Criminal Procedure

difference between katz and white

white - info came from person, katz - listening device

Chimel

wingspan rule

5th Amendment and Miranda

• "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" • Procedural safeguards established in Miranda v. Arizona • Purpose: to provide suspects protection against the inherently coercive environment of police-dominated interrogation o Custodial interrogation creates a different environment - only in 5th amendment is interaction with the police inherently coercive o The grey area between the 4th and 5th amendment comes from between a Terry stop to an actual arrest (arrest would then equal custodial interrogation) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • 1 of 4 cases on which the Court granted certiorari Facts: o Defendants questioned by law enforcement officials o Cut off from outside world o No rights warnings given prior to questioning • Goal: To give courts and police concrete guidance on in-custody interrogation 5th Amendment and Miranda The prosecution cannot use statements from custodial interrogation UNLESS: • Prior to questioning, a subject is informed of: o Right to remain silent o Any statement may be used against him o Right to have an attorney present during question o If he cannot afford an attorney one will be provided • Waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily Custodial Interrogation? • Custody = formal arrest or restraint on the freedom of movement associated with a formal arrest • Test: o Totality of the circumstances o Reasonable person standard • Subjective views of suspect are irrelevant

Independent Source

• All of the evidence found prior to the constitutional violation is fair game • Any evidence found after the constitutional violation would be fruit of the poisonous tree • Can build a "Chinese Wall" and give the information of all the evidence before the constitutional violation to a new set of cops o If they find the improper evidence through their own investigation, then it is an independent source • If the defense argues that the impermissible evidence leaks through and taints the subsequent investigation, then: o Prosecution could argue attenuation of the taint, good faith basis exception, or inevitable discovery • **Multiple Timelines → one does not have any constitutional violations

Course in Miniature

• Ask if it is clients/suspects rights? • If yes, then was the right violated? • 4th, 5th, 6th, 5thDP, must be constitutional violation; if a statute it must have a suppression cause. • You can only suppress what's in your tree. You can't object to it if isn't your tree! • If your tree then is their fruit. • If there is fruit then can you wash it? o Attenuation of the taint o Independent source - could've gotten it from another source o Inevitable discovery - think about Brewer, hypothetically independent, o Good faith exception • If it cannot be washed, THEN AND ONLY THEN DO YOU SUPPRESS!! **Theoretically the Exclusionary Rule should be simple, but in practicality it is very difficult to exclude evidence through it.

How to Establish Attenuation of the Taint

• Attenuation of a causal connection is a matter of degree that depends upon the totality of the circumstances. • Evidence must be derived by means that are "sufficiently distinguishable." o In Wong Sun, the amount of time and the fact he made a free, conscious decision were factors used to wash the fruit • Come at by the exploitation of - therefore, the evidence is not admissible because of the cop's actions o Looking for an intervening factor - If you can show that something happened btw the violation of the constitutional right and the discovery of the inculpatory evidence, then the exclusionary rule will not be invoked • The question is whether there are elements that waken the chain of causation and dissipate the taint of the illegality to a constitutionally cognizable degree. Determining Attenuation • (1)Temporal proximity of the unconstitutional conduct to the acquisition of the evidence (time) • (2)Whether any significant events have intervened between the illegality and the acquisition; and • (3)The purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct (police misconduct; good faith)

What is required for Plainview?

• Authorized to be in the location where the property is located and the cops must have lawful access to the property o Ex./ if person in home cracks open the door, the cop cannot push open the door and see the incriminating evidence → not authorized to be there • Items have to be in plain view • The incriminating character of the items has to be immediately apparent o Asportation is NOT ALLOWED **doesn't intrude into an expectation of privacy

Good Faith Exception

• Basically, just the cops made a mistake o This doctrine is set up to allow a cop to make an honest mistake and still admit the evidence at trial o Was it an honest mistake or did he do it on purpose? • Acting in good faith and receives a warrant from a Magistrate • "Never attribute to malice what could be explained by stupidity" • We will look at what the cop thought and what a reasonable cop would think in that situation

Waiver

• Burden on the State to prove any waiver was: o Knowing and intelligent o Voluntary • Preponderance of the evidence • Implied waiver: o Express waiver preferred o Proof of the waiver by evidence other than the accused's own expression • Waiver if accused testifies • Waived only to areas addressed on direct • If privilege invoked on cross-exam: o Judge can strike entire testimony, if not collateral • Confessional stipulation does not waive • Guilty plea: o Waived for providency inquiry o Not waived for sentencing

Voluntariness

• Confession must be the product of essentially free and unconstrained choice by the maker • Involuntary if: o Will is overborne and o Capacity for self0determination critically impaired • Totality of the circumstances o Age, education, and intelligence of suspect o Length and repeated nature of questioning o Physical punishment o Deprivation of food or sleep • Policy: to guard against risk of false confessions and involuntary waiver of PASI • Use of deception o Cannot use to get waiver of rights, but o Can use to get confession after waiver

Analytical Template

• Is government conduct involved • Is there a search/seizure? (Reasonable expectation of privacy - Katz; trespassory - Jones) • Is there probable cause to arrest./search? o Define PC o Identify the evidence that supports it → how much evidence is needed o What test/facts/factors are used to • Was there a warrant for the arrest/search? o Was it based on PC o Did the warrant place appropriate limits on the police? o Was the warrant executed properly? • If no warrant, is there an exception to the warrant requirement for the arrest? o Felony arrest in a public place o Misdemeanor committed in the presence of the cops - Lago Alta Vista • Looked at the Whren standard → did the police officer have an objective reason to arrest • If there is an exception to the warrant requirement for the search (remember those we've studied are NOT mutually exclusive) o Search incident to arrest o Exigent circumstances o Vehicle searches

Reasonable Suspicion Factors

• Location • Time of day • Behavior of the individual • Clothing? • Known criminal associates? • Age • Gender? • Race? • Demeanor of cops and what they were wearing/doing **Objective and subjective interpretation of what the COP thinks and should think **lends itself to potential for profiling → which can be good or bad → only bad if profiling for an illegal reason (i.e. race)

Impeachment Exception

• Only concerned with a defendant at trial o When the D lies and it is based on a constitutional violation • If the D lies and the only reason he was able to make that lie was because the judge has excluded evidence that proves that the lie exists • You can use prior testimony at a suppression hearing o Ask the judge for permission to publish the relevant portion of the prior proceeding o Could also put a cop and have him testify that the D said Y the night he was arrested instead of X he said in court • Can use evidence for limited purpose of impeaching the D and Court should read in a limiting instruction o Limiting instructions are "legal fictions"

PASI

• Original intent was to avoid: o Star chamber inquisitions o The trilemma of self-accusation, contempt, and perjury What Does PASI protect? • Testimonial or communicative conduct o Responses that are factual or disclose information o Includes verbal and nonverbal conduct o Verbal acts = physical acts that are the equivalent of speaking What Does PASI not protect (** all of these are 4th Amendment issues) • Sound of voice • Bodily fluid • Person's identity • Dental impression • Handwriting sample

6th Amendment

• Purpose: To provide an accused the assistance of counsel at all critical points in the criminal prosecution against him • Right attaches at indictment • The right to counsel for the 6th Amendment is distinct from the 5th Amendment • 6th Amendment is offense specific o If arrested while on bond for 1st offense, then your current counsel does not need to be notified • 5th Amendment applies to all offenses • 6th Amendment does not require either custody or coercive influence Right to Counsel Comparison • 5th Amendment - in place during custodial interrogations for all offenses o I want to speak to my lawyer - must not ask questions until lawyer is present • All questioning must cease until lawyer is present o Right to remain silent - they will just leave you alone for a while • 6th Amendment - in place until the prosecution is complete regarding the offense charged Right to Counsel Comparison Offense → D in Custody → D released → Charges Preferred/Indictment → Trial [5th Amend.] [6th Amend.]

Illinois v. Gates

• Reliability of the informant determined by the totality of the circumstances • This test is inherently flexible and allows the use of hearsay if it can be established to be reliable • This is the Federal law, but still argue Aguilar-Spinelli for state courts • Rehnquist destroyed an entire area of 4th amendment litigation o Viewed on an abuse of discretion standard on appeal o Basically eliminated ability to win on appeal

Effect of Invoking Right

• Right to remain silent (5th Amend.) • Stop questioning immediately o The right must be scrupulously honored, BUT • Suspect only gets a temporary respite • Then, investigators may reinitiate • U.S. v. Watkins - 2 hours found sufficient o Suspect may always reinitiate o Request to go home and refusal to sign written statement equated to invocation • 5th Amendment Right to Counsel o Government cannot interrogate further unless: • Counsel is made available, OR • Suspect reinitiates • a.k.a. Edwards Bar o Not Offense Specific, applies to questioning on any offense. o Knowledge of invocation imputed • Counsel Availability Rules o In continuous custody: • Counsel's presence required (except when suspect reinitiates) o Break in custody: • Counsel must have been reasonably available before reinitiation by Government • Reinitiation by suspect o Questions related to investigation o Asking to explain something o "What's going to happen to me now?" o "How much time do you think I will get?" o "Should I get an attorney?" • Not reinitiation o Request for a drink or to use the phone, etc. • Premature invoation o Right to counsel arises upon "custodial interrogation" o Cannot invoke anticipatorily • Invocation after initial waiver o Must be unambiguous o Clarification not legally required o Test: Would a reasonable officer have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel? • 6th Amendment Right to Counsel o Government cannot interrogate further unless: • Counsel is present, OR • Suspect reinitiates and valid waiver obtained o Continuous custody vs. release is irrelevant o Protection remains in place once raised o Right offense specific o May be questioned on other offenses

Car Warrant Exception

• Still need PC • Automobile includes any readily mobile vehicle that can move on its own power, even a motor home • Automobile is subject tos each if it is on the highway, a public place ...

Inevitable Discovery

• They never had or used the information to poison the fruit • They simply would have found the evidence regardless of whether or not the constitutional violation occurred • For example, imagine two teams of cops found the same evidence → one had a constitutional violation and the other didn't → as long as you can show that the cops with the CV didn't share information with the non-CV cops, then the evidence will be an inevitable discovery o If the CV cops did share information, then you can look to independent source doctrine to determine if the only information shared was prior to the CV **Show the Constitutional violation → argue both sides and decide how you think the Court will rule, then → "if the Court doesn't rule the way we think they will, then" → Exclusionary Rule and define → then argue the Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule ------|-------------------------------------------- Attenuation of the Taint ---------------------------------------------|----- Inevitable discovery/Independent source ------------------------|-------------------------- Good Faith Exception **The temporal timeline is the most important aspect **Need to identify the constitutional violation, apply the black letter law and determine whether or not the evidence is coming in → then the second half of the game is "washing the fruit" and explaining how you can get that evidence in another way (exceptions, etc.)

Factors to determine seizure vs. voluntary encounter

• Threatening presence of several officers • Display of weapons by an officer • Some physical touching of the person detained • Use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled

Questions for Warrant (and Possibly PC) Exception

• What is the underlying rationale for the exception • What must be shown to invoke the exception? • What is the scope of authority confessed by the exception?

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 person to be seized."

Warrantless Searches → the following make the search OK

(1) Consent - by individual or spouse (shared privacy) all are found admissible (2) Exigent circumstances - emergency search - 2 part test a. Must prove emergency/exigency b. And must have probable cause (3) Plainview - you can search anything you see as long as you have the authority to be there a. Am I in a place I am authorized to be? (4) Search incident to arrest - Chimel wingspan rule a. Can go back and look even after the person has been detained b. But, could you open the closet door next to that? **Interesting question...** (5) Border Search - no PC required (6) Cars - only need PC →don't need a warrant and don't need exigent circumstances either a. They are considered an effect under the 4th Amendment b. If abandoned it may be searched c. Search exterior and interior seen from outside the car d. Stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion and seize anything in plainview e. Upon arrest can make search incident to arrest in passenger compartment f. If PC exists you can search trunk g. If containers are found within the car you may search the containers subject to PC without a need for exigent circumstances i. In Belton → the cops were arresting people and then going back to their car to search it ii. Gant cases limits this → can't take someone back to car, to then search the car

Consent

(1) Voluntary; (2) Knowing (intent); (3) Without Coercion • "Totality of the circumstances" test • No probable cause requirement

4th Amendment 2 part test

(1) unreasonable search and seizure even if there is not a warrant and (2) Warrant - when the warrant was issued, did the Magistrate have probable cause to authorize that warrant (what did the Magistrate know and what information was provided to him) - also look to the contents of the warrant on what it authorizes

The Automobile Exception vs. Search Incident to Arrest

(Two significant differences) 1. While the Belton rule requires the police to have probable cause to arrest an occupant of the car, the automobile exception is based solely on probable cause to believe there is contraband in the car and is not contingent on the arrest of any occupant in the car. 2. Belton searches give police the limited authority to search only the interior passenger compartment of the car, but the automobile exception potentially gives police the right to search the entire car (inc. the trunk) in order to locate seizable evidence.

3 ways to keep a confession out - PASI

1. 5th Amendment & Miranda 2. 6th Amendment 3. Voluntariness - 5th Amendment Due Process Right

Possible Factors in evaluating PC

1. Source of the information a. Reliability b. Motive c. Ability to observe 2. Method of obtaining information (eyewitness, rumor, hearsay, etc.) 3. Quantum of information 4. Quality of information 5. Timeliness of information **if a reasonable person with a reasonable belief would believe that the person committed the crime of the fruits of a crime would be available, then I have PC

Plainview

1. The cop must be lawfully located in a place where he ought to be 2. Readily apparent from where cop is located a. If it requires asportation (movement), however slightly, it's not in plain view

Spinelli v. US

2 prong test - informants • Is there an adequate basis of knowledge of informant • Do facts establish either - o Veracity of information -OR- o Reliability of the informant **test still used by state courts **difficult to prove with an informant that you don't know the ID

4th Amendment Review

4th Amendment - think of 4 categories • Rights of the people to be secure • Secure of the person, property, house and papers • Against unreasonable search and seizure • Warrant Broad 4th Amendment Template (1) Who does the Amendment apply to? → standing (2) Has there been a search or seizure? - consent would be no (3) Is there probable cause? (4) Did law enforcement need to get a warrant? (5) Is the search conducted by law enforcement reasonable? → depth and breadth of search (6) What happens if there is a violation of the 4th Amendment → if yes, then Exclusionary Rule → then go to the Exceptions Questions to Ask → Common Sense translation of previous slide (1) Who conducted the search? (2) What were they looking for? (3) Did they have suspicion? (4) Did they have a warrant? (5) Where were they looking?

Inventories

Administrative search that follows standard operating procedure (SOP) is OK under 4th Amendment • Administration with purpose other than a crime → safety for public, jail or police Places where inventory search are often conducted → DUI checkpoint, Car is towed, Processing into Jail

Standing

Asserting the Fourth Amendment is a personal right that is connected to a property or possessory interest for exclusionary rule purposes when your own protection has been infringed by the search and seizure.

Vehicle and Container Searches

Cars - only need PC →don't need a warrant and don't need exigent circumstances either • They are considered an effect under the 4th Amendment • If abandoned it may be searched • Search exterior and interior seen from outside the car • Stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion and seize anything in plainview • Upon arrest can make search incident to arrest in passenger compartment • If PC exists you can search trunk

Chimel v. California

Chimel v. California, 89 S.Ct. 2034 (1969) Facts: Police arrived at Chimel's (D) home with a warrant to arrest him for burglary because he was suspected to have burglarized a coin shop. Police searched Chimel's (D) home after he refused claiming they had authority incident to lawful arrest. The police searched the entire house including attic and garage and had Chimel's (D) wife open several drawers so they could see clearly. Several items were seized, including coins, medals, tokens, and other objects. Rule: Arresting officer may search person arrested and the area into which the arrestee might reach, in order to remove any weapons or seize evidence on his person. Note: Established the Wingspan Rule and the twin-rationales for the SIA doctrine: officer safety and preservation of evidence

drone - aerial space

Cirallo Is there govt action with the use of the drone? Flies where it isn't supposed is there reasonable expectation of privacy? Use cirallo, open fields, kilo Can the evidence retrieved by this drone be used? Lack of probable cause?

PC exceptions

Consent SIA terry stop and frisk apprehension inspection border search inventory sobriety check employee search medical purpose

5th Amendment - DP and right not to self-incriminate

Due Process Approach (1) Proof of coercion difficulties (2) Inherently coercive atmosphere (3) Rule that allows D's out of court statements to be used at trial (4) Fragile D (usually children) (5) Police overreaching

"ESCAPIST" WARRANT EXCEPTIONS

EC SIA CONSENT AUTOMOBILES PLAIN VIEW INVENTORIES SPECIAL - sobriety checkpoint, medical purpose,employee/ border search TERRY STOP AND FRISK

Mapp v. Ohio

Exclusionary rule applies to states

Berkemer v. McCarty

Facts: Rule: A person is "in custody" if a reasonable person who has been identified by law enforcement officers would, in light of the circumstances of the detention, believe that his freedom of action had been curtailed to a "degree associated with formal arrest." • Standard is very fact-specific Interrogation? • Any words or actions by the police that they knew or should have knwon would likely elicit an incriminating response from a defendant • Test: would a reasonable interrogator see the questions as ones likely to elicit an incriminating response? • Subjective views of investigator irrelevant

Minnesota v. Carter

Facts: (D) and his partner were in apartment of Thompson (the lessee), packaging cocaine into baggies. Ds were in apartment for short time, solely for the purpose of packaging cocaine. Rule: Residential visitors in the home of a third-party for a short time and only connection to host is to transact business have no legitimate expectation of privacy to assert Fourth Amendment rights.

California v. Ciralo

Facts: (D) was growing marijuana in his backyard and had taken steps to ensure they were not visible from the ground by building a 6-foot fence. Police received an anonymous tip, so police trained in marijuana identification secured a private plant and flew 1,000 over D's yard. Rule: Warrantless aerial observation of fenced-in backyard within curtilage of home was not unreasonable search because any member of the public could legally fly over D's property and see plants. Curtilage: the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.' → much 4th Amend. protection, but not complete Open Fields: unoccupied or underdeveloped areas outside the curtilage that may or may not be owned → no reasonable expectation of privacy

Bond v. US

Facts: A Border Patrol Agent was checking the immigration status of bus passengers. The Agent was squeezing and prodding the exterior of the luggage of bus passengers to determine the contents when he noticed a "brick like" object in Bond's (D) luggage. Rule: Physically invasive inspection through tactile observation is simply more intrusive than purely visual inspection as an unreasonable search of an effect. Note: the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant

Arizona v. Hicks

Facts: A bullet when through the floor of Hick's (D) apartment and injured a man in the apartment below. While searching Hick's (D) apartment for the shooter, weapons or other victims, the police officer noticed an expensive stereo he suspected was stolen. The officer read the serial numbers on the equipment by moving some of the components. The stereo was in fact stolen. Rule: The officer's actions in moving equipment to locate serial numbers constituted "search" which had to be supported by probable cause even though officer was lawfully in apartment where equipment was located. Note: The "plain view" doctrine alone may not justify warrantless searches and seizures of a dwelling.

Steagald v. US

Facts: A confidential informant notified a DEA agent in Michigan about the potential whereabouts of Lyons, a federal fugitive wanted on drug charges. That DEA agent notified a fellow agent in Atlanta. In Atlanta, the DEA agent and other officers went to home a few days later and noticed Gaultney and Steagald (D) standing outside. The officers approached with guns drawn, frisked both men, demanded ID and learned neither was Lyons. The agents proceeded to the house and allowed themselves inside. Lyons was never found, but the agents conducted two warrantless searches. After noticing what may be cocaine, the officers obtained a search warrant. On the third search, officers located 43 pound of cocaine. Rule: Absent exigent circumstances or consent, law enforcement officer cannot legally search for subject of arrest warrant in home of third party, without first obtaining search warrant.

Draper v. US

Facts: A federal narcotics agent received information from an informant that Draper (D) had gone to Chicago by train to retrieve heroin. The informant had been accurate and reliable in the past. Also, he gave detailed description of Draper (D), the clothes he'd be wearing, he'd have a "tan zipper bag," he "walked real fast" and would return on the morning of the 8th or 9th day. Rule: Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within their [the arresting officers'] 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. Note: This case established the hearsay-based probable cause and the "totality of the circumstances" test.

California v. Hodari

Facts: A group of kids were hovered around a car and they all fled when they saw the police approaching. Hodari (D), a juvenile, was being chased by a police officer when he tossed away what appeared to be a small rock, before he was tackled and handcuffed by the officer. The rock Hodari (D) discarded turned out to be crack cocaine. Rule: In order for "seizure" to have occurred, there must either be some application of physical force, even if extremely slight, or a show of authority to which the subject yields; a show of authority, without any application of physical force, to which the subject does not yield is not a "seizure."

Schnecklothe v. Bustamonte

Facts: A police officer stopped a car because its headlight and license plate light were out. The driver, Alcala, couldn't produce a license, so the officer asked to search the car she claimed was owned by her brother. She said, "Sure, go ahead." Alcala opened the trunk and glove compartment. The search uncovered three stolen checks linked to one of the passengers, Bustamonte (D). Rule: An individual need not be informed that he has the right to refuse consent to a search before his consent to the search will be considered voluntary, but will be a factor taken into account to determine voluntariness

US v. Watson

Facts: A reliable informant told a federal postal inspector that Watson (D) was dealing in stolen credit cards. At the next meeting, the inspector arrested Watson (D) without a warrant as authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3061. Rule: An officer with probable cause to make a felony arrest is not required to obtain an arrest warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Note: D gave consent to search of automobile while in custody on street after valid arrest with Miranda warnings and notice that results of search could be used against him. The search was not the result of any overt act or threat of force against D.

Spano v. NY

Facts: After Spano (D) was beaten in a barroom fight with a former pro boxer, he later obtained a gun and killed him. Spano (D) called his friend Bruno who was attending the police academy to tell him he wasn't thinking clearly and killed a man. Spano (D) said he intended to get a lawyer and surrender to police. Before Spano's (D) surrender, Bruno told his superiors. After Spano's (D) surrender, Bruno was repeatedly asked about the murder but, on the advice of his attorney, he refused to answer despite long hours of questioning. The police made use of Bruno's relationship with Spano (D). Bruno told Spano a fabricated story that his job was in jeopardy because of Spano's (D) unwillingness to talk. After four attempts to get Spano (D) to confess to Bruno, Spano finally agreed to make a statement. The confession was introduced at trial. Rule: A confession provided by a defendant suffering from fatigue and emotional distress brought on by police pressure is not voluntary. Note: Voluntariness is determined through a totality of the circumstances test

US v. Jones

Facts: After investigation of a nightclub owner, the government got a warrant for a GPS to be installed in 10 days in District of Columbia on Jones' (D) jeep. On the 11th day, agents installed the device in Maryland, tracked him for the next 28 days, and even replaced the battery once. Rule: Physical intrusion of private property for the purpose of obtaining information is a violation of the trespassory test for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test, so REP is not the exclusive test. Concurrence, Sotomayor - To deal with emerging technology, it may be necessary to reconsider premise that there is no REP in information voluntarily disclosed to 3rd parties Concurrence, Alito, w/ Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan - Court could have found D's REP were violated as an unreasonable degree of intrusion. Technological changes may begin to diminish society's expectation of privacy for increased convenience or security.

Smith v. Maryland

Facts: After reporting a robbery to police, a woman began receiving threatening calls at her home. The woman identified a Monte Carlo she'd seen at the robbery that was traced to (D). The police requested a pen register to record the numbers dialed from Smith's (D) home. Rule: No reasonable expectation of privacy as to the means of communication when the individual has already knowingly shared the information with a third party.

Payton v. NY

Facts: After two days of investigating the murder of a gas station manager, New York detectives had assembled enough evidence to believe that Theodore Payton (D1) was the murderer. Subsequently, six officers went to Payton's (D1) apartment intending to arrest him. They had not obtained a warrant. After knocking on the door to no avail they pried the door open and entered. No one was present, but in plain view there was a .30 caliber shell casing that was seized and later admitted against Payton (D1) at trial. Payton (D1) was convicted. In the companion case, police had learned the address of Obie Riddick (D2), a suspect in two armed robberies. They did not obtain a warrant for his arrest. Four officers went to Riddick's (D2) residence and knocked on the door. When Riddick's (D2) young son answered the door the police could see Riddick (D2) sitting in bed. They entered the house and arrested Riddick (D2). Before permitting him to dress they opened a dresser drawer to search for weapons and [surprise, surprise!] discovered narcotics. Riddick (D2) was convicted of narcotic charges. Rule: Absent exigent circumstances, police are required to have an arrest warrant before entering a suspect's home to make an arrest, otherwise any evidence seized therein is inadmissible against the suspect.

Kyllo v. US

Facts: Agents of the Dept. of Interior used a thermal imager to detect high amounts of hear from Kyllo's (D) home. Tips from informants, utility bills and the thermal imaging were used to obtain a warrant. The search uncovered an indoor growing operation with over 100 plants. Rule: The use of a device not used by the general public to obtain evidence emanating from the interior of a residence that cannot otherwise be obtained without physical intrusion constitutes a search.

Stovall v. Deno

Facts: An intruder broke into the home of Dr. and Mrs. Behrendt, killing Dr. Behrendt and stabbing Mrs. Behrendt eleven times. Recovering a shirt and a set of keys from the scene, police traced the evidence to Stovall (D) and arrested him. The next day, Stovall (D) was escorted to the hospital by five while police officers and two white district attorneys. and positively identified as Mrs. Behrendt's attacker. Stovall (D) had no counsel present. Mrs. Behrendt and the officers testified at trial to the identification of Stovall (D). Rule: A show-up, rather than a traditional lineup, used for identification violates the accused's due process rights when it is "unnecessarily suggestive" under the totality of the circumstances. Note: The due process clause was not violated because the suggestive show-up was necessary since no one knew how long the victim might live.

Terry v. Ohio

Facts: An officer saw Terry (D) and two other men "casing" a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the men and performed a quick search before questioning. A quick frisking of Terry (D) produced a concealed weapon which D was then later charged. Rule: If the police have reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime, they may stop the person, detain him briefly for questioning, and then frisk the suspect if they reasonably believe the suspect is carrying a dangerous weapon. Note: Temporary investigative detention. To justify a particular intrusion, the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion; facts must be judged against objective standard of whether facts available to officer at moment of seizure or search would warrant man of reasonable caution in belief that action taken was appropriate. • Standard for justifying a stop = reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot • Standard for justifying a frisk = reasonable suspicion to believe that the men were armed and dangerous

Warden v. Hayden

Facts: Armed robber took $363 from Diamond Cab Company. Two cab drivers followed man to residence. He entered residence five minutes before police arrived. When officers arrived, they were allowed inside and conducted full search of home. They found guns, ammo and robber's clothes in the washing machine. Rule: Police may conduct a warrantless search of a dwelling the suspect has entered into if the police are in "hot pursuit" of the suspect to ensure that there are no persons or weapons that could place them in danger. Note: The hot pursuit doctrine is based on the premise that the suspect, knowing that he is being pursued, may try to escape, destroy evidence, or create a threat to public safety.

Ashcraft v. Tennessee

Facts: Ashcraft (D) was charged with hiring a negro to kill his wife. The police conducted investigations and conferred with Ashcraft (D) the next few weeks. Eventually, Ashcraft (D) was taken into custody on the fifth floor of the county jail and questioned 'in relays' for 36 straight hours minus a five minute break. Rule: A confession has to be voluntary and cannot involve compelled coercion. Note: Test for voluntariness is very fact-specific → the court will look to the actions of law enforcement (use of force, length of detention, intensity/duration of questioning, etc.) and to the nature of the person being investigated (age, education, mental/physical condition, etc.).

Wong Sun v. US

Facts: At 2:00 a.m., police arrested Hom Way, who was found with heroin in his possession. Hom Way had been under surveillance by federal narcotics agents for six weeks. Hom Way told police that he had purchased an ounce of heroin the night before from someone known to him only as "Blackie Toy," who owned a laundry on Leavenworth Street. About 6:00 a.m. that same day, six or seven federal agents arrived at Oye's Laundry, which was operated by James Wah Toy (D). While the other officers remained out of sight, Agent Alton Wong, of Chinese ancestory, rang the bell, and requested laundry and dry cleaning service. Toy (D) opened the door and informed the agent to return at 8:00 a.m., when the store was open. As Toy (D) started to close the door, Agent Wong showed Toy (D) his badge, and introduced himself as a federal narcotics agent. Toy (D) slammed the door and ran down the hallway through the laundry to his living quarters at the back, where his wife and child were asleep in a bedroom. Accompanied by other officers, Agent Wong broke open the door to the laundry and followed Toy (D) into the bedroom. Toy reached into a nightstand drawer, and Agent Wong drew his pistol, removed Toy's (D) hand from the drawer, and arrested and handcuffed Toy (D). Officers found nothing in the drawer; nor did a search of the premises uncover any narcotics. Toy (D) denied selling any narcotics, but indicated that a person, whom he knew only as "Johnny," was selling drugs. Acting on information provided by Toy (D), the officers located and entered Johnny's residence, where they found Johnny Yee in the bedroom. Yee eventually surrendered several tubes (containing in total less than one ounce of heroin) to the agents. Within the hour, Yee and Toy (D) were taken into custody, where Yee stated that the heroin had been brought to him about four days earlier by petitioner Toy (D) and another Chinese man known only to him as "Sea Dog." Toy (D), when questioned, revealed the identity of "Sea Dog" to be defendant Wong Sun (D). Again, based on information provided by Toy (D), police located Wong Sun's (D) residence, where Agent Wong ran a downstairs bell and was buzzed into the building. He met a woman on the stairway and introduced himself as a narcotics agent who was looking for Mr. Wong. The woman, who turned out to be Wong Sun's wife, told the officer that Wong Sun (D) was in the back room sleeping. Officer Wong and several other agents entered the apartment and Wong Sun (D) was escorted from the back bedroom in handcuffs. A thorough search of the apartment did not uncover any narcotics. All three men - Toy (D), Yee and Wong Sun (D) - were arraigned and released on their own recognizance. A few days later, the three men were interrogated at the office of the Narcotics Bureau by Agent William Wong (also of Chinese descent). All were given Miranda warnings and were questioned separately. Each made statements that were reduced to writing. After making several corrections to his written statement, Toy (D) refused to sign it. Wong Sun (D), who had considerable difficulty understanding the statement in English, was read it in Chinese, and refused to sign the statement although he admitted the accuracy of its contents. Hom Way did not testify at Toy's (D) or Wong Sun's (D) trials. Yee, at first offered as the prosecution's principal witness, was excused after he invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and flatly repudiated the statement he had given to Agent William Wong. That statement was not offered in evidence, nor was any testimony elicited from him identifying either of the other defendants as the source of the heroin in his possession or otherwise tending to support the charges against the petitioners. The prosecution offered four items of evidence tending to prove Toy's (D) and Wong Sun's (D) possession of heroin: (1) the statements made orally by Toy (d) in his bedroom at the time of his arrest; (2) the heroin surrendered to the agents by Johnny Yee; (3) petitioner Toy's (D) pretrial unsigned statement; and (4) petitioner Wong Sun's (D) similar statement. The trial court admitted these items into evidence. Rule: Evidence (verbal or physical) that derives so immediately from an unlawful search or seizure is inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree" unless the evidence was obtained from an independent source or the connection between the lawless conduct and the discovery of the challenged evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. Issue 1 Should the statements made by Toy (D) in his bedroom be excluded as "fruits" of the agents' unlawful action? Yes. Toy (D) was arrested without reasonable or probable cause. As is the case with more traditional physical evidence, verbal evidence that derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and unauthorized arrest like the officers' action in the present case is the :"fruit" of official illegality. Moreover, Toy's (D) statements were not, as the prosecution contends, "an intervening act of free will." Six or seven officers had broken down the door and pursued Toy (D) into the bedroom, where his wife and child were sleeping. Toy (D) was almost immediately handcuffed and arrested. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to infer that Toy's (D) response was sufficiently an action of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion. Reversed. Issue 2 Does the exclusion of Toy's (D) declaration make the narcotics taken from Yee, to whom those declarations led the police, inadmissible against Toy (D)? Yes. The prosecution would not have found the narcotics without Toy's (D) statements. Hence, the prosecution did not learn of the evidence "from an independent source." Nor was the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence "so attenuated as to dissipate the taint." Not all evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree" simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the issue is "whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which the instant objection is made had been come at by the exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint." Here, the narcotics were "come at by exploitation of the illegality" and are, therefore, inadmissible against Toy (D). Reversed. Issue 3 Was the unsigned confession of Wong Sun (D) the fruit of the unlawful arrest and therefore inadmissible against Wong Sun (D) at trial? No. Wong Sun had been released on his own recognizance after a lawful arraignment and returned voluntarily several days later to make the statement. Therefore, the connection between his initially unlawful arrest and the statement had "become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint." The fact that the statement was unsigned does not affect its admissibility. Wong Sun understood and adopted its substance, and has not suggested any impropriety in the interrogation itself that would require the exclusion of this statement. Affirmed. Issue 4 Were the narcotics surrendered by Yee admissible against Wong Sun (D)? Yes. The exclusion of the drugs as to Toy (D) was required solely by their tainted relationship to information unlawfully obtained from Toy (D), and not by any impropriety connected with their surrender to Yee. The seizure of the heroin invaded no right of privacy of person or premises that would entitle Wong Sun (D) to object to its use at his trial. Affirmed. Analysis: The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine prohibits the admissibility of evidence illegally seized and any evidence obtained as the result of an illegal seizure. Where, however, intervening circumstances or a sufficient amount of time has elapsed between the illegality, the evidence may be introduced on the ground that the taint of illegality has "dissipated." Note, however, that the passage of time means little when the illegality involves an unlawful detention; a long detention, like a short one, may compound the taint of an illegal arrest. *Independent-source rule: The rule providing - as an exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine - that evidence obtained by illegal means may nonetheless be admissible if that evidence is also obtained by legal means unrelated to the original illegal conduct. Black Letter Law Case establishing the exception doctrine for the exclusionary rule. The Court held that the rule that regulates use of out-of-court statements is one of admissibility, rather than simply of weight of evidence, and codefendant's statement, which will not suffice to convict, may not serve to corroborate. Test of excludability is not whether evidence would not have come to light but for illegal actions of police, but whether evidence obtained by exploitation of illegality rather than by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of primary taint.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

Facts: Atwater (D) was arrested and taken to jail for violating Texas statute by failing to wear her seat belt, fasten her child in a seat belt, driving without a license and proof of insurance. Rule: When an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may arrest the offender without violating the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. v. Chadwick

Facts: Chadwick (D) and partner boarded train for Boston with a footlocker containing drugs. They were arrested lifting the footlocker into the trunk of a car. About an hour and a half after the arrest, the agents unlocked the footlocker without a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances to discover large amounts of marijuana. Rule: A search warrant is required to search personal property of an arrestee at the point where the property to be searched comes under the exclusive dominion of police authority - can't use automobile exception for luggage absent warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. Note: Abrogated by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)

Chambers v. Maroney

Facts: Chambers (D) was charged with armed robbery. The police stopped a blue station wagon with four men and one wearing a green sweater that was seen leaving the scene of the crime. The occupants were arrested and police took the car to the station. The police found evidence from the robbery and one conducted a week prior. Rule: If there is probable cause that automobile contains articles that officers are entitled to seize, then the automobile may be searched without a warrant and the police can take the car to the station to do the full search. Note: The opportunity to search an automobile is fleeting because they are readily moveable which is rationale for why they may be searched without a warrant or may be seized.

Colorado v. Connelly

Facts: Connelly (D) approached an officer without any provocation and confessed to a murder. The cop informed him of his Miranda rights and Connelly (D) said he understood. Connelly (D0 had received medical treatment in the past, but seemed to fully understand his actions. Subsequently, Connelly confessed to killing a young girl in Colorado and took them to the crime scene. The next day, a public defender claimed Connelly (D) exhibited signs of disorientation. Connelly (D) suffered from chronic schizophrenia which interfered with his ability to make free and rational choices and the "voice of God" motivated his confession. Rule: A coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that confession is not voluntary under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Note: Can't use "stupid" as a disability to receive a get out of jail free card!

US v. White

Facts: D and a government informant, Jackson, discussed several illegal drug transactions in Jackson's home, car and in a public restaurant while Jackson was wearing a listening device. Rule: Individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversations with others. There's a risk that communications with another will be transmitted, electronically or otherwise, to government agents.

Weeks v. US

Facts: D was the subject of an illegal search conducted by a U.S. Marshall looking for evidence of illegal gambling, who had entered and searched his home without a warrant. Rule: The Fourth Amendment forbids federal officers from obtaining evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence will be excluded when the Fourth Amendment is violated.

US v. Mendenhall

Facts: DEA agents at an airport believed Mendenhall (D) fit a "drug courier profile." They approached her and asked for her ticket and ID. The ticket was under a different name. She was asked to accompany them to an office for further questioning. She did so without protest. She consented to a search of her and her purse when she said, "Go ahead." The strip search resulted in finding heroin. Rule: A person is "seized" when, by means of physical force or show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained. Must view all the facts and then determine whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he was not free to leave.

Rakas v. Illinois

Facts: Defendants were merely passengers in a vehicle with the owner's permission. The police searched the car and found rifle shells and a sawed off shotgun which neither defendant owned. Rule: To assert a 4th Amendment right the accused must have either a property or a possessory interest in the automobile searched or in the property seized. Failure to show any legitimate expectation of privacy in the glove compartment or area under the seat of the vehicle in which they were merely passengers, meant they were not entitled to challenge the search of those areas. Person's rights violated by search or seizure → during unlawful search, whether the person had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded space Unlawful seizure of things or places → whether person had a possessory interest in the things or places seized Unlawful seizure of a person → whether the person's freedom of movement was affected in a substantial way

Florida v. Jardines

Facts: Detective approached Jardines' (D) home due to unverified tip that marijuana was being grown. Detective brought Franky the dog whom detected narcotics by exhibiting "bracketing." Rule: It is a violation to conduct an investigation on the curtilage of one's home through an unlicensed physical intrusion because the curtilage enjoys protection as part of the home itself. Concurrence, Kagan w/ Ginsburg and Sotomayor - Cops violated Jardines' REP by bringing super-sensitive instrument (drug sniffing dog) to perceive things inside the home. Dissent, Alito w/ Chief Justice, Kennedy, and Breyer - Cops had an implied license to lawfully approach the front door to gather evidence such as asking potentially incriminating questions. Also, a reasonable person understands that odors from the home may be detected by the public.

Katz v. US

Facts: FBI agents obtained evidence of D's conversations through a listening device attached to a public telephone without a search warrant. Rule: The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Thus, it protects all communications that a person does not knowingly expose to the public. Note: Established reasonable expectation of privacy standard for Fourth Amendment.

Manson v. Brathwaithe

Facts: Glover, an undercover narcotics agent, and informant went to an apartment to buy drugs. Glover described the seller to another agent. Based on the description, the agent retrieved a file photograph of Brathwaite (D) and left it in Glover's office. Two days later, Glover returned and identified Brathwaite (D) as the man that sold him drugs. Rule: An unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification of the defendant need not be excluded if it is sufficiently reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Note: Reliability is the linchpin of identification testimony. Factors to consider reliability of identification include (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the perpetrator at the time of the crime, (2) the witness' degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, (4) the level of certainty demonstrated at confrontation, and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation.

Grubbs v. US

Facts: Grubbs (D) purchased a videotape containing child pornography from a Web site operated by an undercover postal inspector. A controlled delivery was arranged and an anticipatory warrant was issued that could only be executed once the videotape was received and taken into the home. Rule: Anticipatory warrants are permissible when based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place. - "All warrants are, in a sense, anticipatory" Note: When an anticipatory warrant is issued, the fact that the contraband is not presently at the place described is immaterial, so long as there is probable cause to believe it will be there when the warrant is executed. Anticipatory warrants require the magistrate to determine (1) that it is now probable that (2) contraband, evidence of a crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when the warrant is executed.

South Dakota v. Opperman

Facts: Local ordinances prohibit parking in certain areas from 2 am to 6 am. Opperman (D) received a parking ticket at 3 am and 10 am. D's car was towed to city impound. Following, standard police procedures, the officer collected the property in the car including a bag of marijuana in the unlocked glove compartment. D was arrested for possession of marijuana. Rule: When vehicles are impounded, it is SOP to secure and inventory the contents to protect the owner's property in custody, protect the police from claims over lost or stolen property, and to protect the police from potential danger. Note: This would be considered "reasonable" if the Fourth Amendment is applied.

US v. Matlock

Facts: Matlock (D) was indicted for robbery of a federally insured bank and was arrested in the front yard of his home. Matlock lived in the home with the owners and their children, including Mrs. Gayle Graff and her son. The officers received voluntary consent from Mrs. Graff to search the home to find money and a gun. They found $4,995 in cash in a diaper bag in the east bedroom that was jointly occupied by Matlock (D) and herself. Rule: Consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.

Vale v. Louisiana

Facts: Officers were watching Vale's house because they had two warrants for his arrest when a car pulled up. Vale went to passenger side, then went inside and came back out a few minutes later, and gave something to the driver. The officers were convinced a narcotics sale had taken place. They pulled up and arrested both Vale and the driver of the car in the driveway. The driver was a known narcotics addict and was seen swallowing what was thought to be drugs. The police searched Vale's whole house and found a quantity of narcotics in the rear bedroom . Rule: A search may be incident to an arrest "only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest." If a search of a house is to be upheld as incident to an arrest, that arrest must take place inside the house, not somewhere outside - whether two blocks away, twenty feet away, or on the sidewalk near the front steps. Note: There is a temporal requirement for exigent circumstances; no exigent circumstances b/c officers weren't in hot pursuit, goods not in process of destruction nor was safety a concern.

Illinois v. Perkins

Facts: Perkins (D) tells fellow inmate of murder. Inmate tells police. Officer and inmate placed in cell next to Perkins (D). The three gather to "plan" escape. Officer asks Perkins (D) if he had ever "done" anyone? Perkins describes earlier murder in detail. Analysis: The purpose of Miranda is to preserve the privilege in coercive atmosphere. Coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation. Coercion is determined from suspect's perspective. Perkins thought he was talking to cellmates. Therefore, Perkins was motivated by desire to impress fellow inmates, not coercion. Black Letter Law Held that an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate was not required to give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that could elicit an incriminating response. Conversations between incarcerated suspects and undercover agents posing as fellow inmates do not necessarily implicate the concerns underlying Miranda; essential elements of a "police-dominated atmosphere" and compulsion are not present when incarcerated person speaks freely to someone he believes to be a fellow inmate. When does custody occur? • What would a reasonable person think o A reasonable person that hadn't broken the law would conform to the law to clear the matter up o Put into custody when: handcuffed; put in police car and door shut • That seems to be the 'bright-line' • maybe even put in police car with door open if it's just a routine traffic stop • when a person is in custody, you can do your police duties without Miranda, but you must Miranda them before asking any questions o that way, if someone is blabbing, you may use that against them because you are just a passive listening device

Whren v. US

Facts: Police in plain clothes and unmarked car pulled a U-turn when they believed two African Americans in DC stopped at a stop sign for more than 20 seconds in a car with temporary plates were suspicious. The vehicle turned without signaling and sped off at an "unreasonable" speed. The officers stopped the vehicle and saw bags of drugs laying on the defendant passenger's lap. Rule: The temporary detention of a motorist is reasonable where police have probable cause to believe that a civil traffic violation has occurred. Note: Probable Cause is an objective standard.

NY v. Belton

Facts: Police officer pulled over a speeding car. The officer learned none of the four men were the owners of the car, so he ordered them out of the car. The officer found a contained he believed to contain marijuana on the floor of the passenger seat. He opened the package entitled "Supergold" and detected marijuana. The officer arrested the four men. He then searched the pockets of a jacket lying on the backseat of the automobile. The officer found cocaine in the pockets of the jacket. Rule: When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupants of an automobile he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and may also examine the contents of any container found within the passenger compartment and such "container", i.e. an object capable of holding another object, may be searched whether it is open or closed. Allows search of passenger's compartment and containers found therein under a SIA theory.

Florida v. Bostick

Facts: Police officers were conducting a routine procedure of boarding buses at scheduled stops to search luggage. Officers boarded a bus on route to Atlanta from Miami and discovered cocaine when they searched a suitcase belonging to Bostick (D). Police approached Bostick (D) with articulable suspicion, requested his consent to search his luggage, advised him of his right to refuse and never threatened him with a gun. Rule: The test is whether or not a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise to terminate encounter; "free to leave" test does not apply where party's freedom of movement is restricted by factor independent of police conduct (ex. bus passenger) Note: The test for the seizure of the person is made from the point of view of the reasonable innocent person.

California v. Carney

Facts: Police received information that a motor home occupied by Carney (D) was being used to exchange marijuana for sex. Police sent a youth into motor home for over an hour and youth emerged saying he received marijuana or sexual contact. Police then entered motor home without a warrant or consent to discover marijuana, a scale and plastic bags. Rule: The automobile exception to the warrant requirement includes protection for vehicles such as motor homes, vans, and other vehicles that are portable and capable of ready movement. Note: It would have been different if motorhome was inoperable and on blocks. However, if it has wheels, then I DON'T need a warrant to search. All I need is probable cause.

Mapp v. Ohio

Facts: Police sought entrance to Ds house to look for a suspect in a bombing. The police eventually just entered the home without a warrant and found pornographic materials for which she later was criminally prosecuted. Rule: All evidence obtained by unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court. The Exclusionary Rule is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

US v. Robinson

Facts: Police stopped Robinson (D) and arrested him on suspicion of driving without a license because they knew his license had been revoked which violates a statute carrying a mandatory minimum jail term, fine or both. The police performed a protective frisk and found a crumpled up cigarette package with gelatin capsules with heroin in his front shirt pocket. Rule: In the case of a lawful custodial arrest, a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search to promote officer safety even though it wasn't the fruits of the particular crime.

Horton v. California

Facts: Police suspected Horton (D) of armed robbery. They requested a warrant to search his home for weapons used in the crime and the fruits of the robbery. The warrant failed to mention the weapons. The officers conducting the search didn't find the stolen merchandise the warrant specified, but did find guns and other evidence connecting Horton (D) to the robbery. Rule: The warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is not prohibited when from a lawful position or during a legal search when the officer has probable cause to believe that the item is evidence of a crime, even if the discovery of evidence was inadvertent.

Illinois v. Rodriguez

Facts: Police went to Gail Fischer's home and she showed signs of severe beating. She led police to Rodriguez (D) in his apartment, unlocked the door with her key and let them in. She repeatedly referred to the apartment as "our" apartment and told police she had clothes and furniture there. She let the police in without an arrest warrant for D or a search warrant for the apartment. Once inside, the police discovered cocaine and paraphernalia in plain view. Rule: Determination of consent is determined with an objective standard. When law enforcement reasonably believe the individual giving consent to a search has authority over the premises to be searched, then the entry will be validated even if the person didn't have authority.

Johnson v. US

Facts: Seattle police learned from confidential informant that unknown persons were smoking opium in the Europe Hotel. The police told the woman while knocking on the door that she should "consider herself under arrest" so she let them in and they recovered the drugs. Rule: A search without a Warrant is unreasonable unless there is an exception.

Spinelli v. US

Facts: Spinelli (D) was observed for five days by the FBI under suspicion from a reliable confidential informant's tip that he was running an illegal gambling operation in Missouri. Rule: Two prong test used by state courts to issue a warrant based on an informant's information: [1] is there an adequate basis of knowledge of informant [2] do facts establish either - • A. veracity of information -or - • B. reliability of the informant If informant's knowledge was personal → then, must show they were reliable in the past If no personal knowledge → then, must show they were reliable in the past and that the information they received was valid

Dunaway v. NY

Facts: The owner of a pizza parlor was killed during an attempted robbery. An informant's tip implicated Dunaway (D) a few months later, but not enough to get a warrant. Police took Dunaway (D) into custody at the police station. He wasn't under arrest, but would have been restrained if he attempted to leave. Dunaway (D) subsequently incriminated himself. Rule: Police may not subject a suspect to custodial interrogation unless they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Note: D was "seized" when arrested and taken to police station for questioning without PC.

Arizona v. Gant

Facts: The police had reliable information that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the arrest of Gant (D) for driving with a suspended license. The police came upon Gant (D) exiting his car in a driveway where they had just made a drug arrest. They handcuffed Gant (D) and put him in the back of a squad car, then they searched his vehicle and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Rule: Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Illinois v. Gates

Facts: The police received an anonymous handwritten letter that alleged in detain that the Gates' (D) would travel to Florida regularly to purchase large quantities of drugs. Rule: The test for informants is "totality of the circumstances" in Federal court to establish probable cause for issuance of a warrant and allows for anonymous tips to factor into equation. Note: Probable cause is a judicial discretion issue at the trial court which removes these issues from appellate review and gives police officers phenomenal power to develop probable cause.

California v. Acevedo

Facts: The police were monitoring Daza's apartment because they knew he'd taken a package with marijuana into his home. As officers went to obtain a search warrant, Acevedo (D) entered Daza's apartment and emerged 10 minutes later with a bag. Acevedo (D) placed the bag in the trunk of his car and drove away. Police stopped his car, opened the trunk and found the bag of marijuana, which they then opened. Rule: Police can search an automobile and all containers in it when they have probable cause to believe contraband is contained somewhere within the automobile. Note: Can even open a locked container, so long as you have PC to believe the "fruit of the crime" could be contained in that container.

Michigan v. Long

Facts: Two officers were on patrol in a rural area around midnight when they observed a car travelling erratically at an excessive speed. The car swerved off into a shallow ditch. When the officers investigated, they met Long (D) who was at the rear of the car and the driver's side door was left wide open. An officer had to request multiple times for Long (D) to produce his license and registration. Long (D) appeared to be under the influence of something. Long (D) started walking back to the car. Once the officers noticed a large hunting knife in the back of Long's (D) car, they stopped him and gave him a Terry protective pat-down which revealed no weapons. One officer shined his light in the car to search for other weapons without actually entering the car. The officer noticed an open pouch under the armrest of the front seat that contained marijuana. A further search of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed no contraband. The car was impounded. Once impounded, the trunk was searched (which did not have a lock) and 75 pounds of marijuana was discovered. Rule: The Court held that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles of Terry and other decisions of the Court because there was reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. Note: Search of passenger compartment of automobile, limited to those areas in which weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if police officer possesses reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant officers in believing that suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.

Georgia v. Randolph

Facts: When police responded to a domestic disturbance , the wife told officers there was drug evidence in the house. Randolph (D), her husband, refused to let the officers search. The wife gave consent and led the officers to evidence. The officers got an evidence bag. Then, they called the DA who advised to get a warrant. Then, the wife withdrew consent. The police took the evidence they'd gathered and later returned with a search warrant. Rule: A physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid as to him. When one co-habitant refuses entry, the permission of the other will not be sufficient.

Texas v. White

Facts: White (D) was arrested at a bank attempting to pass fraudulent checks. White (D) was arrested and one officer drove his car to the station. At the station, the officers searched the car without White's (D) consent. The officers found the fake checks he'd stuffed between the seats. Rule: A delay to search without a warrant when there is probable cause is allowed so long as the delay is reasonable and we look to the circumstances to determine reasonableness.

WILSON v. US

Facts: Wilson (D) made a series of narcotics sales to an informant. On December 30, Wilson (D) sold marijuana to informant at a local stole, produced a semiautomatic pistol and threatened the informant. The next day, police obtained warrants to search Wilson's (D) home and arrest both Wilson (D) and Jacobs. Police officers found the main door of the house open. While opening an unlocked screen door and entering the residence, they identified themselves as police officers and stated that they had a warrant. While in the home, officers seized marijuana, meth, valium, narcotics paraphernalia, a gun, and ammunition and caught Wilson (D) flushing marijuana down the toilet. Rule: The "knock and announce" common law principle is a factor to consider in determining reasonableness of search under Fourth Amendment, because sometimes it is not necessary if it would endanger officer safety or the preservation of evidence.

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions

Good Faith -independent source -inevitable discovery -attenuation of the taint -impeachment

Terry Stops

Liberty → PC → Arrest (1) Reasonable suspicion of the officer (2) Stop and frisk (3) The first two generate probable cause (4) Then arrest (5) Then trial **this allows law enforcement to intrude into zone of privacy **allowed for the safety concerns of the officer and to protect the society

PC

PC to arrest • Facts and circumstances within the cops knowledge and of which they have 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 by the person arrested • Certain quantum of evidence that: o A particular individual o Is committing or has committed a crime **not location specific, it is INDIVIDUAL specific → goes to the person, not the place PC to search • PC to search exists if the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution In the believe that an item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched • Certain quantum of likelihood that: o Property subject to seizure o Is presently o In the place to be searched **depends on the size of the item you are searching for on what you have PC to search Possible factors for PC • Source of the information • Method of obtaining it • Amount of it • Quality of information • And the timeliness **if a reasonable person with a reasonable belief would believe that the person committed the crime or the fruits of a crime would be available, then I have PC PC for Warrants • To arrest o Crime was or will be committed o Person committed the crime • To search o Crime was or will be committed o Evidence specified related to the crime o That Evidence will be located in the place you intend to search **need a reasonable belief for these elements to get PC for a warrant Proof of PC for a Warrant: (1) Direct testimony → cop said "I saw" (2) Indirect testimony → hearsay (3) Reputation of person or place ex. crack house (4) Admission that a crime was committed (5) Circumstantial evidence (6) Circumstantial evidence plus an opinion Types of Direct and Indirect • Victim - no corroboration required unless an underworld figure, then because reliability is a problem • Neutral citizen - usually no corroboration • Cop - OK • Informant - must pass Gates and Spinelli tests

PC to Arrest

PC to arrest exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they have 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. • PC is established by "totality of the circumstances" • Certain quantum of evidence that: o A particular individual o Is committing or has committed a crime

PC to Search

PC to search exists if the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched. • Certain quantum of likelihood that: o Property subject to seizure o Is presently o In the place to be searched

Oregon v. Elstad

Rule: Although Miranda requires the suppression of an un-warned admission, the admission of any subsequent statement turns solely on whether it was knowingly and voluntarily made.

Brown v. Illinois

Rule: Miranda warning do not, in and of themselves, cure a Fourth Amendment violation. In order to break the causal chain between the illegal arrest and the subsequent confession and thus purge the taint, there must be an intervening act of free will.

Miranda v. Arizona

Rule: No statements obtained during a custodial interrogation, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, may be used against the defendant at trial unless the prosecution proves that the accused was advised (1) of the right to remain silent, (2) that any statements made can and will be used against the accused at trial, and (3) that the accused has the right to an attorney prior to and during questioning. Note: PASI for 5th Amendment purposes is created by custodial interrogation.

Hudson v. Michigan

Rule: The exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress evidence obtained through a violation of the knock-and-announce rule.

NEED search warrant

Steagald - looking for arrest warrant subject in 3rd party's home without obtaining search warrant for 3rd party home

Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule prevents the introduction in criminal trials of evidence that was obtained by violating Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. This is the most powerful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations.

Determining PC for Warrants

To Arrest • Crime was or will be committed • Person committed the crime To Search • Crime was or will be committed • Evidence specified related to the crime • That Evidence will be located in the place you intend to search **need a reasonable belief for these elements to get PC for a warrant PC to Arrest and PC to Search are SEPARATE DOCTRINES **Probable Cause to Arrest → Person • Deals with the body of the person you are trying to arrest; limited • Reasons to look beyond body of person: Plain view doctrine; Safety concern • This is broader in the sense that you can arrest the person anywhere **Probable Cause to Search → Place or Thing • Can look anywhere in the place or thing to look for an item as long as you have probable cause and a warrant to search for that item • Much broader in scope in looking for things within a home • All about the property or the places to be searched Proof of PC for a Warrant 1. Direct testimony → cop said "I saw" 2. Indirect testimony → hearsay 3. Reputation of person or place (ex./ crack house) 4. Admission that a crime was committed 5. Circumstantial evidence 6. Circumstantial evidence plus an opinion Types of Direct and Indirect Testimony • Victim - no corroboration required unless an underworld figure, then because reliability is a problem • Neutral citizen - usually no corroboration • Cop - OK • Informant - must pass Gates and Spinelli tests

EC

Two part test: 1. Must prove emergency/exigency (warranting immediate action) 2. Must have Probable Cause (sufficient information) Types of Exigent Circumstances • Officer or public safety • Destruction of evidence • Fleeing felon

REP

Two step process: (1) person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) society recognizes that expectation as reasonable (objective) - Katz, HARLAN concur Subjective - manifest a desire to keep private the information uncovered and take reasonable measures to protect the item from public exposure Objective - Rely on analogies to cases

Arrest Warrant Exception

Watson - Felony Arrest in public place

knock and announce

Wilson v. Arkansas

KIDS - connelly

can let cops in, access to bedroom, normally in there, etc, just have to ask if they are allowed in mom/dad's room. if kid lies, doesn't matter, as long as cop asked. 2. Big issue--> coercion by show of authority? a. More concerned by coercion by psychology based on nature of the dymanic (kid v. cop) Protect children at a higher level than mentally il

Cops ask to come in, husband says no and wife says yes, both at home ->

consent is not valid -Don't have to ask both if both aren't in the home, if only ask one and that person says yes then search is valid, even if the other would have said no -If ask both or both in the house, both have to say yes for search to be valid Matlock

knock and announce

exclusionary rule does not apply to knock and announce violations

3 ways to exclude confessions

involuntariness, violate 6th amendment right to counsel, violate 5th amendment - Miranda