)
Knowles v. Iowa
facts - A police officer pulled over a speeder, issued a citation rather than arrest, and then searched the speeder's car, finding drugs. The search was authorized by Iowa law even though there was no arrest. holding - An officer issuing a traffic citation cannot search the cited person's vehicle. - there needs to be an arrest to have a search incident to arrest
Maryland v. Buie
facts - After arresting the Respondent, Buie (Respondent), a police officer enter the Respondent's basement to perform a protective sweep. While performing the protective sweep, the officer discovered evidence that aided in the Respondent's conviction. holding - When police have a reasonable belief that a serious danger exists, they are allowed to carry out a protective sweep.
Georgia v. Randolph
facts - The police, responding to a domestic disturbance call from his wife, arrived at Randolph's house. His wife told the police he was a cocaine user and gave them permission to search the house for evidence. They searched the house despite Randolph's objections and found cocaine in his bedroom. holding - A physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrant-less search unreasonable and invalid as to him.
Camara v. Municipal Court
facts: SF housing inspector entered apt building where D lived to make a routine inspection. The inspector demanded to search area where D was living on ground floor in violation of the building permit. D refused inspector without search warrant. D issued a citation requiring appearance in front of DA. D did not appear inspectors returned to building demanding entry under housing code. D was charged for refusing inspection. Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, routine administrative searches require consent or a warrant.
Safford United School District v. Redding
facts: Vice Principal uncovered students distributing prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen at school. After finding pills on one student allegedly provided by Redding, Wilson confronted Redding, who denied any involvement. Wilson ordered a strip search performed by a female school official in the nurse's office. Redding, forced to undress down to her underwear and expose her breasts and pelvic area, described the experience as embarrassing and humiliating. Although no pills were found, Redding sued the school district, leading to a Ninth Circuit Court ruling that the strip search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision. Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, a school official cannot strip search a student without a specific suspicion that the student is hiding evidence in intimate places.
Terry v. Ohio
facts: ■ An officer was patrolling in street clothes when D drew his attention as D was standing at a corner. Police officer said D "didn't look right to him." The officer saw the men walk up to a store, look in the window and then retreat and confer and repeated the process. The officer suspected then men were casing a job and feared they may have a gunn and approached them, identified himself as an officer and asked for their names. They mumbled something and the officer grabbed D, spun him around and searched him and patted him down. Officer found a pistol and told all three men to face the wall and patted them down. Rule: When an officer observes unusual conduct that reasonably leads him to assume that criminal activity is afoot and that the people he is interacting with are armed, the police officer may conduct a limited search for weapons.
Heien v. North Carolina
officer makes reasonable mistake of law, but finds driver is committing another crime, no violation of 4th amendment
