The 4th Amendment: Search and Seizures Part I

Califronia v. Hodari: Physical Restraint

(1) Has a person who is not under the physical control of a police officer been "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when the officer is chasing that person? No. (2) Can a person who is pursued by a police officer avoid prosecution by discarding incriminating evidence and asserting that he did so out of fear of an unlawful search? No. Kid was being chased by the police when hanging out with his friends and tried to run away. As he was running away, he threw away his drugs. Since he was running away, he wasn't being physically restrained and it was therefore not a seizure. The Supreme Court held that a Fourth Amendment seizure requires some sort of physical force with lawful authority, or submission to an assertion of authority. Hodari had not been touched when he discarded the cocaine, and had not submitted to authority because he was still attempting to escape.

Spinelli rules

1) An affidavit based on an informant's tip, standing alone, cannot provide probable cause for issuance of a warrant unless the tip includes information that apprises the magistrate of the informant's basis for concluding that the contraband is where he claims it is (the "basis of knowledge" prong), and the affiant informs the magistrate of his basis for believing that the informant is creditable (the veracity" prong) 2) If a tip fails under either or both of the two prongs, probable cause may yet be established by independent police investigatory work that corroborates the tip to such an extent that it supports "both the inference that the informer was generally trustworthy and that he made his charge ... on the basis of information obtained in a reliable way."

Four kinds of cases in which it is hard to get a warrant.

1) Exigent circumstances: Flippo, Mincey 2) Fleeing suspects: Warden v. Hayden: the "Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others." 3) Destruction of evidence: fear that that if the officers do not search immediately, evidence would be destroyed. 4) Community caretaking: ---- o Some commentator's argue that evidence derived from these entries should not be suppressed. ---- o No social stigma b/c entry not from criminal investigation. ---- o Police would not be overzealous when performing caretaking duties. ---- o Counter-argument is that police might pretend to help victims in order to establish exigency or exempt themselves from the probable cause requirement.

Warrant Requirement

1) Oath or Affirmation Requirement 2) The Magistrate 3) Particularity Requirement 4) Execution of Warrants The exigent circumstance doctrine provides that when probable cause has been established to believe that evidence will be removed or destroyed before a warrant can be obtained, a warrantless search and seizure can be justified.

California v. Acevedo Probable cause to search a bag in a car

Acevedo entered the Daza's apartment and left with a brown paper bag resembling one of the packages sent from Hawaii. ---- o He placed the bag in the trunk and started to drive away. ---- o Fearing the loss of evidence, officers in a marked car stopped him, opened the trunk and the bag, and found marijuana. California Court of Appeal concluded that the marijuana found in the paper bag should have been suppressed. ---- o Officers had probable cause to believe that the paper bag contained drugs but lacked probable cause to believe that Acevedo's car, itself, contained contraband. ---- o Because the probable cause was directed at the bag specifically, Chadwick controlled the case, and not Ross. ---- o In effect, the police could seize the bag, but could not search it without first obtaining a warrant for that purpose. Court first recognizes that the Fourth Amendment provides less protection for movable vehicles. Carroll v. United States ---- o Evidence could quickly leave the jurisdiction. ---- o Diminished expectation of privacy. Chambers v. Maroney: existence of exigent circumstances was to be determined at the time the automobile was seized. United States v. Ross: Warrantless search of an automobile could include a search of a container or package found inside the car when the search was supported by probable cause. To reconcile the Ross and Chadwick dichotomy of searches, the Court held that the Carroll doctrine applied when the police had probable cause to search the entire vehicle. ---- o Ross: police has probable cause to search only a container within the vehicle. The Court finds that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to obtain a warrant to open a sack in a movable vehicle because they lack probable cause to search the entire car. First, Chadwick-Sanders rule on minimally protects privacy. ---- o If the police believe that there is contraband within a container, then they are likely to restrict there search to that container. ---- o If they had to get a warrant for the container, there is nothing to prevent them from searching the rest of the vehicle. Second, the Chadwick-Ross dichotomy led to confusion by law enforcement officers. ---- o Basically, to which object did the probable cause attach first? The car or the container? Scalia, concurring Finds that the decision today can produce anomalous results. However, the anomaly is consistent with the lack of consistency in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Wants to resolve the using an originalist approach. ---- o If the common law required a warrant, then one should be required. However, with the advent of the exclusionary rule, the warrant prevents the suppression of evidence because the warrant contains a presumption of reasonableness. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal and ruled that the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's general search-warrant requirement is broad enough to cover a situation where the police only have probable cause to believe there is evidence in a specific movable container within the car. The Court noted that the warrant requirement previously had depended on a "curious line between the search of an automobile that coincidentally turns up a container and the search of a container that coincidentally turns up in an automobile." In place of that uncertain distinction, the Court adopted a single rule: "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." California v. Carney: ---- o Automobile exception applies to a motor home. ---- o Lesser expectation of privacy because of the pervasive regulation of motor vehicles.

Flippo v. West Virginia:

After petitioner called 911 to report that he and his wife had been attacked, police arriving at the scene found petitioner waiting outside, with injuries to his head. After questioning him, the police entered the cabin to find the body of his wife with fatal head wounds. Officers closed off the area and took the petitioner to the hospital; they then searched the exterior and environs of the cabin for footprints and signs of entry. When a police photographer arrived, they began to reprocess the area for over 16 hours. Eventually, they found a briefcase which contained evidence. The Court held that the evidence should be suppressed. ---- o Crime scene secure evidence not likely to be destroyed. ---- o No imminent harm ---- o Reasonable time (16 hours) to get a warrant.

Mapp v. Ohio: The Exclusionary Rule

Appealing a conviction as evidence used in trial was unlawfully collected. The police were looking for a fugitive and found the evidence in an illegal search, no search warrant. ----o Weeks case: the exclusionary rule, excludes evidence found unlawfully by federal agents in a federal court. The remedy is the exclusion and this applies to federal cases. ----o Wolf case: Weeks exclusionary rule will not be applied to the states, but the 4th amendment does apply to the states, incorporation through the 14th amendment. So what is the remedy if exclusion isn't it? Rule: The court held that any evidence that is found in violation of the 4th amendment is not admissible in State court. This overrules Wolf. It is there to deter the police in obeying the correct rules and procedures that they are required to follow. ----o Dissent: Argued that the State's should be allowed to come up with their own remedy, rather than let SCOTUS come up with it. Hudson v. Michigan: new case in which the Court held that the exclusionary rule wouldn't apply to whether or not the police announced themselves before serving the search warrant

Florida v. Riley: Helicopter Surveillance

At issue is whether surveillance from a helicopter located 400 ft from Riley's greenhouse constitutes a 'search' for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment. Curtilage Factors: ----o Riley's greenhouse was located on five acres of rural property and about 10-20 feet behind the mobile home. ----o Two sides of the house were enclosed; the other sides were not enclosed; the contents of the greenhouse were obscured by surrounding trees, shrubs, and the mobile home. ----o While the roof was covered by corrugated paneling, two of the panels were missing exposing 10% of the area. Police were given an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown in the greenhouse. ----o When the officer discovered that he could not see the contents of the greenhouse from the road, he circled the premises from a helicopter at 400 ft. ----o With just the naked eye, the officer discerned what he thought was marijuana. ----o From this observation, a warrant was issued. Court agreed with the state that California v. Ciraolo controlled. ----o Police discovered that marijuana was growing in the backyard while performing surveillance at 1000 ft. ----o While recognizing that the yard was within the curtilage of the home and that a fence shielded the yard from observation, the Court held that aerial surveillance did not constitute a search. ----o "It is unreasonable . . . to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet." ----o The Court also found that 400 ft did not change the case's disposition. The altitude at which the helicopter was flying was legal. ----o "We would have a different case if flying at that altitude had been contrary to law or regulation." O'Connor, concurring ----o Observations of helicopter flying at low altitudes are not perfectly analogous to ground-level observations. ----o "The fact that a helicopter could conceivably observe the curtilage at virtually any altitude or angle, without violating FAA regulations, does not in itself mean that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy." ----o The pertinent question is not whether the altitude was legal, but whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Is it a search? No, it's reasonable for someone to spy on you in a helicopter. No reasonable expectation of privacy, because our skies have planes/helicopters all the time. Given that this is the case, it is unreasonable to expect privacy from someone looking down above. You need to ask the question: How common is the practice imposed? 1) We know our skies have tons of planes and air traffic. It's reasonable therefore, to expect someone to see your land. 2) How common is this really? An aircraft transporting seems different than a police aircraft hovering over your land and looking down trying to find something.

United States v. Leon: The Good-Faith Exception: Limits on the Exclusionary Remedy

At issue is whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance of a search warrant. ----o Based on information given by a "confidential informant of unproven reliability," police began surveillance on Leon's residence and observed individuals leaving with small packages. ----o A facially valid search warrant was issued. The subsequent searches produced large quantities of drugs at the residences. District Court determined that affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. ----o However, the court made clear that the police officers acted in good faith. ----o The Court notes that exclusionary rule is not a constitutional remedy of 4th Amendment violations but instead is a judicial remedy. To reach its conclusion, the Court engages in a balancing approach. ----o Applying the exclusionary rule would allow some guilty defendants to go free. ----o Exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than punish the error of judges and magistrates. ----o There is no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignore or subvert the 4th Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of inclusion. ----o Most importantly, there is no evidence applying the exclusionary rule would have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate. The remedy must alter the behavior of individual law enforcement officers. ----o Determination must be ordered on a case-by-case determination. ----o "Marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion." *** Suppression warranted where: ----o The magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth. ----o The magistrate wholly abandoned the judicial role. ----o Officers relied on a warrant which they knew was not based on probable cause. Eventually the Ct. says that if the warrant was obtained in good faith and an officer could reasonably rely upon it, the evidence it creates shouldn't be excluded Brennan, dissenting Doesn't see how the issue can be bifurcated between the seizure of the evidence and the admissibility of it. "By admitting unlawfully seized evidence, the judiciary becomes a part of what is in fact a single governmental action." By rendering the validity of a constitutional provision on empirical evidence, the Court has "robbed the rule of legitimacy."

Brigham City v. Stuart Emergency aid exception

At issue is whether the police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such an injury. Police responded to a call regarding a loud party at a resident. Upon arriving at the house, the police heard shouting a proceeded down the driveway to investigate. They entered the backyard and saw, through a screen door and windows, an altercation taking place in the kitchen of the home. The officer opened the screen door and announced his presence, but no one noticed. Officers arrested respondents and charged them with various crimes. Utah S.C. denied police's argument that the warrantless entry was reasonable ---- o The injury caused by the juvenile's punch was not severe enough to trigger the "emergency aid doctrine." ---- o No objectively reasonable belief that an unconscious, semi-conscious, or missing person feared injured or dead was in the house. ---- o Doctrine also inapplicable b/c the officers had not sought to assist the injured, but rather acted in their law enforcement capacity. ---- o Entry did not fall within the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Must have probable cause. Reasonable person would believe that the entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons. ---- o Payton v. New York: searches and seizures within the home are presumptively unreasonable. However, the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. ---- o Imminent destruction of evidence. ---- o Hot-pursuit of a fleeing suspect ---- o "Exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable. Mincey v. Arizona ---- o Need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. Respondents argue that the exception should not apply. 1. The officers were more interested in making arrests that quelling violence. ---- o Court: an action is reasonable, regardless of the individual officer's state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action. ---- o An officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant. 2. The conduct was not serious enough to justify intrusion into the home. ---- o Welsh v. Wisconsin: "an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense." ---- o Court distinguishes the case. ---- o There, the only emergency was the need to preserve the evidence. Here, the officer's were confronted with ongoing violence. ---- o The officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing both that the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning. ---- o Sounds of an altercation. ---- o Noise came from the back of the house ---- o Knocking on the front door was futile. ---- o Also, the manner of the entry was reasonable.

Wyoming v. Houghton

At issue is whether the police violate the Fourth Amendment when they search a passenger's personal belongings inside an automobile that they have probable cause to believe contain contraband. The car was stopped for speeding and having a faulty brake light. While questioning the driver, Young, the police noticed a syringe in Young's shirt pocket. When asked why he had the syringe, Young stated that he used it to take drugs. ---- o With Young's admission, the police had probable cause to search the automobile. When respondent was asked for her name, she gave a false identification. ---- o This leads to credibility. In the back seat, the police found a purse belonging to Houghton. A search of the purse revealed a syringe and a container of methamphetamine. Additionally, there were fresh needle marks on her arm. Based on this evidence, the police arrested Houghton. Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction. ---- o Once probable cause is established to search a vehicle, an officer is entitled to search all containers therein which may contain the object of the search. ---- o However, if the officer knows or should know that a container is the personal effect of a passenger who is not suspected of criminal activity, then the container is outside the scope of the search. Scalia uses a two-prong analysis to determine whether the search is reasonable. ---- o First, was the government action regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed? Originalist interpretation. Hodari D. ---- o Second, the reasonableness of the search can be determined by balancing the individual's privacy and the promotion of the legitimate governmental interests. Here, it was not contested that the police had probable cause to believe that there were illegal drugs in the car. ---- o The historical record indicates that the framers would have concluded that ships and vessels could be searched with probable cause. ---- o Additionally, the record also indicates that the framers would have found reasonable the search of containers within an automobile. Nothing in Ross indicates that the automobile exception is to be limited to the driver. While the passenger does experience some diminished privacy expectations, the governmental interests are substantial. ---- o Exigency based on the mobility of the automobile. ---- o Car passenger, unlike the bar patron in Ybarra, will often be involved in a common enterprise. Pringle The Court held that so long as there is probable cause to search a stopped vehicle, all subsequent searches of its contents are legal as well. The Court added that such searches are especially warranted if aimed at looking into objects or personal belongings capable of concealing items that are the object of the search.

The Probable Cause Standard

Brinegar v. US: facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. Nathanson v. US: mere affirmation or belief of suspicion is not sufficient. Draper v. US: informant had been known to give reliable information in the past. Spinelli v. US: two pronged test to establish probable cause ---- o Is there a basis for the information? Credibility of the informant. ---- o The veracity of the information.

Automobile exception

Carroll v. United States ---- o For searches and seizures of cars stopped along the road, if obtaining a warrant is not "reasonably practicable," then "the measure of legality . . . is that the seizing officer shall have reasonable or probable cause for believing that the automobile which he stops and seizes has contraband." ---- o Basis is that it is a suspect can flee the jurisdiction while the police obtain the warrant. Chambers v. Maroney ---- o At issue was whether the "automobile exception" applied to the search of a car already in police custody. ---- o As such, exigency is not an issue b/c there would be no threat the car could leave the jurisdiction. ---- o The Court found the search not unreasonable. It was safer for the police to perform the search in the station as opposed to the side of the road. ---- o The police had probable cause to search the vehicle. ---- o While the "automobile exception" was based on the "inherent mobility" of the vehicle, an important basis was the diminished expectation of privacy which surrounds the automobile. Cars are registered with the state; driving heavily regulated; etc. ---- o Those same characteristics do not apply to personal containers within the car. Arkansas v. Sanders ---- o Police had probable cause to suspect that a green suitcase, being transported by an airline passenger, contained marijuana. ---- o After the suitcase had been placed inside the car, the police stopped the vehicle and searched the suitcase and found the marijuana. ---- o The police argued that here, the car was moving; as such, there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search. ---- o "[E]xigent circumstances must be assessed at the point immediately before the search." ---- o Additionally, there was no diminished expectation of privacy in the suitcase. Violated his rights. Robbins v. California ---- o Police stopped a car for erratic driving and noticed the smell of marijuana ---- o During a warrantless search, the police discovered two bricks of marijuana in a recessed luggage compartment. ---- o In a plurality, the Court found that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. ---- o Basically, the bricks were in a "closed, opaque container" that was indistinguishable from the footlocker in Chadwick and the suitcase in Sanders. ---- o Although the packaging was not traditionally thought of one to used to transport personal effects, "[w]hat one person may put into a suitcase, another person may put into a paper bag." ---- o J. Powell found that Robbins had manifested a "reasonable expectation of privacy" by carefully wrapping the "bricks." However, the Chadwick-Sanders rule should not be applied to containers that did not reflect such an expectation. ---- o Additionally, neither Chadwick nor Sanders were really automobile exception cases because the probable cause attached to the containers "before either came near an automobile." United States v. Ross ---- o Police had probable cause to believe that Ross was selling narcotics from the trunk of his car. ---- o When they saw Ross driving the car, they stopped him and conducted a warrantless search of the car, including the trunk, where they found a "closed brown paper bag." Bag contained heroin. ---- o Court upheld the search because police had probable cause that extended to the entire car, rather than being limited to a particular container. ---- o As such, the type of container (suitcase vs. a brown bag) becomes irrelevant.

New York v. Class Plain View Doctrine

Class was stopped for two traffic offenses. Because the VIN was not visible from the side of the door, the police officer reached into the car to move some papers which had obscured the VIN. In doing so, the police saw a handle of a gun protruding from underneath the driver's side seat. Court held that Class had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the VIN, which was required by federal law to be placed plain view of someone outside the automobile. Because the officer could not see the VIN, and the driver had exited the car, it was permissible for the officer to enter the car to the limited extent necessary to uncover the VIN. ---- o The officer saw the gun from a position he was authorized to be and from which he could legally gain physical control over it.

Mincey v. Arizona EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT Exigent Circumstances

Did the admission of evidence taken during a four-day long warrantless search of Mincey's residence constitute an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes. In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court held that the extensive, warrantless search of Mincey's apartment was unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Stewart wrote that warrantless searches were per se unreasonable with a few specific exceptions, and rejected Arizona's argument that the search of a homicide scene was one of these exceptions. Justice Stewart rejected Arizona's contention that Mincey forfeited his right to privacy in his home by shooting Officer Headricks. He pointed out that this argument assumed Mincey's guilt, also writing that the fact of Mincey's arrest did not remove his right to privacy in his home. Justice Stewart also rejected Arizona's argument that the search of the homicide scene was justified by emergency circumstances or by vital public interest in prompt investigation of the scene. He wrote that there were no exigent circumstances allowing the search, and held that the seriousness of the alleged crime did not create those circumstances. Justice Stewart also held that Mincey's statements were inadmissible because they were not made voluntarily. He looked to the circumstances, focusing on Mincey's physical state during Detective Hust's interrogation. Mincey was in the intensive care unit, barely conscious, heavily encumbered by medical equipment, and completely at Detective Hust's mercy. Justice Stewart also focused on Mincey's repeated statements that he did not want to speak without a lawyer. Here, there was no exigent circumstance other than the fact that the crime was murder. ---- o No indication that evidence would be lost or destroyed. ---- o No indication that there would be difficulty in procuring a warrant

United States v. Jones: GPS tracking on a car

Did the warrantless use of a tracking device on Jones's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violate Jones' Fourth Amendment rights? Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, and held that the installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle, without a warrant, constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the government's argument that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person's movement on public thoroughfares and emphasized that the Fourth Amendment provided some protection for trespass onto personal property. ----o Scalia focuses on the trespass while the other justices focus on Katz. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that the government had obtained information by usurping Jones' property and by invading his privacy. However, she further reasoned that the Fourth Amendment was not only concerned with trespasses onto property. She stated that a Fourth Amendment search occurs whenever the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable, which is particularly important in an era where physical intrusion is unnecessary to many forms of surveillance. Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment but criticized the framing of the question in terms of trespass to property. He believed that such a construction of the problem strained the language of the Fourth Amendment and that it would be better to analyze the case by determining whether the Government violated Jones' reasonable expectations of privacy.

United States v. White: Wire tapping and undercover agents

Does the 4th Amendment bar from evidence the testimony of government agents relating certain conversations that occurred between a defendant and an undercover government informant, which the agents overheard while monitoring the frequency of a radio transmitter concealed on the body of that informant? ----o No. The testimony of government agents, relating conversations between a defendant and an undercover informant, overheard via electronic surveillance, is admissible, despite the informant's unavailability at trial. This case expanded the principle announced in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). ----o Not allowing police to do this would make it much harder for the police to enforce laws such as bribery or solicitation. The police need an individual on the inside. ----o What reasonable expectation do you have when planning criminal activity? Little to none. The location matters less, the main issue is that a person is giving up the right to confidentiality. Dissent: ----o What if you know if you live in a society where bugging is likely? Are you less likely to talk? An informant could get a person who, would not commit a crime, did so but for the informant.

Katz v. United States: Two part reasonable expectation of privacy test

Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? ----o Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,"*** wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection. ----o Is this considered a search? Modern technology develops in a way that gives a new meaning of certain words. Majority said it was a search. They could have gotten a warrant, but they didn't and went through all of these steps to only get certain conversations. They could have done this more by the book. *** Reasonable expectation of privacy: Justice Harlan *** ----o Habits of the time, the fact that Katz tried to hide the conversation by going into a phone booth and closing the door. There are two prongs, a subjective and an objective prong. This creates a case by case analysis. Creates a relevant test to help keep up with the advancement of technology. ----o Subjective: that a person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy ----o Objective: The expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable".

United States v. Drayton: No right to know of refusal

FACTS: 3 cops got on a bus; did not inform of right to refuse consent; asked two suspects if they could search their bags, and suspects agreed; cops asked to search persons, and they agreed; cops found drugs, and arrested suspects ISSUE: Was it necessary for the cops to inform the suspects of their right to refuse to cooperate? HOLDING: No, don't have to inform of right to refuse consent REASONING: ----o No seizure if consent to search was voluntary ----o Seizure does not occur so long as a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business *** ----o Whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter? ----o Reasonable person test is objective and presupposes an innocent person ----o Not whether a guilty person would reasonably feel free to decline officers' requests NOTES: Think about whether people really think they have a right to refuse; just because we have rights does not mean that people feel free to exercise them

Davis v. United States

FACTS: Police arrested Willie Gene Davis after a traffic stop. He subsequently gave a false name to the officers. After discovering his real name, the officers arrested him, handcuffed him and put him in the police car for giving false information to a police officer. Then they searched the vehicle and found a gun in his jacket. He was charged and convicted for possession of an illegal weapon. Following a jury trial, Davis was convicted and sentenced to 220 months in prison. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that while the search was illegal the evidence found in the vehicle was still admissible. ISSUE: Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search that was authorized by precedent at the time of the search but is subsequently ruled unconstitutional? HOLDING: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. "Searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule," Alito wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in the judgment only. Meanwhile, Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "The Court finds a new 'good faith' exception which prevents application of the normal remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation, namely, suppression of the illegally seized evidence," Breyer notes, adding: "At this point I can no longer agree with the Court. A new 'good faith' exception and this Court's retroactivity decisions are incompatible."

Herring v. United States Good Faith exception applied to negligence

FACTS: The Coffee County, Alabama Sheriff's Department apprehended Bennie Herring in July of 2004. Upon searching Herring's vehicle, officers discovered methamphetamine in Herring's pocket and a gun under the seat of his truck. However, the situation was complicated by the fact that the initial search had been made on a faulty arrest warrant. The warrant, still active in the neighboring Dale County Sheriff's Office, was supposed to have been recalled five months prior, however someone had accidentally failed to remove it from the computer system. Herring filed a motion to suppress the allegedly "illegally obtained" evidence, however the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Herring's motion and sentenced him to 27 months in prison. ISSUE: Does a court violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant by introducing evidence obtained through a police search based on an arrest warrant that should have been recalled, but was negligently allowed to remain active, at the time of the search? HOLDING: No. It held that a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when police mistakes that lead to unlawful searches are merely the result of isolated negligence and "not systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Evidence obtained under these circumstances is admissible and not subject to the exclusionary rule.

Notes after Gates

Nominally, the standard for probable cause is the same regardless of the crime. ---- o However, practically the standard varies depending on the crime's severity. "Totality of the circumstances" approach: ---- o Allows for local variation. ---- o Reduces the power of appellate courts. Reviewing court should give great deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause when issuing warrants. Strict scrutiny may lead police officers to conduct more warrantless searches.

Oliver v. United States: Open field doctrine

Oliver grew marijuana on his private property with "No Trespassing" signs. There is an indication that the property owners don't want people coming on their land, shielding it from public view. The police didn't get a warrant and went on the land anyways and took the drugs as evidence. The court said that this wasn't a search. "Open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. Moreover, as a practical matter these lands usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office or commercial structure would not be... Nor is the government's intrusion upon an open field a 'search' in the constructional sense because that intrusion is a trespass at common law. The existence of a property right is but one element in determining whether expectations of privacy are legitimate..." Takeaway: ----o Physical trespass not required for a 4th Amendment violation. ----o Police entry and search of open fields involves no 4th Amendment intrusion even if the intrusion occurred on privately held property.

Notes after

Plain view doctrine does not justify entry into a place. ---- o For example, if an officer noticed a drug transaction, plain view wouldn't even be a factor. ---- o Police could enter under probable cause, or exigent circumstances, or could wait for a warrant. Plain view doctrine: assuming that the officer was behaving legally when he saw the evidence in question, and also assuming that he is legally in a place where he can gain physical control over the evidence, then the officer could seize the evidence.

Kentucky v. King Police not creating the exigency

Police officers in Lexington, Ky., entered an apartment building in pursuit of a suspect who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. The officers lost sight of the suspect and mistakenly assumed he entered an apartment from which they could detect the odor of marijuana. After police knocked on the door and identified themselves, they heard movements, which they believed indicated evidence was about to be destroyed. Police forcibly entered the apartment and found Hollis King and others smoking marijuana. They also found cash, drugs and paraphernalia. King entered a conditional guilty plea; reserving his right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from what he argued was an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that exigent circumstances supporting the warrantless search were not of the police's making and that police did not engage in deliberate and intentional conduct to evade the warrant requirement. In January 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the lower court order, finding that the entry was improper. The court held that the police were not in pursuit of a fleeing suspect when they entered the apartment, since there was no evidence that the original suspect even knew he was being followed by police. Does the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions? ---- o The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court order in a decision by Justice Samuel Alito. "The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment," Alito wrote for the majority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, contending that "the Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. " For a warrantless search to stand, law endorcement officers must be responding to an unanticipated exigency rather than simply creating the exigency for themselves. (US v. Chambers) ---- o Can't be done in bad faith, can't be reasonably forseeable that the police create the exigency.

Arizona v. Hicks Plain View Doctrine in the home: Probable Cause

Responding to a shooting, police arrived at Hicks's apartment to search for the shooter, for other victims, and for weapons. They found three weapons, including a sawed-off rifle, as well as a stocking-cap mask. One of the officers noticed two sets of expensive stereo components, which seemed out of place in the squalid apartment. Suspecting they were stolen, Nelson recorded the serial numbers. In doing so, it was necessary to move some of the equipment. On being informed that the turntable, one of the pieces that had been moved, was taken in an armed robbery, he seized it immediately. It was later determined that the other pieces had been taken in the same armed robbery. A warrant was executed for the other pieces. Trial court suppressed evidence; the State appeals the AZ supreme court's denial of review. ---- o The moving of the equipment did constitute a "search" separate from the search for the shooter, victims, and weapons which had been the lawful objective of the police's entry. ---- o "Taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion . . . did produce a new invasion of respondent's privacy unjustified by the exigent circumstances that validated the entry." ---- o "A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." However, search is still valid if it was reasonable. ---- o "[U]nder certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant." ---- o Basically, would the plain view doctrine have sustained a seizure of the equipment? The test: search would be valid if there is probable cause for the search. ---- o State conceded that it had only "reasonable suspicion." Theoretical justification: ---- o Extends to nonpublic places, such as the home, where warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable, the police's authority to make warrantless seizures in public places of such objects as weapons and contraband. Practical justification: ---- o Spares the police, whose viewing of the object in the course of lawful search is as legitimate as if the object had been in a public place, the inconvenience and the risk of having to obtain a warrant. However, dispensing the need for a warrant is not the same as permitting a lesser standard of cause for the seizure than a warrant would require (i.e. probable cause). *** Seizure with less than probable cause can still be justified. ---- o Where the seizure is minimally intrusive. ---- o Operational necessities make it the only practicable means of detecting certain types of crime. ---- o Requirements for searches and seizures of objects in plain view are the same. Since the officer who seized the stereo equipment had only a "reasonable suspicion" and not a "probable cause" to believe that the equipment was stolen, the officer's actions were not reconcilable with the Constitution. However, critical to this doctrine, argued Scalia, is the requirement that warrantless seizures which rely on no "special operational necessities" be done with probable cause.

What is a Seizure

Rule 1) A seizure must be accomplished through means intentionally implied. ----o Accidental collisions with police are not seizures. Rule 2) California v. Hodari D. & Drayton ----o Whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter. Rule 3) Hodari D: ----o Seizure does not occur until after an individual submits or yields to an officer's show of authority. Factors that might suggest that a given police-citizen change constitutes a seizure: ----o The threatening presence of several officers ----o The display of a weapon by an officer ----o Some physical touching of the person of the citizen ----o The use of language ----o Tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.

Illinois v. Gates "Totality of the circumstances" vs Spinelli test

The Gates was arrested for drug possession after a search warrant uncovered marijuana in their home. On May 3, 1978, local received an anonymous tip by mail detailing the Gates' drug running operations based in Florida. ---- o Additionally, the letter indicated that there was over 100k worth of drugs in the basement. Based on this letter, the police searched the Gates' financial record and found that he had made a scheduled reservation for FL. DEA surveillance in FL confirmed the suspicious activity. ---- o Based on the information, a search warrant was issued. ---- o When the Gates returned, the police discovered marijuana in the car and the house. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed to suppress based on the Spinelli's two-pronged test. ---- o The anonymous letter had to adequately reveal the "basis of knowledge" of the writer ---- o Basically, by which means did he come by the information? The letter had to provide facts sufficiently establishing: ---- o The veracity of the information ---- o Reliability of the informant's report. Once again, the Court disagrees with formulaic per se rules. ---- o "Probable cause is a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat seat of legal rules." ---- o The Spinelli prongs should be considered as factors within the "totality of the circumstances" test, and not a strict two-prong analysis. ---- o A deficiency in one prong nay be compensated for by a strong showing in another indicia of reliability. ---- o E.g. Information from an informant with unusual reliability should not be excluded because the informant does not reveal the basis of his knowledge. POLICY RATIONALE: rigid application of the Spinelli test impairs the function of law enforcement. ---- o Anonymous tips would have greatly reduced value. SCOTUS REVERSES and finds that the proper test is the "totality of the circumstances." ---- o Duty of a reviewing court is to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Here, corroboration of details can offset the weakness in other areas. Draper ---- o Facts obtained by the independent investigation of Mader and the DEA suggested that the Gateses were involved in drug trafficking. ---- o Magistrate could rely on the letter once many of the details were corroborated. ---- o The Illinois Supreme Court had distinguished Draper because it involved a known informant, which is not the case here. ---- o The Court finds that anonymity somewhat irrelevant because much of the facts were corroborated. Additionally, the very intricate details of the Gates' travel itinerary indicate that the letter writer had to be extremely familiar with the drug-running operations. White, concurring ---- o Reaches the same conclusion without having to abandon the Spinelli framework. ---- o An informant's tip, standing alone, cannot provide probable cause unless the tip includes information that apprises the magistrate of the informant's basis of knowledge and the affiant informs the magistrate of his basis for believing that the information is credible. ---- o If the tip fails under both prongs, probable cause may be established by independent police work that corroborates the tip to such an extent that it supports "both the inference that the informer was generally trustworthy and that he made his charge . . . on the basis of information obtained in a reliable way." ---- o Here the question becomes whether the actions of the suspects gave rise to an inference that the informant was credible and that the information was obtained in a reliable manner. Stevens, dissenting ---- o While the facts did support the inference of drug operations, the facts that were known to the magistrate were not completely consistent with the tip.

United States v. Dunn: Curtilage Factors

The area surrounding the home where there are reasonable privacy expectations does receive 4th Amendment privacy. Factors: 1) The 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 observations by the people passing

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.

Kyllo v. United States: Advancement of Technology

The thermal technology used was not in general use and is thereby considered a search and cannot use it unless the police have a warrant. Two analysis: --- 1) Did the defendant knowingly expose the evidence? How could he if the technology isn't in general use and didn't know he exposed the evidence? --- 2) Katz analysis: 2 part test. Subjective and Objective are likely met. REASONING: ----o Amendment meant to protect privacy where there is a reasonable expectation ----o Thermal imager took evidence of what was going on inside the house that was not available upon public visual surveillance ----o This is in the private sphere, in the home Government also argues that the scan was permissible b/c it did not reveal intimate details occurring inside the home. ----o However, in the context of the home, all details are intimate.***

California v. Greenwood: Garbage Exposure

They did not have a warrant to do this. Was this permissible under the 4th amendment? ----o Under Katz, "what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." The defendants "knowingly exposed" the evidence by placing it on the side of the street to be taken away. Katz analysis would show there was no expectation of privacy regarding the trash. Brennan, dissenting ----o Believes that, "so long as a package is 'closed against inspection,' the 4th Amendment protects its contents, wherever they may be. ----o There should not be less protection because the bags were used to discard, rather than transport, personal effects. ----o Search of trash can lead to discover of extremely intimate personal details. Relies on Katz ----o "What a person . . . seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." ----o Furthermore, defendants were required to place refuse on the curb for disposal. Disposal by other means was prohibited by city ordinance.

Florida v. Jardines: Dog sniffing

United States v. Place ----o Dog sniffing in an airport. However, SCOTUS, when it comes to flying, provide less 4th amendment rights due to the consequences that could entail. In Jardines: Is it considered a search when the police use a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home? Yes ----o It is an issue related to property. Where is the intrusion taking place? On somebody's home on their front porch and they are protected since they have the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."