Ch. 10 Search & Seizure: Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

When assessing the risk of danger to police or others ...

"The gravity of the crime and likelihood that the suspect is armed should be considered"

[Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)]

- Court defined "Freely and Voluntarily" - Court held that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the consent was a "product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by the person consenting"

Exigent circumstances examples:

- Hot Pursuit of a fleeing felon - when the search is necessary to prevent imminent destruction of evidence - to prevent a suspects escape - prevent or stop a rick of danger to the police or to other people

The Plain View Doctrine provides that:

- If police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object - If its incriminating character is immediately apparent - If the officers have a lawful right of access to the object They may seize it without a warrant.

[Adams v. Williams (1972)]

- Ruled reasonable cause for a stop and frisk may be based on information supplied by another person, such as a police informant - Officers may rely on reports from reliable witnesses as the basis for conducting a stop and frisk.

Exigent Circumstance: "Hot Pursuit" Rule

- The chasing of a suspect or the following of "hot" leads to the suspect EX: If a fleeing criminal enters a private home, police in hot pursuit may also enter the home to effectuate a lawful arrest

[Michigan v. Long (1983)]

- Was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion. - Limited search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle for weapons. Also "plain view" doctrine.

A warrant is not necessary if the misdemeanor is

- committed in the presence of a police officer - or in some states, where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed

[Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)]

- mere presence in a high crime area is not sufficient for a Terry Stop. - Commonwealth v. Jefferson (2004) - presence in a high crime area, plus a person's flight upon observing police, means criminal activity afoot, thus permitting a Terry Stop. - Any drugs tossed are subject to seizure.

Arrest without probable cause may lead to?

- release of the suspect - suppression of any evidence seized as a result of the arrest

How did the court make distinctions between a stop and an arrest and a frisk versus a full-blown search?

- the "stop" in a "stop and frisk" is a brief and investigatory encounter. - Stop is distinguishable from an arrest, in which a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the actions of police. - A frisk, which is a brief pat down of the outer clothing of a person for officer safety, is not a full-blown search where the officer probes for evidence of a crime. - These distinguishing factors formed the basis behind the Court's conclusion that these encounters need not be supported at the level of probable cause, and that reasonable suspicion is sufficient

An arrest is:

- the taking of a person into a police car or into a police station [Davis v. Mississippi (1969) and Dunaway v. New York (1979)] - where the police consider a person to be "under arrest" [Orozco v. Texas (1969)]

[California v. Hodari D. (1991)

-Arrest (search incident to arrest): suspects who flee and throw away items can later be arrested based on the incriminating nature of the abandoned items. -Defendant claims he was seized when officer ran at him. Supreme Court established that you are 'seized' when you're grabbed by the chasing officer or submit to a display of authority, and not when they demand you submit and do not. Crack cocaine was good for evidence.

[U.S. v. Drayton (2002)]

-Judicial decision declaring that police officers are not required to inform people of their right to decline to be searched when police ask for consent to search -Suspicionless Searches: reiterated position that officers are not required to advise bus passengers of their right to refuse to cooperate with officers conducting searches or of their right to refuse to be searched. -police officers are not required to inform people of their right to decline when police ask for consent to search *** "Whether a reasonable person would understand that he or she is free to refuse"

[Arizona v. Johnson (2009)]

-Law enforcement can frisk passengers of stopped vehicles without any reasonable suspicion of a crime, but as long as they suspect they might be armed. -Stop and frisk of vehicle passengers is allowed for weapons

[Florida v. Bostick (1991)]

-Modifies the "free to leave" definition acknowledging defendant was not free to leave Greyhound bus, but he was free to decline officer's requests to search his bag in which they found 1 lb of cocaine. Not a 4th amendment seizure -Suspicionless Searches: permitted warrantless "sweeps" of intercity buses. Bostick appealed stating that he could not refuse the search and was not free to leave the bus. Passenger compliance with police searches must be voluntary for the searches to be legal. -Consent in closed environment (coercive?). LEO would board busses regularly to search luggage for drugs. (D) gave consent after he was notified his right to refuse, cocaine was found. Would a reasonable person on that bus feel they had the right to leave/refuse a search? SCOTUS-YES.. a few questions isn't a seizure, encounter was consensual. (D) could have refused/left.

[Brown v. Texas (1979)]

-United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso County, Texas for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. -Arrest (search incident to arrest): no punishment for refusing to identify yourself.

Cases in order pertaining to Fourth Amendment - Warrant requirement exceptions

1. Carroll v. United States (1925) 2. Terry v. Ohio (1968) 3. California v. Chimel (1969) 4. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 5. United States v. Wilamonte-Marques (1983) 6. Horton v. California (1990) 7. Illinois v. Caballes (2005) 8. Arizona v. Gant (2009) 9. Riley v. California (2014)

Plain View Doctrine 3 step analysis or Three requirements must exist for the exception to apply

1. Police must be in a position to view the object 2. Police must lawfully be in that location 3. The incriminating character of the evidence must be apparent

Exigent circumstances can be summed up:

1. There must be circumstances which show there was a sufficient urgency in the situation 2. It must be impractical to obtain a warrant before entering the house or building 3. There is probable cause that the person committed a crime, there was a danger to him or others, or the house or building contains evidence of a crime which would be destroyed

Subjective and Object factors to be examined for a "freely and voluntary" consent are

1. the defendant's age and level of awareness and even intelligence 2. the nature of the consent 3. the location where the defendant consented 4. The surrounding circumstances

The determination of a valid consent is based on what?

All the surround factors to determine whether the consent was the product of coercion or freely given

[U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)]

Arrest (search incident to arrest):reinforced balance between public interest and personal security. This process allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz - Supreme Court of the United States (1990) 496 U.S. 444, 110 s. cT. 2481 5th case pgs. 381 - 383

Facts of the case: In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts. Question: Did the drunk driving checkpoints violate motorists' privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion: In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program.

Exigent Circumstances

If the police have reason to believe that there is a bona fide emergency, they may enter premises to investigate a remedy

[Carroll v. United States (1925)]

It wasn't practical for police to obtain a search warrant prior to searching a vehicle for contraband or other evidence of a crime because a vehicle is mobile and can easily be moved from the "locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought"

How might an arrest be challenged?

Lack of probable cause

Who carries the burden of proving that the exigent circumstances exist?

Law enforcement

Does an officer need a warrant and/or probable cause for a stop and frisk?

No. They also do not need probable cause unlike an arrest and full search.

The Plain View Doctrine stemmed from what?

One generally does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband left out in the open for public view

[Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)]

Plain Feel: Must be there legally, must immediately recognize contraband, & must not manipulate

Police do not need to tell persons what considering a search?

Police do not need to tell people of their right to refuse searches

Arizona v. Gant - United States Supreme Court 129 S. Ct. 1719 (2009) 3rd case pgs. 371-74

RULE: An officer is permitted to conduct a vehicle search when an arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Other established exceptions to the warrant requirement authorize a vehicle search when safety or evidentiary concerns demand. For instance, an officer is permitted to search a vehicle's passenger compartment when he has reasonable suspicion that an individual, whether or not the arrestee, is "dangerous" and might access the vehicle to gain immediate control of weapons. If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found is authorized. Searches for evidence relevant to offenses other than the offense of arrest are authorized, and the scope of the search authorized is broader. Finally, there may be still other circumstances in which safety or evidentiary interests would justify a search. These exceptions together ensure that officers may search a vehicle when genuine safety or evidentiary concerns encountered during the arrest of a vehicle's recent occupant justify a search. FACTS: After respondent was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. The trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress evidence seized from his car. The case was appealed to Supreme Court of the United States. The Court determined that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement did not justify the search. ISSUE: Did the search violate the Fourth Amendment right of the defendant against unreasonable searches and seizures? ANSWER: Yes CONCLUSION: According to the Supreme Court, the vehicle of the respondent may be searched after the arrest for a suspended license only if the court believes that the arrestee may access the vehicle at the time of arrest or the latter contains evidence of the crime he was being arrested for.

Wyoming v. Houghton - Supreme Court of the United States 526 U.S. 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297 (1999) 4th case pgs. 374-76

RULE: Observation of a syringe in the driver's pocket during a lawful traffic stop gave rise to probable cause to search the vehicle under U.S. Const. amend. IV, because the purse could hold the type of contraband, actual drugs, giving rise to the probable cause for the search. FACTS: A car in which appellee Sandra Houghton was riding was stopped by a police officer employed by appellant state. The officer noticed a syringe in the driver's shirt pocket. The driver admitted the syringe was used to take drugs. The officer then began a search of the passenger compartment of the car for contraband. He found a purse, which appellee claimed was hers. Inside, the officer found two containers; both contained illegal methamphetamine. Subsequently, appellant charged appellee with felony possession of methamphetamine. The trial court denied appellee's motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the purse as the fruit of a violation of U.S. Const. amends. IV and XIV. The trial court held that the officer had probable cause to search the car for contraband and any containers therein that could hold contraband. A jury convicted appellee as charged. Appellee sought review, and the state supreme court reversed. Appellant sought further review. ISSUE: May police officers, with probable cause to search a car, inspect personal items belonging to its passengers without violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches? ANSWER: Yes CONCLUSION: The Court reversed the order that reversed appellee's conviction because the police officers had probable cause to search the car appellee was riding in, and, therefore, were entitled to inspect appellee's belongings found in the car that were capable of concealing the object of the search. The Court held that the officer was entitled to inspect appellee's belongings found in the car that were capable of concealing the object of the search because he had probable cause to search the car.

Whren v. United States - Supreme Court of the United States 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996) 2nd Case pgs. 363-64

RULE: Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of U.S. Const. amend. IV. An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. FACTS: Whren and Brown were indicted on federal drug charges when drug evidence was seized after their truck was stopped, on the asserted ground of observed traffic violations, by District of Columbia plainclothes vice squad police officers who were patrolling in an unmarked car in a "high drug area." At a pretrial suppression hearing in the district court, Whren and Brown argued that the stop was not justified by probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to believe that the accused had been engaged in illegal drug dealing, and the asserted traffic-violation motive for the stop was pretextual. The district court denied the accused's' motion to suppress the drug evidence, finding that the officers had probable cause to believe that the traffic code was violated and that there was nothing to demonstrate that the officers' actions were contrary to a normal traffic stop. Whren and Brown were then convicted on the pertinent drug charges. The court of appeals affirmed the view that with respect to the suppression issue, a traffic stop was permissible -- regardless of whether a police officer subjectively believed that the occupants of an automobile might be engaging in some other illegal behavior -- as long as a reasonable officer in the same circumstances "could have" stopped the car for the suspected traffic violation. ISSUE: Did the officers have probable cause to believe defendants violated the traffic code, thus, rendering the vehicle stop reasonable and the evidence seized admissible? ANSWER: Yes CONCLUSION: It was held that the Supreme Court would not replace the normal test under the Federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which was that the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable if the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. The Court rejected the alternative standard suggested by defendants, which would depend on whether a police officer, acting reasonably, would have made the automobile stop for the reason given. Thus, the District Court's probable-cause finding, which Whren and Brown accepted, rendered the stop of the their truck reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence thereby discovered was admissible, and the Court of Appeals' upholding of the Whren and Brown convictions was correct.

Maryland v. Pringle - 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) 1st case Pgs. 361-62

RULE: The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized. To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, a court examines the events leading up to the arrest, and then decides whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amounted to probable cause. FACTS: During a 3:16 a.m. stop, by a county police officer in Maryland, of a relatively small car for speeding, the officer (1) observed a large amount of rolled-up money in the glove compartment when the driver-owner opened the compartment to retrieve the car's registration; and (2) performed, with the owner's consent, a search of the car that yielded $763 from the glove compartment and cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest. After none of the car's three occupants, when questioned by the officer, offered any information regarding ownership of the cocaine or the money, the officer arrested all three occupants and transported them to a police station. At the station, the accused, who had been the car's front-seat passenger, admitted that the cocaine belonged to him and stated that the other two occupants of the car had not known about the cocaine. The other occupants were released. In a Maryland court, the accused was (1) convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine, and (2) sentenced to 10 years' incarceration without the possibility of parole. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed, holding that the officer had lacked probable cause to arrest the accused for possession of cocaine. Petitioner State sought further review. ISSUE: Does the warrantless arrest of an automobile passenger during a stop for speeding violate the Fourth Amendment, where a police officer, having seized $763 from glove compartment and cocaine from behind back-seat armrest, arrested all three occupants after each denied ownership of cash and cocaine? ANSWER: No CONCLUSION: On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a warrantless arrest of an automobile passenger during a stop for speeding did not contravene the Fourth Amendment, where police officer, having seized $763 from glove compartment and cocaine from behind back-seat armrest, arrested all three occupants after each denied ownership of cash and cocaine. The Court explained that the probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. The Court held that the officer here had probable cause to believe that defendant was in possession of the drugs. It was an entirely reasonable inference that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the drugs, and thus a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe defendant committed the crime of possession of drugs, either solely or jointly. It was also reasonable for the officer to infer a common enterprise among the three occupants, in view of the likelihood of drug dealing in which an innocent party was unlikely to be involved. The judgment holding that defendant's arrest lacked probable cause was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

[Chimel v. California (1969)]

Supreme Court decision that endorsed warrantless searches for weapons and evidence in the immediate vicinity of people who are lawfully arrested -"... for within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence."

Stop and frisk originated from

Terry v. Ohio

there is an important exception called the "plain feel doctrine," which was explained by the Supreme Court in (Minnesota v. Dickerson.)

The Dickerson Court held that when an officer conducts a pat down during a stop and frisk for weapons, if the officer feels something on the person that is clearly contraband, the officer can seize that evidence without a warrant.

[Illinois v. Caballes (2005)]

The Supreme Court ruled that drug-sniffing dogs indicating the presence of marijuana in the car was sufficient to establish probable cause and allows a search of the car

Example: in )Minnesota v. Dickerson) the incriminating character of the object is not readily apparent then?

The seizure of the object cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine

stop and frisk (investigatory detention)

a brief investigatory stop occurring when a police officer confronts a suspicious looking person to ask a few questions and to "pat down" their clothing to see if they are carrying any weapons.

the determination of valid consent is always going to be determined on...

a case-by-case basis by considering the circumstances

Exceptions to the warrant requirement make up?

a critical area in the fourth amendment jurisprudence

Valid consent must be..

a product of free will

Search incident to a lawful arrest

an exception to the search warrant rule, limited to the immediate surrounding area

Normally, if police go into a dwelling to make an arrest what is required?

arrest warrant [(Payton v. New York 1980)]

the consent must not be

coerced of forced

Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

court held that the products are admissible if the police have a reasonable belief that the owner or someone authorized consented - even if the facts are mistaken, "facts available to the officer at the moment... 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the consenting party had authority over the premises" then the consent to search would be valid under the Fourth Amendment

Supreme court held that for consent to be valid:

due process requires that the consent be freely and voluntarily given

In 1975 the court did reiterate the principle that,

even though a warrant for an arrest may not be necessary, authorities must bring an individual before a judge or magistrate within a reasonable length of time to determine if probable cause exists for their detention [ Gerstein v. Pugh (1975)]

The term "fruit of the poisonous tree" refers to

evidence seized from the result of arrest without probable cause (a.k.a illegal arrest)

Founding fathers crafted the Fourth Amendment to ensure that Americans would no longer be subject to?

general and arbitrary searches that were so prevalent during British rule

Arrest without probable cause is?

illegal

Police may strong request permission to search cars of homes however what is not a valid defense in court?

it is not a valid defense to say the the defendant didn't know he had the right to refuse the search

what is the test in stop and frisk?

its requirement of reasonableness. How much actual evidence (objective suspicion) is required to justify the degree of intrusion.

A warrant is needed for misdemeanor in

most states

What does a stop and frisk require?

only that the officer have a reasonable, articulable and particularized suspicion that the suspect (1) is involved in wrongdoing and (2) may be carrying a weapon [Terry v. Ohio (1968)]

A lawful arrest allows searched of an arrestee's...

person and "wingspan" expanded to search the interior of a person's car including the passengers seat ***but NOT the trunk when a drive is being lawfully arrested

The Automobile Exception

police do not need to get a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime, contraband, or fruits of a crime inside the vehicle

Absent a warrant, police must have what to enter a dwelling?

probable cause plus exigent circumstances

Prior to arrest the police must have

probable cause the the arrestee has committed a crime

Fleeting or evanescent evidence

refers to evidence that is at risk of being destroyed or disappearing and cannot be easily reconstructed through demonstrative evidence. Of course, destroying this evidence is a crime in and of itself known as spoliation of evidence.

Probable cause is a fairly high standard to meet:

requires: - a witnesses tip - or a statement from someone within the car

Arrest

th physical or implied seizure or taking into custody of a person by police, significantly restricting a person's freedom of movement and subjecting him or her to the authority of an officer

In 1991 the court declared what in [County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991)]?

that the period for detention before authorities bring an individual before a judge or magistrate to determine if probable cause exists for their detention may be as long as 48 hours, but anything longer, even if it is a holiday weekend, is presumptively improper

[Arizona v. Gant (2009)]

the court reaffirming Chimel, held that a search incident to arrest could take place only for the officer safety or for preservation of evidence - Officers can search only in the area within the persons reach or if it is reasonable to believe that the area contains further evidence

An arrest can become unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when...

the means used by the officer to secure the arrest are unreasonable

A legal stop and frisk does not come with...

the right to put his hands in the person's pockets nor does it allow the officer to conduct a full-fledged search.

[Tennessee v. Garner (1985)] is an example of an unreasonable arrest under the Fourth Amendment how?

the use of deadly force to secure the arrest of a felon is unreasonable unless the officer is threatened with a weapon, or probable cause exists to believe that the suspect has threatened or committed serious physical harm to another

Court later declared that if the defendant is present at the location and objects to the search then...

the warrantless search is unreasonable

Exigent Circumstances can also apply when:

there is a probability that evidence can be destroyed or moved before a neutral detached magistrate can issue a warrant

Example of an illegal arrest

though person goes willingling with police, if the person is not advised that they could refuse to go with police and the police's conduct would have convinced a reasonable person that they were not free to refuse

[U.S. v Place(1983)]

travelers luggage could be seized on a reasonable suspicion, but for no longer that a person can be reasonably detained. (90mins was too long)

A person is "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes when,

under the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave [Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) and U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)]

Based on common law tradition, the Fourth Amendment does not require a ...?

warrant for the arrest of persons accused of felonies

Can people consent to waive their Fourth Amendment right?

yes. Consent allows officers to search without a warrant, probable cause or even reasonable suspicion