Intro to 4th Amendment

The Automobile Search and Seizure Exception pg 110

Two Pronge Test: 1) Most be an motor vehicle 2)must be probable cause Two Justifications: 1.) Mobility Evidence could disappear 2) Motor Vehicles have a reduced expectation of privacy (emissions testing, licensing requirements, traffic stops, alot less privacy of vehicle on street)

What is a "Seizure"?

consider Drayton's bus interdiction •the Court found a valid consent search

What is a "Seizure"?

"A seizure of property occurs when there is 'some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property,' and here there was none."

Knotts Explained (Beeper Installed before Knotss had possession of it.) Not a tress Pass under Jones Test. His movemnets were information that was exposed to the pubic Knotts Applied the principle that a person cannot reasonably expect privacy in his or her movements in Public.

"Knotts upheld against Fourth Amendment challenge the use of a "beeper" that had been placed in a container of chloroform, allowing law enforcement to monitor the location of the container. We said that there had been no infringement of Knotts' reasonable expectation of privacy since the information obtained—the location of the automobile carrying the container on public roads, and the location of the off-loaded container in open fields near Knotts' cabin— had been voluntarily conveyed to the public. "The holding in Knotts addressed only the former, since the latter was not at issue. The beeper had been placed in the container before it came into Knotts' possession, with the consent of the then-owner. Knotts did not challenge that installation, " They only followed Knotts a couple of hours. (considerably less time than Jones)

Smith v Maryland

"What a person knowingly exposes to the public [here, visual observation of Katz himself from outside the phone booth], even in his own home or office, is not subject of Fourth Amendment protection. BUT... what he seeks to preserve as private [here, his conversation], even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

US v Karo (Unlike Knotts the courts ruled the use of the container revealed contents and information about the inside of the house that the public wouldnt normally have.) Different from Knots becuase od the type of information gathered from the use of the beeper

"whether the installation of a beeper in a container amounted to a search or seizure." When "Beeper" was installed belonged to a 3rd party, court held because it was placed into the container at the consent of the then owener Authorities followed the container around, for a couple of months. Unlike Knotts it was a search here because

Robinson (SILA) Unlike Terry Stop and frisk

1 Full search of the arrestee + grabbing area is automatic for all crimes of arrest; >even if there is no possibilkity that evidence related to the crime or arrest might be found 2.Officer may serach oth for weapons and destructible evidence 3. Officer als has automatic authority to open containers found on the arrestee

Warrant Exceptions

1) Exigent Circumstances 2)Plain View 3)Automobile Exception 4)Searches Incident to Arrest 5)consent

Probable Cause Analysis

1) Start by analyzing both the critical aspects of the informants tip 2)Examine any police corroboration of the tipsters allegations 3) Factor in all other incriminating information Ex: Kyllo extremely high utility bills

Smith v Maryland

3rd party doctrine (pen register case)

Katz Test (Harlan's Two-Prong Test)

A "search" occurs that implicates the protections of the Fourth Amendment when: 1)The individual's actions or behavior "exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy" and 2)That expectation is one which "society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."(objective)

Seizures of the Person

A person is not "seized" unless he is actually "restrained" by either: a)physical force (e.g., tackled and handcuffed); or b)a show of authority by the officer plus submission by the suspect (e.g., officer pulls you over on the side of the road) In Hodari D.: show of authority, but no submission. In Mendenhall, neither occurred

US v. Place

Canine sniff is very specific, can only detect whats its trained to detect whether drugs are present Key : because Canine sniff is limited and only can disclose illegal drugs, it is determined the use of canine sniff is not a search. Can not reveal other details about the home.

Over all Probable Cause Test

Common sense decision given all the circumstances in an affidavit including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

US V Dunn (Barn, Shed note covered under 4th amendment if outside Curtilage)

Courts determined that its was not a search when DEA Agents climbed several fences, and used flashlight to search barn. Still the US Supreme court declared that it was not a search and is considered open fields. Where the police looked wasnt very close to home at all, outside the home (curtilage)

Probable Cause . (Early Standard of Investigation) Info has to be trustworthy enough to allow police to intrude.

Exist where an officer has enough reasonably trustworthy information to believe: 1 For a search, evidence subject to siezure will be found in the place to be searched (has to be a a good enough reason to believe what you looking for willbe found where you want to search.) 2. in an arrest, that an offese has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.

Curtilage

Extension of"the Term House in the Fourth Amend. It is encompassed in the term house and receives protection of the 4th amendment (Protection against physical entry begins at the Curtilage)

Minnasota V. Dickerson

Facts : During patrol officers stopped man after leaving known crack house, and making eye contact and appearing suspicious and patted the man down, officer stuck his finger in the mans pocket and felt what he thought to be crack; man arrested and charges with possession of a controlled substance. Issue: whether the officers sticking his finger in the mans pocket and siezing its contents constituted an unreasonable search and siezure under the fourth amendment Holding: yes, reasoning: The warrantless search permitted by exigent circumstances was for a weapon, didnt extend to the search of dickersons pockets.

Riley v. California

Facts : Stoped lawfully arrestred on a traffic stop. DIscovered gang periphinailia, searched his phone, saw photos of riley with car on phone challenged and Robinson applied , but supreme court through out said doesnt extend to digital data, can still search it with a warrant

Wyoming v Houghton

Facts : Syringe found in pocket, drugs fround per the automobile exception

Illinois v. Gates

Facts : Use of an anonymous tip, gave several facts about drug trafficking from Florida, that were corroborated deemed credible witness.

SILA (part 2) Arrest within the home Chimel v California

Facts : had an arrest warrant, not a search warrant and searched the entire house without warrant . Rule: Searching Arrestee's Person Reasonable For: •Ensuring Officer Safety •Preventing Evidence Destruction •Same Rationale Extends To "Grabbing Area": -"within his immediate control" - i.e., the area where weapons and evidence may be reached, possibly extending to the entire room of arrest, but no larger. •But Not the Entire House

US v Matlock (third Party Consent)

Facts: Holding; Reasoning:

California v Hodari

Facts: Issue: Holding: Reasoning:

Georgia v Randolph

Facts: Issue: Holding: Reasoning:

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Facts: Issue: Holding: Reasoning:

US v Mendenhall

Facts: Issue: Holding: Reasoning:

Maryland v. Pringle

Facts: (Arrest case) Traffic Stop of 3 guys, drugs discovered after consent given by driver to officer. None admit to drugs. Pringle later admits, then argues confession was under duress, claims no probable cause to arrest pringle. Holding: Yes Reasoning: That all 3 had knowledge or controll of the cocaine.

Whren v US

Facts: 3 pple in car; stopped for a long time policed observed driver with drugs. Un marked car, bag of drugs in passenger's lap. Whren argues Officer should never had approached the car in the first place and argues didn't have sufficient probable cause Argued traffic stop was a pretext for what you really were looking for. (US supreme court held if police had objective facts that create probable cause then that justifies search stop or search or arrest)

Voluntary Consent

Facts: Drayton Issue: Holding: Court hold Drayton gave voluntary consent to the search of their persons and luggage. Reasoning:

Florida v Riley Apply the Katz Reasonable Privacy analysis Plurality opinon

Facts: Helicopter used, 400 ft off ground to look with camera to spot Marijuana; Land observed greenhouse, roof panels missing, fenced in, sneaked a view through open panel. Land in the curtilage. Police Investigating Rlyes curtilage but did not invade his curtlilage. Holding: Riley looses, its up to riley to show rights were violated. Notes:Anyone flying over the curtilage could have seen it. Also, appy a reasonabilty standard how often, realistically, can fly over back yard.

Acevedo v California

Facts: Marijuana shipped from hawaii, sting set up marijauana picked up taken to Daza's house, then picked up by acevedo who was stopped in car and searched . Automobile exception implicated.

California V Greenwood

Facts: Officer contacted Trashman had trashed seperated for the purposes of investigated Greenwoods trash. Found Evidence of Narcotics trafficking, used for conviction Issue: Whether the use of trashman to seperate trash for searching is a search under 4th amendment.

Warden v Hayden (Katz & Jones)

Facts: Officers physically entered the home and looked around for a robbery suspect. Issue: Holding: Reasoning:

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Facts: Police during a search without a warrant but with exergent circumstances i.e., shots fired saw stereo equipment (speaker)they believed could be stolen, turned thespeaker over to reveal serail # and called it in. It was stolen. Holding: Yes it was a violation of fourth amendment Reasoning: search outside of the exigent circumstances which gave them probable cuase for entry without a warrant in search of the suspect ro weapons.

Probability (look at the totality of all the evidence to establish fair probability of evidence to be found in the locationto be search or siezed)

Fair probability that the evidence is at the location police want to search or sieze.

Sources Used to Establish Probable Cause

First hand infation by an officer Infromation from other police Information from victim or Witness Informants treated with more discretion: Credibilaty

Dunn Test (Used to Determine Where Curtilage Begins)

Four Factors: 1.(E)nclosure of the home (Fenced around) 2.(D)istance - how far is it from the home(proximity) 3. (E)fforts were there efforts to conceal or obstruct obeservation 4. (N) Nature of Usage- is it clear this area is for private use

4th Amendment Protections

Fourth Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects" The term "houses" includes the home's interior and its protected "curtilage" but not other places. This term does not include "open fields," even if private land.

Robinson Rule

Full search of the arrestee + grabbing area is automatic for all crimes of arrest. •even if there is no possibility that evidence related to the crime of arrest might be found 2)Officer may search for both: Weapons & Destructible Evidence 3)Officer also has automatic authority to open containers found on the arrestee Excludes Data on Cellular Devices, lap tops etc

Warrant Required for Arrest?

General Rules: Arrests in public = no warrant required (Watson) Arrests in home = warrant required (Payton) Arrests on the curtilage okay = in public!

Florida V. Jardines Dog went up and sat at front door

Jardines : Courts applied Jones and Katz and called it a trespass on home for purpose of determining if drugs were in the home. Uses Katz Reasonable Expectation of privacy and Jones Physical Intrusion Test

Jones Test

Jones is a narrow holding: "The Government physically occupied [an "effect" covered by the Fourth Amendment] for the purpose of obtaining information."

Plain View (not a search exception) (exception to Warrant Requirement) Oficer can use his or her senses to discover incrimentating evidence.....

Justifies Warrantless Siezure; 3 Pronge Test: 1) Must be observed from a lawful vantage point (applies to 5 senses) 2)Must have a Right to Physcally access the item in order to sieze it 3) Incriminating nature must be immediately apparent (requires probable cause)

Knotts Test

Knotts applied the principle that a person cannot reasonably expect privacy in his or her movements in public.

Open Fields

Not Protected by the fourth amendment Examples: a privately owned farm; portions of a person's yard located a substantial distance from the home •Entry into these areas is not a "search.

Kyllo Rule

Occurs when Government is obtaining 1 By Sense -enhancing Technology 2. any information regarding the interior of the home 3. that could not otherwise be obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area (constitutes a search) 4.at least where technology in question is not in general public use.

Exigent Circumstances

Police must have probable cause to believe exigency exist. search conducted without search warrant is limited to the scope of the permissible search. 1) Hot pursuit of fleeing felony suspect 2)Imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to police or others 3)To prevent imminent destruction of evidence

Oliver v US (Open Fields)

Property was highly secluded couldn't be seen from any point o public access but US Supreme court determined that it was open fields Courts held that no there was not a search becuase the officers didnt tresspass on persons, papers, houes and effects. Only tresspass on open land.

Gant Rule Gant doesnt change the scope of Belton

SILA is authorized to search a vehicle's passenger compartment upon a recent occupant's arrest only when: 1)EITHER the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search; 2)OR it is "reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle."

Smith Rule ( NO reaonable expectation of privacy in inforation knowlingy exposed to 3rd party) 3rd party Doctrine

Smith stands for the broad principle that a person cannot reasonably expect privacy in information knowingly exposed to third parties, such as telephone companies or banks. •But remember, Smith drew a distinction between the content of communications (protected), and the addressing information (not protected).

4th Amendment 3 Step Framework

Step 1 of 3: Has there been a "search" or "seizure"? Step 2 of 3: If a "search" or a "seizure" has occurred, then we must determine whether it was "reasonable" or "unreasonable." Step 3 of 3 If "search" or "seizure" is unreasonable, then apply the exclusionary rule as the remedy: any evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable "search" or "seizure" may not be used to prosecute the individual whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated

"Search" Analysis

Step 1: Determine if a trespass has occurred •Jones is a narrow holding: "The Government physically occupied [an "effect" covered by the Fourth Amendment] for the purpose of obtaining information." Step 2: If no trespass, apply the Katz test •This involves the fact-specific "reasonable expectation of privacy" test. •For example, the longer the monitoring, the more likely a search will occur (i.e., five Justices in Jones agreed 28 days was a search). Other factors might also be important, such as the nature of the crime being investigated.

Arizona V Hicks (PlainView Execetion)

The additional investigatory actions taken by the police show violation of the plain view exception, the location of the serial numbers and illgality of the speakers was not immediatley apparent.