Crim Pro - Chapter 2

Fourth Amendment:

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

-S.C. held that electronic eavesdropping without a physical trespass was not a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment -A search within the meaning of the 4th amendment only occurs when the government physically occupies private property for the purpose of obtaining information (in Olmstead)(OVERRULED BY KATZ) -Supreme Court allowed the use of wiretaps on telephone lines without a court order. -Interpreted the Fourth Amendment to apply only to physical intrusion and only to the search or seizure of material things, not conversations.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

-Sense-enhancing technology used to ascertain information that would otherwise be inaccessible except through a physical intrusion is a search under the 4a. -Jones analysis comes into light here where there is effectively a physical intrusion into the home here is being revealed. An overly mechanical application of Katz leaves homeowners at the mercy of advancing technology. • Obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area" constitutes a search--at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use o When the government uses sense enhancing technology to obtain information (virtual trespass) to intrude upon the property of another (that is NOT in general public use) • Being at home does not give you privacy if you expose what you are doing to the public o What you knowingly expose to the public (even from home) you have no reasonable expectation of privacy Court's new rule: "obtaining (1) by sense-enhancing technology (2) any information regarding the interior of the home (3) that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area... (4) at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use"

Four important issues considered in regard to the warrant

1. What must be included in the application for a warrant? 2. What form must the warrant take in order to be valid? 3. What are the requirements police must follow in executing a warrant? 4. When is a warrant required?

Katz Test

1.) Subjective (actual) expectation of privacy? 2.) Is expectation one society will recognize as reasonable?

Oliver v. United States

A government's warrantless intrusion upon an open field (not part of the home's curtilage) surrounding a person's home does not violate the fourth amendment. Not all personal property, like an open field, is a constitutionally protected area. Private property and constitutionally protected areas are not overlapping; there is a gap, or a light between the two - An individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors and fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home, i.e. the curtilage. There isn't a societal interest in protecting the privacy of activities such as the cultivation of crops that occur in an open field. Evidence of a person's subjective intent is not only a separate prong of the legitimate expectation of privacy test, but it also might tell us if the expectation is one that society is prepared to accept. - Private land marked in a fashion sufficient to render entry thereon a criminal trespass under the law of the State in which the land lies is protected by the Fourth Amendment - curtilage "has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes"

US v. White(N)

An anonymous tip corroborated by independent police work may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. Williams: known informant with track record can give reliable tips for a Terry stop Gates: created precedent for using totality test to see if tip establishes PC. Anonymous tip alone doesn't demonstrate basis of knowledge or veracity, so there has to be other factors that make the tip reliable. Here, the tip had been sufficiently corroborated to furnish a reasonable suspicion that White was engaged in criminal activity. It contained a range of details relating not to easily obtained facts and conditions at the time of the tip, but to future actions of third parties not easily predicted. This was ultimately a close case, but a reasonable suspicion was justified here.

OPEN FIELDS

An open field is not an "effect" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

Are anticipatory warrants allowed?

Anticipatory warrant is based on an affidavit for a search warrant that states that the search will occur - only if certain events take place anticipatory warrants are permissible Require the magistrate to determine: (1) that it is not probable that (2) contraband, evidence of a crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when the warrant is executed Where the anticipatory warrant places a condition (other than the mere passage of time) upon its execution, the first of these determinations goes not merely to what will probable be found if the condition is met - Rather, the probability determination for a conditioned anticipatory warrant looks also to the likelihood that the condition will occur, and thus that a proper object of seizure will be on the described premises For a conditioned anticipatory warrant to comply with the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause, two prerequisites of probability must be satisfied: Must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place," But also that there is probable cause to believe the triggering conduction will occur The supporting affidavit must provide the judge with sufficient information to evaluate both aspects of the probable-cause determination

Illinois v. McArthur 2001 (N)

Central requirement of reasonableness for 4th amendment

*REQUIREMENT FOR PROBABLE CAUSE*

Core requirement of the Fourth Amendment Judge may issue a search or arrest warrant only if there is probable cause. -If it is a circumstance where a warrant is not required, a police officer generally can search or arrest only if there is probable cause There are exceptions -Some situations allow searches with less than probable cause --Searches of students' purses require only the lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" --Sometimes even without individualized suspicion (Random drug testing) Probable cause is the "traditional standard" of the Fourth Amendment -Question is whether "the facts and circumstances before the officer are such to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense had been committed"

Dow Chemical v. United States(N)`

Court considered whether aerial surveillance and photography of an industrial plant was a search - Said it was not a search

US v. Karo (1984)(N)

Court found that the placement of an unmonitored beeper in a container of chemicals was NOT a search if the beeper was used to obtain information that could not be procured through visual surveillance, it DID constitute a search subject to Fourth Amendment protections

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)(N)

Court held that the 4th amendment did not apply to a search by U.S. law enforcement officials in Mexico

What is sufficient belief to meet the standards for probable cause?

Court said that "more than bare suspicion" but "less than evidence which would justify a conviction" Court confronted the question in determining whether information from informants was sufficient to constitute probable cause Aguilar-Spinellli two part test -First, was the informant credible? (Was it likely that he or she was telling the truth) Second, was the informant reliable (Was it likely that the informant had knowledge) If an informant did not meet these requirements, there was not probable cause and the fruits of the search had to be excluded In Illinois v. Gates, the Court departed from the Aguilar-Spinelli approach Instead, emphasized the need to consider the "totality of the circumstances" This is the general approach in determining probable cause in all cases

Warden v. Hayden

Facts: Armed robbery suspect fled into house five minutes before cops arrived Cops came, asked to search house Found suspect pretending to sleep upstairs Weapons and clothes ID'd at scene were discovered Fake sleeper arrested after house was found to be empty Rule: Police acted reasonably when they entered house without a warrant in hot pursuit of a suspected felon. Police can, when lawfully within in a place for purpose of making a felony arrest, search the premises to the extent necessary to find the individual. Such a search is usually limited to places where a fugitive could conceal himself, but as established here, sometimes the police can do more. Policy: 4a doesn't require police to delay investigation if doing so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. Speed was of the essence, as was a thorough search. L: Hot pursuit requires immediate and continuous chase from scene of the crime May enter a place for the purpose of search and seizure if you are in fresh pursuit of a fleeing felon - When officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, they need not stop to seek a warrant and thereby risk permitting the suspect to get away

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)

Flying a fixed wing aircraft 1000 feet over the backyard of a house and found weed. Taking aerial photographs in this manner is not a fourth amendment search. Although a fence shielded the background from the street, Ciraolo knowingly exposed this contraband because anyone flying overhead could see the weed. As long as the officer, is in a place of the officer on the right to be it's not a search to observe activities that are clearly visible from that vantage point. APPLIES KATZ ANALYSIS: ● There is a legitimate expectation of privacy if a. the individual has a subjective expectation of privacy and b. the expectation is one that society recognizes as legitimate.

Curtilage Test

Four factors are used to analyze the extent of a home's curtilage: 1. Is the area included in an enclosure surrounding the home? 2. How is the area used? Is it used for domestic or private activities? Are the activities conducted in the area private? 3. How close is the area claimed to be curtilage to the home? 4. What steps did the resident take to protect the area from observation by passerby? - (1) proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home (2) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home (3) the nature of the uses to which the area is put (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by

Rodriguez v. United States

Holds that a seizure unrelated to the reason for the stop is lawful only so long as it does not measurably extend the stop's duration A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures oA seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation 4th amendment - duration of stop must be reasonable - o Two men were in the car and they seemed nervous Driver, Rodriguez Passenger, Pollman •Struble asked him why he had driven onto the shoulder o D replied "to avoid a pothole" o Asked D to accompany him to the patrol car o Rodriguez asked if he had to and officer said no (THIS IS WRONG, he DID have to) During the course of a lawful stop, a driver can order a motorist to exit the car Every other occupant can be ordered out too Rodriguez waited in his own car • Struble ran check on Rodriguez and returned to the car o Asked Pollman for his info o Asked where they were coming from and where they were headed Went to Omaha to look at a truck and were returning to Norfolk, Nebraska o Completed check on Pollman o Called for a second officer o Began writing a warning ticket for Rodriguez • Officer returned to the Mercury for a third time to issue the warning o Had finished explaining the warning to Rodriguez o Had given them both back their info documents o No evidence that indicated to the officer that some other offense was afoot oNo evidence that indicated to the officer that some other offense was afoot oEven though they had completed the purposes of the stop, they could not leave This is a seizure Not permissible unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot •The purposes of the stop were completed or reasonably should have been completed • Terry stop oThe tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic stop context is determined by the seizure's "mission" To address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, and attend to related safety concerns oBecause addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may "last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose" Authority for seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are (or reasonably should have been) completed

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)

If a police officer knows that someone within the car is responsible for contraband, is there probable cause to arrest all of those within the car? Is it worth considering whether probable cause can be expressed as a probability Are the numbers helpful? - o If there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot, the detention can continue o The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and that 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, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide "whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to" probable cause 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. The state appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the mere finding of cocaine in the back armrest when Pringle was in the front-seat of a car being driven by its owner was insufficient to establish probable cause for arrest for possession. Constitution Does an arrest of a front-seat passenger in a car driven by its owner, after police find cocaine in the car's back armrest, lack probable cause and violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures? Conclusion No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that because the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle, the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that "a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine." Probable cause generally requires a reasonably particularized ground for belief of defendant's guilt. Car passenger will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or evidence of wrongdoing

Maryland v. Garrison

If the officer who applies for a warrant has reason to believe that the building to be searched is a single-unit structure, so that a street address is sufficient, but discovers that the structure contains multiple units, the warrant itself is not invalid for want of particularity, because its validity "must be assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover and to disclose, to the issuing Magistrate." In determining whether a search is permissible even though there was a mistake in executing a warrant 1) assess whether the warrant is valid and 2) if the execution was reasonable. 1) Supporting a finding of validity, based on the information available to the officers at the time of their action should their conduct be judged. We need to judge warrant validity on info officers disclosed to the magistrate. Discovering contraband from an invalid warrant won't validate the warrant. Conversely, discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad will not retroactively invalidate the warrant. 2 ) In finding if warrant execution was reasonable, there is latitude given to honest mistakes. However, the police in Garrison should have stopped their search as soon as they realized there were two separate units on floor 3 and that the terms of the warrant might have been based on faulty information. The validity of warrant execution depends on whether the officer's failure to realize the overbroad nature of the warrant was objectively understandable and reasonable, meaning that based on the objective facts known to the officers, they did not realize the warrant was overbroad. - Where police reasonably believe their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights - Supreme Court case that established the "honest mistake" exception to the exclusionary rule. - The validity of a warrant must be judged in light of the "information available to the officers at the time they obtained the warrant." - o Scope of a lawful search is "defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found" o Here, no claim that "the persons or things to be seized" were inadequately described or that there was no probable cause (not overbroad) the description of that place WAS broader than appropriate because it was based on the mistaken belief that there was only one apartment on the third floor The question is whether that factual mistake invalidated a warrant that undoubtedly would have been valid if it reflected a completely accurate understanding of the building's floor plan

Exigent Circumstances

In an emergency, the police can search without a warrant if there is probable cause To apply, must be an emergency situation justifying warrantless activity, and there must be probable cause Court is generally reluctant to find exigent circumstances Mincey v. Arizona Court rejected a claim that there should be a blanket exception to the warrant requirement for all murder scenes Has found exigent circumstances in many situations Hot pursuit of a felon Protecting safety Preventing destruction of evidence

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Monitoring beeper attached to container of chloroform as it is transported in vehicle on public streets to outside of private cabin not a 'search' under Fourth Amendment Monitoring the beeper signals did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on respondent's part, and thus there was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment.

Devenpeck v. Alford(N)

Probable cause for an arrest different from the charge on which D was arrested: suspect taped officer during routine traffic stop→ but this is not a crime, said his 4th amendment rights were violated. If police arrested you for wrong thing, but have probable cause, Scalia does not want the arrest to be undone. even if suspect is arrested for a difference offense that is not closely related, the arrest is still valid as long as the arresting officer was in possession of facts that created probable cause for the second offense. Alford arrested for recording without permission a conversation with the police officer who stopped him for allegedly impersonating a police officer Arresting officer believed (wrongly) that it violated the state's privacy law to record a conversation without permission of both parties Sued the officer for violating Fourth Amendment rights Supreme Court ruled against Alford Arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment -There was probable cause that Alford violated other state laws (such as impersonating a police officer), even though the grounds for the arrest were wrong Subjective intent is no basis for invalidating an arrest The facts known to the officer that gave probable cause do not have to be for the offense arrested for as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify an arrest

REQUIREMENTS IN EXECUTING WARRANTS

Rule 41 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure -Provides that the warrant must command the officer to "execute the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes execution at another time" --Defines daytime as between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. --There is a federal statute that provides that there does not have to be a special showing of need for searches of narcotics There is also a federal statute limiting searches of newsrooms Zurcher v. Stanford Daily (1978) Supreme Court rejected any special protections for newsrooms Congress reacted by adopting the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 to protect the press from searches of newsrooms -Prohibits searches of those reasonably believed to be engaged in disseminating information to the public unless there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime or that giving notice by subpoena likely would result in the loss of evidence

Whren v. United States

Rule: probable cause to believe the law has been broken "outbalances" private interest in avoiding police contact • Test o Objective o Whether the reasonable officer could have found probable cause under the circumstances The subjective intent of that officer does not matter Any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for a traffic stop court upheld stops where an officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation and proceeded to conduct a full scale search of the vehicle -Motor vehicle search exemption -Traffic violation acceptable as pretext for further investigation -Selective enforcement can be challenged Seizure: 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" - Traffic stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances - Decision to stop a car is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred • Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent • every Fourth Amendment case, since it turns upon a "reasonableness" determination, involves a balancing of all relevant factors o The only cases that have required the balancing test involved searches or seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner Examples: • Seizure by means of deadly force • Unannounced entry into a home • Entry into the home without a warrant • Physical penetration of the body Analysis • If there is an objectively reasonable basis for a seizure or search, the motive behind the original stop is irrelevant o A person in the same situation, without the illicit motive, would have done the same act o Difficult to prove the "motive" of the actor after the actor has already acted • As long as there is an objectively reasonable basis to do a search or seizure, the motive behind the act is ... • There is room for a person to make a mistake about the facts supporting a probable cause determination

DO POLICE HAVE TO KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE BEFORE SEARCHING A DWELLING?

Supreme Court has held that absent exigent circumstances, the police must knock and announce their presence before entering a residence to execute a search warrant Wilson v. Arkansas

Los Angeles County v. Rettele

The 4th Amendment requires probable cause for issuance of warrants. The standard of probable cause is far short of absolute certainty. Sometimes, the execution of valid warrants means that innocent people will suffer without there being a fourth amendment violation. The Rettele court relied on Summers in holding that the actions of the police were reasonable because occupants of the premises to be searched can be detained while a proper search is conducted. Unreasonable action [in the detention of occupants] would include excessive force or restraints that cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and unnecessary period of time.

Probable cause: subjective or objective?

The Court has expressly held that the test for probable cause is an objective one Whren v. U.S. is a key case adopting and elaborating the objective standard

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. • General warrants are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment oAddressed by requiring a 'particular description' of the things to be seized oAlso prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another

4th Amendment

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

United States v. Jones (2012)

The warrantless use of a tracking device on a motor vehicle to monitor its movements is unconstitutional. Revived trespass doctrine "a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another" obtaining of information is not alone a search unless it is achieved by such a trespass OR invasion of privacy (Jones) Trespass not REQUIRED, but can constitute a search

Richards v. Wisconsin

There are certain circumstances during which law enforcement does not have to knock and announce. Reasonable suspicion is the requirement for a no-knock, and police may enter without knocking even if permission isn't granted by a magistrate if the police make a determination otherwise that a no-knock is preferable for officer safety or preventing destruction of evidence. Officers need to articulate individual reasons for knock & announce waiver - -*The court ruled that a state blanket exception*, allowing no-knock entries for felony drug crimes was *unconstitutional* -Officers need to articulate individual reasons for knock & announce waiver (no-knock warrant) -*No-knock warrants should be given on a case-by-case basis* - Individual courts have the duty in each case to determine whether the circumstances of the particular entry was justified by the "No knock rule" - • NO categorical exceptions o Must be determined in real time o Authorizing it for drug investigations would be overbroad Don't all involve violence Can be done in a way that honors knock and announce where destruction, flight, etc. are not an issue o If they did it for drugs, then it wouls open up to other searches • Got to right result but wrong reason • What did the Wilson court do that the Richards court did not? o Quantum of proof o In order to abandon the knock and announce, officers must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking would be dangerous or futile or allow the destruction of evidence o Wilson court held that if there is a threat of violence or flight, can dispense with knock and announce o Richardson REASONABLE SUSPICION, not probable cause, in order to find that they should dispense with knock and announce requirement in that situation

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013)

This case is decided on trespass grounds, not privacy Used trespass doctrine to easily decide the question o Did the government officials enter the curtilage in order to gather information? Yes, exceeded their implied license and in the course of doing so violated that private property for the purpose of detecting criminal wrongdoing There was a trespass here as well as a violation of Jardines's property Reasonable expectation of privacy first exists if one has a subjective assumption that it would be private o Then, a court must determine whether the subjective belief is one that society is prepared to deem as reasonable 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. • Government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment o Held that there are no special burdens on prosecutors and police in showing the reliability of drug-sniffing dogs as the basis for probable cause for a search o When "the Government obtains information by physically intruding" on persons, houses, papers, or effects, a "search within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment" has "undoubtedly occurred" The curtilage of the home was intruded upon. Use the jones test here. 1) Was it a CPA? 2) Was there a physical intrusion? 3) Was the purpose to gain info or incriminating evidence? This wasn't a knock and talk, which is perfectly acceptable. Although people are free to come up to your house and knock and ask to be let inside (obviously opening the door a little lets them see whatever is in plain view), there's no license to let people investigate your house, which is what the dog is doing here.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)

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 totality of the circumstances test, taken piecemeal, the evidence may not amount to probable cause, but if taken together as a whole the evidence achieves that level, the legal standard of proof for the search has been met Aguilar-Spinelli doctrine When evaluating the usefulness of an anonymous tip, Is the informant truthful? (Informant's veracity) Is the informant reliable? (What is the basis of his knowledge?) (How does he or she know what they know?) (Balancing test of both prongs If one weaker and one stronger, still okay) Search? -Is it a physical occupation of private property? -Did Lance Gates reasonably belief that it was something that would remain private? -Is it objectively reasonable? Holding Probable cause does not demand the certainty associated with formal trials It is enough that there was a fair probability that the writer of the anonymous letter had obtained his entire story either from the Gates or someone they trusted -And corroboration of major portions of the letter's predictions provides just this probability

United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)

Where does curtilage end and begin? Was intruding into the overhang under the barn an intrusion into the curtilage of a home and was it a search? No. Is the barn within the curtilage of the home? No. Four factors are used to analyze the extent of a home's curtilage. 1. Is the area included in an enclosure surrounding the home? (No) 2. How is the area used? Is it used for domestic or private activities? Are the activities conducted in the area private? (Not domestic) 3. How close is the area claimed to be curtilage to the home? (50 yards) 4. What steps did the resident take to protect the area from observation by passerby? (a few wire fences and no trespass signs) DEA and police went to Dunn's ranch and they walked up to his farm and they looked into his barn from under the barns overhang, saw that the barn looked like a drug lab.

United States v. Place

a. "Sniff test" does not constitute a 4th Am. search. b. Sniff only discloses the presence or absence of narcotics; information obtained is limited. "exposure of the defendant's luggage located in a public place, to a trained canine- did not constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." "(dog search) does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view (like) an officer rummaging through contents of the luggage." "The fact that officers walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each car at the Indianapolis checkpoints does not transform the seizure into a search." United States v. Place, 462 US 696, 707 (1983)

Hester v. United States

an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home - Open Fields Doctrine codified and upheld. This meant that a person could not expect privacy in an open field, and police could search said field despite "No Trespassing" Signs.

Curtilage

area is where activities inside the home can take place outside the home; the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life'" -Intimately linked to the home -Privacy expectations are heightened

Wilson v. Arkansas

even when armed with a warrant, the police generally must "knock and announce" before entering a home Knock & announce requirement could be waved for threat of violence or possible destruction of evidence The reasonableness of a search and seizure may depend on whether law enforcement announced their presence and authority before entering a house. Backed by Blackstone and Hale, as well as what the Framers thought was reasonable. Policy: preference for not breaking into houses where possible, privacy of people inside

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)

held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace. - Surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse does not constitute a search for which a warrant is required by the fourth amendment. - Riley had no reasonable expectation of privacy because it's understandable that a helicopter could be flying overhead from that height to see within the greenhouse because it wasn't something that happened rarely. - Katz made clear that even when the intrusion occurs from the place where please have a legal right to be, it is still constitute a search if it infringes upon the person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Carpenter v. United States

o Court held that it is a search when police obtain cellular location info about a person for an extended period of time o Court does not overrule the third-party doctrine but distinguishes it • Obtaining CSLI info from a phone company is a Fourth Amendment Search. Katz and Jones important. Provides expansive, intimate detail Disclosure not truly voluntary Does not overrule Third Party Doctrine Declines to extend it to searches of CSLI (over six days): just too easy to get info • Search here unreasonable because there was no probable cause and no warrant. • We want to protect people's privacy in their physical location and movements • There's a difference between cell phone data and other types of third party disclosures between what's kept to oneself and shared with others. We want to require an individualized suspicion to demand cell phone location data because of how invasive it is. One's entire comings and goings can be reconstructed using CSLI. There is no guilt by mere association. You need to be investigated because we believe YOU are doing something wrong. Cell-site location may not be used in court without a warrant. a warrant is required for police to access cell site location information from a cell phone company—the detailed geolocation information generated by a cellphone's communication with cell towers.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

o Exigent circumstances o Searches of things in plain view o Automobile searches o Searches incident to arrest o Inventory searches o Protective sweeps o Searches with consent o Searches when there are special needs o Searches of those on probation or parole

Florida v. Harris

police may search car on public road when police dog has alerted police to smell of drugs o If, within a controlled training environment, the dog performs well, the defendant should have the burden of showing that the dog was unreliable. A State need not present in every case an exhaustive set of records, including a log of the dog's performance in the field, to establish the dog's reliability before evidence of a search is admissible. The totality of the circumstances is the touchstone for determination of probable cause for a search. o Florida SC should have used a broader totality of the circumstances approach, it set too high a bar for finding PC. o SCOTUS: you can't read PC to require a totality of the circumstances test. o Presumption that the dog is well trained and accurate can be rebutted by ∆ showing that the dog performs poorly in the field. shifts burden of showing dog is reliable from police to the ∆. o There's an incentive for police not to keep records of the dog's performance, to allow for dogs to allow positive sniffs for people they might not like Information gathering for dog reliability is cheaper for dogs, but the criminal ∆ has to bear the burden of proving dog reliability A police officer has probable cause to conduct a search when "the facts available to him would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime is present" -In evaluating whether the State has met this standard, court consistently looks to the totality of the circumstances (Have rejected rigid rules, bright-line tests, and mechanistic inquiries) • Evidence of a dog's satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert o If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search • A defendant must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog's reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witness o May contest the adequacy of a certification or training program o May examine how the dog (or handler) performed in the assessments made in those settings

Reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause

reasonable suspicion is a general and reasonable belief that a crime is in progress or has occurred particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of breaking the law - whereas probable cause is a reasonable belief that a particular person has committed a specific crime.

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)

the Court considered whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy to his trash and found that Society does not accept a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's trash and therefore the fourth amendment doesn't apply here because it's not a search. Even if Greenwood had a subjective expectation of privacy in his trash because he packed them in opaque bags and knew that the trash would be mingled and buried, 1) he left trash on the side of a public street and 2) garbage was left for a third party to pick up. do you have fourth amendment rights over something you threw away and effectively abandoned? Once you let something go, you don't have property rights over it anymore. Carpenter is distinguished because in Carpenter, there was a disclosure to others.

Groh v. Ramirez

• A defective warrant is no warrant at all 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. An incorrectly written search warrant could result in any evidence obtained being excluded from trial. An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted" • In February 1997, a concerned citizen informed petitioner that on a number of visits to respondents' ranch the visitor had seen a large stock of weaponry, including an automatic rifle, grenades, a grenade launcher, and a rocket launcher o Based on that info, petitioner prepared and signed an application for a warrant to search the ranch Application stated that the search was for "any automatic firearms or parts to automatic weapons, destructive devices to include but not limited to grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, andany and all receipts pertaining to the purchase or manufacture of automatic weapons or explosive devices or launchers" Supported application with detailed affidavit • Part of warrant application • Warrant itself had a mistake in it Magistrate signed the warrant form • Although the application particularly described the place to be searched and the contraband petitioner expected to find, the warrant itself was less specific o Failed to identify any of the items that petitioner intended to seize o Did not incorporate by reference the itemized list contained in the application o DID however recite that the Magistrate was satisfied the affidavit established probable cause to believe contraband was concealed on the premises And that sufficient grounds existed for the warrant's issuance • Warrant was plainly invalid Warrant here complied with the first three requirements • Based on probable cause • Supported by sworn affidavit • Described particularly the place of search But failed on fourth requirement • Provided no description of the type of evidence sought • Instead contained a description of the house where the description of the evidence should be Warrant failed particularity clause It is incumbent on the officer executing a search warrant to ensure the search is lawfully authorized and lawfully conducted

Smith v. Maryland

• A person takes a risk when revealing their secret information to another that the info might be conveyed by the person to the government o Fourth amendment does not prevent the person from conveying the information to another (the government) even though they promised o OTHER laws cover the revealing of info in a protected relationship (attorney-client privilege) • If it IS a search, burden falls on government to argue an exception to the Fourth Amendment - Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy 32 merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information to the police:

Heien v. North Carolina

• Lowered the suspicion threshold from probable cause to reasonable suspicion o Finding of either justifies a traffic stop officer makes reasonable mistake of law, but finds driver is committing another crime, no violation of 4th amendment o S.C. held that a stop that results from a police officer's mistake as to the law does not violate the Fourth Amendment even if a police officer makes a mistake of law (thinking the law requires both brake lights to work even when it only requires one) and stops a vehicle, the stop is still lawful under 4a. Reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition To conduct a traffic stop, the police must have a reasonable suspicion, or "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the stopped person" broke the law. Reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition. 4a requires reasonableness, but reasonableness isn't perfection. Government officials are given some fair leeway to make mistakes to enforce the law to protect the community. Mistakes of fact and mistakes of law - so long as they are objectively reasonable - are both compatible with the concept of reasonable suspicion, which arises from an officer's understanding of the facts and relevant law. - • Motor vehicle stop can be executed based on reasonable suspicion OR probable cause Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer's understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. If police officer makes reasonable mistake of law that leads him/her to conclude that a driver is doing something illegal, then no fourth amendment violation if officer does a traffic stop. - • Question here is whether reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition (yes it can) o Would a reasonable officer have made the same mistake? • Ignorance of the law by an officer won't result in a prosecution, but may be a Fourth Amendment violation - • A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a "seizure" of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment o To justify this type of seizure, officers need only "reasonable suspicion" o Reasonable suspicion: particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of breaking the law - • Searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact can be reasonable o Example: Warrantless search of a home is reasonable if undertaken with consent of a resident Remains lawful when officers obtain the consent of someone who reasonably appears to be but is not in fact a resident o Example: If officers with probable cause to arrest a suspect mistakenly arrest an individual matching the suspect's description, neither the seizure nor an accompanying search of the arrestee would be unlawful o Limit is that the mistakes be reasonable • Could a reasonable person read the statute and conclude that it required more than one brake light? o Yes o Could they read it an conclude that only one was required? Yes o If both answers are true, then there was an ambiguity in the statute that had not been resolved Means that the conclusion was mistaken but REASONABLY mistaken

THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT WHEN A WARRANT IS EXECUTED

• Supreme Court has held that a person who happens to be present in premises that are subject to a search cannot be searched just by virtue of being there o Search must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person • Michigan v. Summers o Supreme Court held that when there is a search of a residence, those present at the time of the search may be detained Allowing such detentions serves many purposes • Minimizing the risk of harm to the police • Helping the police complete the search in the event that questions arise o Court applied this in Muehler v. Mena

WHAT INFORMATION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT?

• Used for both searches and arrests • Affidavit supporting the request must include the information that provides the basis that there is probable cause o May be based on hearsay o Must be issued by a "neutral and detached" magistrate Violated when a judge who issued a warrant essentially became the "leader of the search party which was essentially a police operation" (Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York)

WHAT FORM MUST THE WARRANT TAKE?

•Must detail with specificity that which is to be searched or seized

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)

•There was probable cause to believe that D committed a traffic offense o Purpose of stop was to investigate that offense o The duration of that stop can last as long as it takes or reasonably should take to complete the task associated with the seizure and can only continue if the person seized the person consents to the seizure OR if law enforcement has reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot •DURING the course of the stop, if law enforcement at the time had probable cause to believe that Caballes had committed an offense, that offense allowed a seizure (the traffic stop) oDURING the course of a legitimate stop: Meaning that had probable cause to believe D had committed a traffic offense DURING that seizure, they used the dog to walk around oStop can only last as long as it takes or reasonably should take to perform the functions of the traffic stop oPurpose of the stop was speeding not drug movement, so no independent basis to conduct the dog sniff? Rule: It does not violate the Fourth Amendment for police to have a dog sniff for drugs during a routine traffic stop • Not an unreasonable seizure During the course of a lawful traffic stop, the use of a drug dog is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment Official conduct that does not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy" is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment" "...any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate'..." Therefore, "governmental conduct that only reveals possession of contraband compromises no legitimate privacy interest."

THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

•Warrant Clause in Fourth Amendment o Relationship between this and search and seizure clause Does not require a warrant A search/seizure conducted without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable o Neither type of warrant can be gotten with reasonable suspicion Has to state facts that provide a basis for the warrant o Particularity clause Makes general warrants ineffective Example: cannot look for a dead body in the silverware drawer • Law enforcement cannot issue a warrant to itself o Need objective third party of judge Disinterested party: should this individual's privacy be invaded? Subject to a trespass? o Law enforcement must apply for warrant under oath o Law enforcement will not check itself • To say that the search is presumptively reasonable means that the D has the burden of challenging the legality of the search o If conduct is presumptively unreasonable the burden is on the government to demonstrate its legality

Katz v. United States

● The fourth amendment protects individuals against government searches and seizures and includes in the constitutionally protected area what a person seeks to preserve as private, even in a publically accessible area. Justice Harlan introduced the two prong Katz test, whereby there is a legitimate expectation of privacy if 1) the individual has a subjective expectation of privacy and 2) the expectation is one that society recognizes as legitimate. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the 4th amendment a trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of a search ● Petitioner Katz's conversation was wrongfully seized when his conversation in a telephone booth was recorded because he closed the booth's door and paid the toll to use the phone. By closing the booth door and paying the toll, the user of an enclosed telephone booth has a reasonable expectation of privacy