Bill of Rights in the Criminal Justice System 2

United States v. Harris

"The Court found that the information provided to the magistrate established fair probability that Ford was still involved in narcotics conspiracy in the 1990's and noted that the conspiracy was longstanding and protracted and that the affidavit was still associated with some conspirators."

United States v. Kithcart

- 2 armed robberies - 2 black males in black sports car - 1 might be wearing white - Car might be a Z-28 or Camaro - Officer stops Nissan 300ZX -- one black male visible - "The Court of appeals held that the Officer Nelson did not have probable cause to arrest Kithcart when she pulled him over...The mere fact that Kithcart is black and the perpetrators were black is plainly insufficient. The match in the car was far from precise...nor is probable cause established by either the location or the time of the stop."

Mullenix v. Luna

) (officers entitled to qualified immunity for using deadly force during high speed chase with driver who said he had a gun)

New York v. PJ videos

- "The Court found that the affidavits in the instant case contained more than enough information to conclude that there was a "fair probability" that the movies satisfied the statutory definition of obscenity."

Tennsess v. Garner

- "The Court held that under the 4th amendment, deadly force may not be used to prevent the eescape of a felon unless it is necessary to prevent escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant thrat of causing death or serious physical injury to officers or others." - The defendant running in garner had no history of violence and was on a non-violent felony, "it is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape." - Dissent: "The Court effectively creates a Fourth Amendment right allowing a burglar suspect to flee unimpeded from a police officer who has probable cause to arrest, who has ordered the suspect to halt, and who has no means short of firing his weapon to prevent escape." -¥ Watson held that if an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony, he can arrest the suspect in a public place without a warrant

Illinois v. Gates

- Lance and Susan Gates were indicted for violation of state drug laws after police officers, executing a search warrant, discovered marijuana and other contraband in their automobile and home. - Prior to trial, Gates' moved to suppress evidence seized during this search, the state supreme court affirmed the lower state courts granting the motion to suppress the seizure. - ISSUE: "we granted certiorari to consider the application of the Fourth Amendment to a magistrate's issuance of a search warrant on the basis of a partially corroborated tip." - On May 3, 1978, the Chicago police department received an anonymous handwritten letter which contained the following information: o Sue and Lance Gates make living selling drugs o They live in condo o Most of their buys are in Florida o Sue drives the car to Florida, leaves it to be loaded with drugs, Lance flies down and drives it back o Sue flies back after she drops the car in FL o May 3 she is driving down again o Lance will be flying down in a few days to drive car back o Trunk will be loaded with more than $100,000 in drugs o House has more than $100,000 in drugs in basement o They brag about their dealing - The Chief of police contacted a confidential informant who obtained an address for Gates', and then he learned form a police officer assigned to O'Hare airport that L. Gates had a made a reservation for a flight from Chicago to Florida. - The officers corroborated the flight information and drug driving, and then obtained a warrant to search the Gates' residence. o "The Judge in deciding to issue the warrant could have determined that the modus operandi of Gates had been substantially corroborated." - Once the wife returned home, officers were waiting, and searched the trunk and found 350 Pounds of Marijuana, a search of the home revealed more Marijuana, Weapons, and other contraband. - The Illinois Supreme Court applied the two-prong test used in Aguilar and Spinelli and found that it had not been satisfied and thus granted the motion. o 1.) There was no basis to determine that the anonymous letter was credible o 2.) The corroboration of the police officers did not meet the veracity prong because, "only innocent details were corroborated." - While the Supreme Court does agree with the Illinois Supreme Court that "veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are highly relevant, we do not agree that these elements should be understood as separate and independent requirements...they are better understood as closely intertwined issues that may be useful to illuminated the commonsense, practical question of whether there is probable cause to believe that the evidence is located in a particular place. - Probable cause is a fluid concept, tips come in many shapes and sizes - "The two-prong test is better understood as relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicicia of reliability. - "The two-prong test has encouraged an excessively technical dissection of informant's tips, with undue attention being focused on isolated issues that cannot sensibly be divorced from the other facts presented to the magistrate." - "Finely-tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt have no place in the magistrate's decision." - "If the affidavits submitted by police officers are subjected to the type of scrutiny some courts have deemed appropriate, police might well resort to warrantless searches, with the hope of relying on consent or some other exception, to the warrant clause that might develop at the time of the search." - "Anonymous tips seldom could survive a rigorous application of either Spinelli prongs." - "For all of these reasons, we conclude that it is wiser to abandon the 'two-prong test' established in Aguilar and Spinelli. In its place, we reaffirm the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable cause determinations." - "An affidavit must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause." -> Court reaffirmed Nathanson - "When we move beyond the 'bare bones' affidavits present in cases such as Nathanson and Aguilar, this area simply does not lend itself to a prescribed set of rules, like that which had developed from Spinelli. Instead, the flexible, commonsense standard better serves the purpose of the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirements." - "It is enough, for purposes of assessing probable cause, that "corroboration through other sources of information reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale, thus providing a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay." - Justice White Concurrence: - "It is not at all necessary to overrule the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test in order to reverse the judgment below" - "It should be left to the issuing magistrate to decide, based solely on practicality and common sense whether there is fair probability that contraband will be fund in a particular place." - "I am reluctant to approve any standard that does not expressly require, as a prerequisite to issuance of a warrant, some showing of facts from which an inference may be drawn that the informant is credible and that his information was obtained in a reliable way." - Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall Dissent: - "The test provides structure for Magistrate's probable cause inquiries, preserve the role of a neutral and independent arbitrator." - Justice Steven, with Justice Brennan Dissent: - Sue Gates did not drive car back; informant was wrong about a crucial factor

Whitley v. Warden -

Collective Knowledge is Sufficient -"The Supreme Court declared that the police officers called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest warrants are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause."

What is the function of corroboration After Gates?

The Function of Corroboration After Gates - "The biggest effects of Gates is its more permissive view of the nature and extent of corroboration necessary to shore up a defective tip." - In United States v. Peyko "The Court found that that the tip with corroboration provided probable cause to seize a FedEx package addressed to Peyko

Buckley v. Beaulieu

¥ A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found and Is not limited by the possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search. " ¥ The Court noted in Buckely v. Beaulieu that the officers could have searched for liquor within concealed walls by using a sledner probe with little injury

United States v. Johnson

¥ United States v. Johnson - where the warrant authorized a search of an entire duplex occupied by several members of a narcotics conspiracy, the Court upheld the warrant as sufficiently particular.

United States v Weinbender

¥ United States v. Weinbender - it is reasonable for officers to remove a piece of drywall to search for clothes that would have tied the defendant to a crime, they found guns behind the dry wall, the court held that if this was unreasonable then people could stop searches by locking something up or putting them behind the wall.

What is insufficient Corroboration?

¥ Warner (Page 127) Ð Confidential reliable source said he saw Warner fire machine gun at Warner's house; anonymous tip next day confirms Ð Police find no evidence of a registered firearm Ð Held: Probable Cause Ð Was there really corroboration? ¥ Peyko (Page 127) Ð Anonymous tip that Peyko is getting weekly drug deliveries by Fed Ex Ð Corroboration of Fed Ex use Ð Held: Probable Cause -- Is this Right?

United States v. Martin

probable casue to group dedicated to child porn, membership establisedh a fale probability that the defendant did in fact exchange or download chil porn, common sense that if you join the group then you are going to download such images.

United States v. Perez

association between an IP address used for child pron and a physical address constituees that a fair possibility of a crime being committed at that address

United States v. Gourde

defendants membership in a website that gave him access to child pornography on the site provided probable cause

Graham v. Connor

- all claims of excessive force in the making of an arrest should be governed under the Fourth Amendment.

Spinelli v. United States

- William Spinelli was convicted of traveling to St. Louis Missouri form an Illinois suburb with the intention of conducting gambling activities proscribed by Missouri Law o In every stage in the proceedings, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the warrant which authorized the FBI that uncovered the evidence necessary for his conviction - In Aguilar v. Texas a search warrant had been issued upon an affidavit of police officers who swore only that they had received reliable information from a credible person, The Court held that the affidavit was inadequate for two reasons: o 1.) the application failed to set forth any underlying circumstances necessary to enable the magistrate independently to judge the validity of the informant's conclusion o 2.) The affiant-officers did not attempt to support their claim that their informant was credible or that they had reliable information. - But in Spinelli, the FBI affidavit was more ample than in Aguilar. It contains a report from an anonymous information, but it contains a report of an independent FBI investigation which corroborated the informants tip, The Court needs to apply the Aguilar two prong test. - The affidavit in Spinelli contained the following information o 1.) FBI tracked Spinelli for Five days over two weeks o 2.) Spinelli Crossed one of 2 Bridges from Illinois into Missouri o 3.) Spinelli is seen parking his car at Apartment Building and Entering Unit o 4.) Apartment has 2 listed phone numbers o 5.) Spinelli is Known to law enforcement to be a bookkeeper or wage keeper - Under Aguilar the Court must ask "Can it be fairly said that the tip, even when certain parts of it have been corroborated by independent sources, is as trustworthy as a tip which would pass Aguilar's tests without independent corroboration?" - The Officer in this case swore that the informer was reliable BUT offered the magistrate no reason in support this conclusion - Also the Tip did not contain a sufficient statement of the underlying circumstances form which the informer concluded that Spinelli was running a bookmaking operation - The tip needs to be confirmed that it did not come from second hand information, in this case "the meager report could easily have been obtained form an offhand remark heard at a neighborhood bar." - At most, the allegations indicate that Spinelli could have used the telephones specified by the informant for some purpose, this cannot by itself be said to support but the inference that the informer was generally trustworthy and that he made this charge against Spinelli on the basis of information obtained in a reliable way. - "We conclude then, that in the present case the informants tip, even when corroborated to the extent indicated, was not sufficient to provide the basis for finding probable cause...the tip needed further support." - Dissent: o Justice Black: "Nothing in our Constitution requires that the facts be established with that degree of certainty and with such elaborate specificity before a policeman can be authorized by a disinterested magistrate to conduct a carefully limited search." o Justice Fortas: "A policeman affidavit should not be judged as an entry in an essay contest. It is not 'abracadabra'. As the majority recognizes, a policeman's affidavit is entitled to common-sense evaluation." - Spinelli does not impose a limitation where a crime victim or eyewitness reports an alleged crime immediately after he or she says it took place, it only addresses warrant applications in which the police rely on o 1.) tipsters who operate as paid informants o 2.) anonymous informants

United States v. Awadallah

- "The Court upheld the material witness detention as reasonable and refused to dismiss the indictiment, stating that detention of a witness during a grand jury investigation was permissible, as a grand jury proceeding was a criminal proceeding within the meaning of section 3144. - FBI Trace Note in Al-Hazmi Car with Telephone Number (Osamea 589-5316) to Awadallah's ("A) former address (18 mths ago) - Find His Current Address and Go to House in San Diego - A is At School; FBI Interviews Roommate - A Comes Home; FBI Agents Meet Him in Parking Lot - Agents Tell A He Must Go with Them for Questioning - Agents Permit A to Go to Apartment for Prayer - Agents Tell A He Must Consent to Search Apt and Car or They Would Get a Warrant and "Tear Up" His Home - A Signs Consent From w/o Reading It"Coerce" Him to Consent to Search - Awadallah Taken to FBI Office - Consents to Second Search of Second Car - But Reads the Form and Revokes First Consent - FBI Can't Reach Agents at Home Until 1st Search Completed - Polygraph registers 2 lies - Whether he had advance knowledge of 9/11 attacks - Whether he participated in attacks - Agents Accuse A of Being Terrorist - A Wants to Call a Lawyer and His Brother; Agents Refuse - San Diego Agents Had Been Constantly in Touch with AUSA in NY - NY AUSA instructs agents to arrest A - Prosecutors and FBI in NY prepare application for material witness warrant - FBI Affidavit - Reveals telephone no. in Al-Hazmi's Car - A's admission he knew Al-Hazmi - Results of Agents' Search - Found a Box-Cutter and Photos of Bin Laden - FBI omits info from affidavit - A said he had not seen Al-Hazmi for year - A moved 18 mths ago - A said he used "boxcutter" to install carpet - Judge Mukasey issues warrant - Not aware that A already was arrested - A spends time in 4 prisons - Testifies before grand jury 20 days after arrest - Charged with perjury - Judge Scheindlin grants A's release on bail and later grants motion to dismiss - §3144 does not apply to grand juries - Arrest and detention were unlawful - GJ Testimony was Fruit of Illegal Arrest - 2d Cir. Reverses - Notes that witness has right to seek release - US Argued to Judge Scheindlin that Deposition Provision Did Not Apply to Grand Juries - Reversed Its Position in CA - D.Ct. May Exclude Defense Counsel from Dep - Preserve Grand Jury Secrecy - A had two bail hearings - Rejects Scheindlin's ruling that warrant was based on material misrepresentations by FBI - Also Rejects her ruling that perjury can be excused by illegal arrest

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily

- "The majority stated that the critical element is reasonable cause to believe that the specific things searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought...this will depend on the type of crime the nature of the items sought, and the suspsects opportunity for concealment and normal inferences about where a criminal might hid evidence." - Innocent Persons May Be Targets If They Have Evidence - Zurcher (1978) - Stevens' Dissent in Zurcher - Blames Warden - After there was a police officer attack, officers obtained a warrant to search the Stanford daily thinking that they may have photos of the attack -> search included rummaging though all aspects of the office, -> uncovered no evidence ab assault -> Sought civil action for a violation of Fourth Amendment search - The Supreme Court held "That the Courts may not in the name of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness clause forbid the states from issuing warrants to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor or the place to be searches is not then reasonably suspected of criminal involvement." - Dissent: The use of a warrant to search a newspaper constituted an infringement on first amendment rights. - Stevens Dissent: "Argued that a 'showing of probable cause that was adequate to justify the issuance of a warrant to search for stolen goods in the 18th century does not automatically satisfy the new dimensions of the Fourth Amendment in the post-Hayden era, the only conceivable evidence justification for unannounced search of an innocent citizen is the fear that, if notice were given, he would conceal or destroy the object of the search." - Congress responded by enacting the privacy protection act of 1980 which limited the media and the pres.

Hudson v. Michigan

- *5-4 Holding that Violation of Knock and Announce Does not Justify Exclusion* - Scalia: "The interest protected by the knock and announce requirement do not include the shielding of potential evidence from the government's eyes....the requirement has never prevented the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant." - Rule does not protect against govt. seeing or taking evidence - Interests violated by a violation have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence - Victims can bring civil rights actions - Dissent: "That without the threat of exclusion, officers have no reason to comply with the knock and announce rule. Hudson receives full case treatment in the section on the exclusionary rule, at the end of this chapter."

Devenpeck v. Alford

- Alford Impersonates Cop, Activates Wig-Wag Lights Behind a Disable Car, Helps to Change Flat Tire - Real Police Officer (Haner) Arrives, Alford Leaves - Motorists Tell Officer that Alford Gave Impression of Being a Cop - Alford Radios Supervisor (Devenpeck), Pursued Alford and Pulled Him Over - Handcuffs and Police Scanner - Devenpeck Comes to Scene, Interviews Alford and Discovers that Alford is Taping the Conversation - Arrests Alford for Violating WA Privacy Act - Alford Charged with Privacy Act Violation and Ticketed for Flashing Headlights - State Courts Dismiss Both Charges - "The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that probable cause exisisted to arrest Alford for the offenses of impersonating a law enforcement officer and obstructing a law enforcement officer because those offenses are not closely related to the offense invoked by Devenpeck as he took Alford into custody." - "Our cases make it clear that an arresting officer's state of mind is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. That is to say his subjective reasons for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause." - "Subjective intent of an officer is simply no basis for invalidating an arrest. Those are lawfully arrested whom the facts known to the arresting officers give probable cause to the arrest." Supreme Court Reverses: *The offense establishing probable cause need not be closely related to the offense the arresting officer identifies at the time of arrest. An arresting officer's state of mind, except for facts he knows, is irrelevant to probable cause.*

Andressen v. Maryland

- An investigation into a real estate settlement activites in the Washington DC, Adresen was an attorney who specialized in real estate sttlements in Mongtomery County -> his activites came under scrutiny, in connection with a transaction involving lot 13 T in the potmocac woods subdivision -> Andresen had defrauded Standard Young Associates, they obtained a warrant to search his law offices -> seized about 4% of his documents - "We recognize that there are grave dangers inherent in executing a warrant authorizing a search and seizure of a person's papers that are not necessarily present in executing a warrant to search for physical objects whose relevance is more easily ascertainable. IN searches for papers it is certain that some innocuous documents will be examined, at least papers authorized to be seized, actions just need to be taken to assure that they are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions of privacy." - Dissent: "The overwhelming quantity of seized material that was either suppressed or returned to petitioner was irrefutable testimony to the unlawful generality of the warrants. The Courts attempt to cure this defect by post hoc judicial construction evades principles settled in this Court's fourth amendment decisions." - The court in Andresen notes that in a search for documents, it is all but inevitable that the police will be required to peruse innocuous private documents...in Andresen officers with probable cause will often not have any specific information where the incriminatory material is located in the electronic device, how it would be labeled, so a requirement of reasonable particularity (based on what the officers knew in advance) will not shield most information stored in a computer or cellphone from inspection, where police have probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence is somewhere on the device.

United States v. Leake

- Anonymous call to police stating caller was tradesman hired to do work at a place and while working he smelled and saw marijuana in basement - Caller said he had been a marijuana user when young but now was anti- drug - Surveillance showed house had basement, found 300 pounds of weed after search - "The Court in Leake held that the warrant lacked probable cause, the Court observed that unlike Gates the anonymous caller in Leake had not provided as much detail, no names, no dates, and no planned future activity was described, and the corroboration was not sufficient enough to overcome the defective tip." - *Anyonmous tip it needs more corroboration more details, it was to vague."*

United States v. Grubs

- Child pornography investigation - Controlled delivery put in motion - Affidavit states "execution of this warrant will not occur unless and until the parcel has been received by a person(s) and has been physically taken into the residence" - Scalia: Probable cause looks to whether evidence will be found when the search is conducted - Anticipatory warrants require magistrate to determine (1) 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 - Must be probable cause that the triggering condition will occur, and if it does, there is a fair probability that evidence etc will be found in a particular place - "It must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs there is a fair probability that contrabdn or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, but also that there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur. The supportive affidavit must provide the magistrate with sufficient information to evaluate both aspects of the probable cause determination." -*- under the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement a warrant need not set out the conditions that trigger it, only the place to be searched and the persons or things to be searched for. The fact that the triggering conditions were included in the affidavit, even if they were never showed to Grubbs, was therefore sufficient.*

Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd

- Civil rights action; complaint taken as true - Al-Kidd arrested as he checked in for flight to Saudi Arabia in March 2003 - Federal prosecutors informed Magistrate Judge that they believed information "crucial" to prosecution of Sami Omar al-Hussayen would be lost - al-Kidd detained for 16 days in custody and on supervised relief until trial ended 14 months later - Never called as witness - al-Kidd alleged that A.G. ordered detention of those suspected of supporting terrorism but govt lacked sufficient evidence to charge them - Qualified immunity applies unless plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) violation of a right, and (2) it was "clearly established" at time of conduct - Court discusses pretext cases that we'll deal with later - Al-Kidd concedes that individualized suspicion would support a valid warrant absent the alleged pretextual use - Therefore, there is no 4th Amendment violation; Magistrate Judge found reasonable suspicion - Moreover there was not a single judicial opinion holding that pretext could render an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a material-witness warrant unconstitutional - Agrees no clearly established law - Objects to decision on merits - Is a warrant validly obtained when affidavit fails to inform judge that - government has no intention of calling witness at trial - Al-Kidd cooperated with FBI several times - Parents, wife and children are all US citizens AND - Affidavit falsely stated that al-Kidd was about to take a 1-way trip to Saudi Arabia with a $5,000 first class ticket when he had a round trip $1700 coach ticket AND - He was confined in 3 different detention centers for 16 days, kept in high security cells lit 24 hours a day, strip searched and subjected to body cavity inspections - Agrees no clearly established law - Case presents closer question on merits - Although subjective intent is generally irrelevant to 4th Amendment analysis, "none of our prior cases recognizing that principle involved prolonged detention of an individual without probable cause to believe he had committed any criminal offense" - Majority's holding is "premised on the existence of a valid material-witness warrant, a premise that, at the very least, is questionable in light of the allegations set forth in al-Kidd's complaint" - Not at all clear that it would have been impractical to secure presence by subpoena or by deposition - Affidavit might have been false and misleading - Read

Riverside v. McLaughlin

- Class Action Lawsuit—Riverside, CA- Brought on Behalf of Those Arrested w/o Warrants - Co. Combines P.C. Determinations with Arraignment - Plaintiffs Want 36 Hour Rule for Post-Warrantless Arrest Hearing - "Taking into account the competing interests articulated in Gerstein, we believe that a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein. For this reason, such jurisdictions will be immune from systematic challenges." - Dissent: "It is an unreasonable sezire to delay a determination of probable cause for the arrest either o 1.) for reasons unrelated to arrangement of the probable cause determination or completion of the to the steps incident to arrest o 2.) beyond 24 hours after the arrest, once 24 hours are exceeded the burden shifts to the police to adduce unforeseeable circumstances justifying the additional delay."

Whitley v. Warden

- Collective Knowledge is Sufficient -"The Supreme Court declared that the police officers called upon to aid other officers in executing arrest warrants are entitled to assume that the officers requesting aid offered the magistrate the information requisite to support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause."

Hurtado v. United States

¥ Hurtado v. United States - The Court held that payment of one dollar per day as compensation did not constitute a "taking" without just compensation or denial of equal proection. - There is not constitutional right to compensation for time spent in confinement as a material witness.

United States v. Prandy - Binnett

- Detective Centrella was at Union Station, watching trains coming in from NYC a known source of drugs. Their attention was drawn to someone walking faster than usual getting off a train from NYC. Said that he boarded train in NJ, but train started in NYC, then said that he lived in DC, and showed a ID from Hyattsville, Maryland. Officers suspicions were aroused an asked to search, Defendant refused, but opened up bag and then officers saw drugs and arrested him -> field test confirmed cocaine - "Judge Randolph concluded that based on the totality of the circumstances, there was a fair probability that the rectangular block contained drugs, and upheld the narcotics conviction." o "We are convinced that up tot the sighting of the duct tape package, the conditional probability was low, much to low to have satisfied the Fourth Amendment in light of interests it protects." ♣ 3 reasons factors bearing on the probability assessment • 1.) the Blocks Bulk- Detected was familiar with the bulk of packages containing cocaine • 2.) The rectangular shape protruding from eh bag was consistent with what the officers knew to be the typical shape of a Kilo brick • 3.) The silver duct tape is attractive to traffickers because fingerprints are difficult to lift from the surface - "Judge Edwards wrote a vigorous dissent in the case. He complained that the majority "relying on a bizzaree theory of conditional probabilities holds that probable cause can be based on the appearance of duct tape, and noted that the defendant was a person of color and argued that the officers were motivated more by racial profiling than by an assessment of probability."a - "Judge Edwards concluded that the placement of a rectangular object wrapped in duct tape inside one's luggate was simply not enough to rise to fair-probability of criminal activity."

What are the functions of a warrant requirement?

- For searches and seizures that are subject to the warrant requirement, probable cause represents the threshold of proof that must be satisfied before the power to search and seize is legitimated. o Gov must demonstrate factually-based interested in people, places, or things before using its power to disturb them - Probable cause is to be show by persons willing to swear to or affirm the truth of their statements and thus to be accountable for their representations - The specificity requirement implies that the gov can only interfere with the persons, places, or things that it has shown a valid interest in - Also, the specification of objects sought to be seized may inform the magistrate's decision on whether the proposed search is reasonable or excessive. - The Johnson majority establishes that a neutral observer is to decide whether the probable cause and specificity requirements have been satisfied. o gives a neutral party the right to refuse a warrant, even if the application is supported by oath, probable cause, and specifics.

Minnesota v. Olson

- Gunman Robs Gas Station, Kills Mgr - Officer Suspects Ecker - Goes to Ecker's Home as Olds Arrives - Olds Takes Evasive Action, Goes Out of Control and Stops - Ecker Arrested, Other Man Escapes - Police Find Money and Murder Weapon in Car - Also Find Papers With Olson's Name and Address - Woman Calls Police to Say Olson Was Driver - Woman Calls Again and Says Olson Confessed to Louanne and Julie and Gives Their Address - Police Go and Find Duplex - Louanne and Julie Not Home - Louanne's Mother Lives in Bottom and Confirms that Olson Had Been Living Upstairs - Mother Says Olson is Out - Promises to Call Police When He Returns - Mother Calls Police and Says Olson is Back - Det. Tells Officer to Surround House - Calls Julie and Says Olson Should Come Out - Hears Male Voice Say "Tell Them I Left" - Det. Orders Police to Enter House to Make Arrest - Olson Confesses at Stationhouse - Moves to Suppress Confession - Overnight Guests - Arrest Warrant Required - Guest Has Reasonable Expectation of Privacy - How Do Police Know Who is Overnight Guest? - Does This Mean that Homeowner Gets Less Protection (i.e., No Search Warrant) - Homeowner's Rights Were Not Raised in Case - What About an Afternoon Nap Guest? - Supreme Court Did Not Address Exigent Circumstances - "A warrant is required under Payton to arrst a person who was an overnight guest in the home of a third party" -*You need a warrant, absent exigent circumstances, to arrest someone in a third party house* - Dissent: "a persons status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that he had a expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to accept as reasonable."

Scott v. Harris

- Harris drives 73 mph in 55 mph zone - Deputy flashes lights to pull him over - Harris flees at speeds exceeding 85 mph - Almost caught in parking lot, but (like Diamonds are Forever) escapes and collides with Deputy Scott's car - Scott obtains permission to use a "Precision Intervention Technique" - applies his push bumper to rear of Harris' car - Harris' car goes over embankment and Harris is rendered a quadriplegic - Harris sues Scott for use of excessive force - District Court denies motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds - C.A. affirms relying on Garner - "The Court held a law enforcement official can, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, attempt to stop a fleeing motorist from continuing a public-endangering flight by ramming the motorsts car from behind." - "Officers were not required to avoid risk to the public by simply stopping their pursuit of a suspect in a car. IF that were the rule, drivers could avoid arrest simply by speeding away from officers, moreover in determining reasonableness, itw as approprirate to balance the risk to the suspect of ramming his car against the risk to the public if the chase continued."

United States v. Patterson

- In United States v. Patterson - the police arrested two masked men, Greene, who was arrested, confessed and said that Patterson was his accomplice, they searched patttersons car and found evidence - The court held that the confession is itself sufficient for probable cause, and that no corroboration is required.

Richards v. Wisconssin

- The Court considered the exigent circumstances exception to the knock and announce requirement in the context of a search of the premises of a suspected drug distribution operation. - 3:40 AM Entry Into Premises - Rejects Per Se Exception for Felony Drug Crime - Reasonable Suspicion that Knock and Announce Would be Dangerous or Futile or Permit Destruction of Evidence is Enough - Upholds Entry Under Circumstances - "The Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that the knock and announce requirement was automatically excused in any case in which the police were authorized to search for evidence of a felony drug crime" - "The Officers do not need probable cause to believe that evidenceOf will be destroyed if they announce there presence. *The lesser standard of reasonable suspiicipn is all that is required. Applying this standard to the facts of the case,* the Court had little difficulty in determing that the no-knock entry in Richards."

Maryland v. Pringle

- Issue: If police officers find drugs in a car, does he have probable cause to arrest everyone in the car? - Cocaine found behind back seat armrest - Officer questions all 3 men, arrests them - Pringle confesses the next morning that cocaine belonged to him - Was going to a party to sell it or "use it for sex" - Trial judge denies motion to suppress confession as fruit of unlawful arrest - Maryland Court of Appeals reverses - S. Ct. reinstates conviction - "The majority thinks that it is an entirely reasonable inference from the se facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge or dominion and control over the cocaine. Thus a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly." - "This case is quite different than Ybarra in which pat downs of a public tavern were deemed illegal lacking any individual suspicion. The defendants in this case were driving a small automobile, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrongdoing."

United States v. Banks

- Issue: Whether exigent circumstances can allow police to break a door down after knocking? - 15-20 Second Delay in Drug Case = Exigency - Warrant to Search 2 Bedroom Apt - Suspected of Selling Cocaine at Home - Magistrate May Issue No Knock Warrant - Police May Judge an Exigency Exists - Break Open Door with Battering Ram - Banks Was in Shower - What Matters is Time in Which Evidence Could be Destroyed, Not Time to Get to Door - "The Court found that exigent circumstances justified the officer's actions in knocking down the door and entering the premises, the defendant was confusing two different concepts, the time required to assume that a resident is refusing to answer, and the time required to destroy evidence."

United States v. Faagai

- Issue: Whether officers had probable cause to believe that methamphetamine would be found in Faagai truck? - Officers knew that Faagai had texted a person to with a record for selling meth at a Costco to buy "food" Believed that this was code to buy drugs, and they were suspicious that they were going to meet at a costoc 20 miles away from the nearest Costco to them. - "The majority found that that the officers were justified in crediting these facts as suspicious, and that with other suspicious facts, there was a fair probability that Faagai was involved in criminal activity. - "Justice Kozinksi, in dissent, argued that the majority were jumping to conclusions and that the Costco related information was not suspicious" - "The Majority deems it 'unlikely that Faagai and Penitani met at the Costco to shop for food' because there was another Costco much closer, But savvy shoppers know not all Costco's are the same...this one features a fresh deli."

Florida v. Harris

- K-9 officer pulls over car for expired license plate - Harris very nervous with open beer can in cup holder - Harris refuses consent to search - Officer gets dog from patrol car and dog alerts at driver's door handle - Officer decides he has probable cause (exception from warrant requirement) and searches Harris' car - Finds no drugs dog was trained to detect but ingredients for making methamphetamine - Harris admits routinely "cooking" meth and is charged with possessing pseudophedrine to make meth - Harris, out on bail, pulled him over for a broken brake light by same officer; dog alerts again; nothing found - Harris moves to suppress evidence found in 1st search - Trial judge denies suppression; Fla S. Ct. reverses - U.S. S. Ct. agrees with the trial judge - Court makes clear it uses a "fair probability" test of probable cause and looks to totality of circumstances - Will not require field data on dog's performance - Evidence of satisfactory performance in certification or training program can be sufficient - Fact that dog found nothing he was trained to discover may be explained by Harris transferring odors to handle - "The majority held that evidence of a dog's satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search."

United Stats v. Ramirez

- Officer had a no knock warrant to search a house for a dangerous escaped prisoner, approached the house early in the morning, announced that they had a warrant over speaker, broke a single window, pointed a gun to stop them rushing a weapons stash, Ramirez grabbed a pistol thinking his house was being burglarized, when they said police, Ramirez surrenderd. and was indicted on federal possession of a firearm, escaped prisoner was not on sight, Ramirez argued that if the there is heighted degree of exigent circumstances is required if the police are going to destroy property during a no-knock warrant - "The Court held that officers are not held to a higher standard when a no-knock entry results in the destruction of property, under Richards a no-knock entry is justified if police have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing woud be dangerous, futile, or destructive to the purpose of the investigation."

Steangald v. United Stats

- Officers have arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons - fugitive on drug charges - They receive information that Lyons was staying at a certain house for next 24 hours - They search the house, don't find Lyons but do find drugs - Drugs offered were Steagald, homeowner - Steagald moved to suppress the drugs on the ground that the officers failed to secure a search warrant before entering the house to look for Lyons. - "A search warrant must be obtained to look for a suspect in the home of a third party, absent exigent circumstances or consent. [Again, the difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant in this context is that the arrest warrant only requires a magistrate to to determine that there is probable cause to arrest a person, it is not specific as to the location. A search warrant would require the a magistrate to determine that there is probable cause to believe that the suspect is located in the home of the third party.] - Dissent: Focused on the mobility of fugitives, making probable cause determinations as to location quite difficult and the likelihood of escape, also noted that when a suspect lives in a certain place for a certain amount of time it covners the place into the suspects home and thus justifies a search for that suspect under an arrest warrant. - Standing Issues Are Important - Police Enter Steagald's Home to find Lyons - Steagald Can Complain; It's his House - Lyons has no interest in the house - Once in house, can arrest Lyons with Prob. Cause

United States v. Valez

- Officers in surveillance car see what looks like drug sale - Sergeant in car sends undercover officer to make buy - Sergeant sees undercover officer give money to two men and describes one seller to Officer Allen in car who broadcasts description - Hispanic male, 20's, black leather jacket, grey pants, comb in back - Allen looks for seller, can't find him, and assumes he stepped into a store - 10 Minutes after drug sale, Allen makes arrest - Valez had thick moustache and small goatee - Racism or probable cause; 2-1 for probable cause - Probable cause can exist even if police arrest wrong man. Hill v. Cal (1971) - "The Valez Court held that the description of the perpetrator was not overly general, and that the officers had acted properly in arresting Valez, even though he was not in fact involved in the sale to undercover the officer." - "The dissenting Judges Oak argued that the Officer Zarr's description was to general to support the conclusion that there was probable cause."

Different Types of informants?

- Paid informants are considered unreliable given their dubious character and financial arrangements - Anonymous informants must be presumed unreliable because they may be using their anonymity for suspect reasons - Identified citizen informants are considered reliable because they are presumed to be motivated by concern for society or for their own saftey

Johnson v. United States

- Petitioner was convicted in the lower courts on four counts of violating federal narcotics law - ISSUE: whether it was lawful, without a warrant of any kind, to arrest petitioner and to search her living quarters. - At 7:30 Detective Belland, officer in Seattle, received information for a Confidential Informer, that unknown persons were smoking opium in the Europe Hotel - Belland and Federal Narcotic Officers went to the hotel at 9:00 and they all recognized the odor of burning opium o Odor led to room, officer knocked, announced that it was the police, defendant let them in, denied opium, officer said that she was under arrest, they searched the room, found opium, Defendant challenged the search as constitutional - The Court ruled that "Entry to defendants living quarters, which was the beginning of the search, was demanded under color of office. It was granted in submission to authority rather than as an understanding and intentional waiver of constitutional rights." - The 4th reequres that the inferences from which reasonable men conclude evidence be decided by a neutral party, a magistrate. - "The right of an officer to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual, but to society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance...When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent." - No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare and present the evidence to the magistrate. ->THESE ARE NEVER CONVINCING REASONS - Summation: "The Court held that the officers had no probable cause to arrest the defendant until they entered the defendant's quarters, and reasoned that the search (entry and visual inspection) preceded the arrest. It was not possible, therefore to justify the officers conduct on a search incident to a valid arrest theory."

Warren v. Hayden

- Police informed that armed robbery suspect entered a certain house - They arrive minutes later - Wife consents to search - Officers arrest Hayden and find weapons in a flush tank and clothing in a washing machine - Evidence admitted without objection at trial - In habeas case 4th Circuit finds seizure of evidence to have violated the 4th Amendment - Exigent circumstances justified search - Held: Search for "Mere Evidence" is OK - Previously - Instrumentality, Fruits, Contraband - Greatly Expands Searches - Books, Papers, Hair Samples, Blood Samples - Rejects Property Rights Analysis - Like Katz - Focus is on Privacy - Reminder - Fourth Amendment Protects But Also Authorizes Searches and Warrants - "The Court held that the search of Hayden's house, while without Warrant was justified by exigent circumstances" - Issue: "We come to the question, of whether, even though the search was lawful, the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the seizure and introduction of the items was correct in holding that the seizure and introduction of the items of clothing violated the Fourth Amendment." - "Nothing in the language of the Fourth amendment supports the distinction between mere evidence and instrumentalities, fruits of the crime, or contraband." - "Indeed, the distinction is wholly irrational, since, depending on the circumstances, the same papers and effects may be mere evidence in one case and instrumentality in another." - "The Fourth Amendment allows intrusions of privacy under these circumstances and there is no viable reason to distinguish intrusions to secure "mere evidence" from intrusions to secure fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband." - Dissent: "The personal effects and posesssions of the individual fall contraband and the like are sacrosanct from prying eyes, from the long arm of the law, from any rummaging by police. Privacy involves the choice of individual to disclose or reveal what he believes, what he thinks, and what he possesses...Individual choice is the very essence of the right to privacy."

What do you need to arrest?

- Probable cause to search is determined by whether there is a fair probability that that the object or area searched contains evidence, - Probable cause to arrest is determined by whether there is a fair probability to believe that the person arrested has committed a crime...In some situations however there may be probable cause to arrest but not to search, or vice versa.

United States v. Wilhelm

- Source gave accurate directions to home - Source accurately described what marijuana looks like and how it is packaged - "The court found that the corroboration was not enough to cure the defect in the tip under Gates, because almost anyone can give directions to a house without knowing anything of substance about what goes on inside that house, and anyone who occasionally watches the evening news can make generalizations about how marijuana looks and how it is packaged."

Massachusetts v. Upton

- The Court reiterated its totality of the circumstances test in this case - Facts: o 9/11 Search of motel room w/warrant to look for items stolen from homes o Stolen property found but not jewelry, silver & gold o Caller says the motor home of Upton parked behind #5 Jefferson Ave has jewelry, silver & gold o Officer recognizes caller as Upton's ex-girl friend o Girl friend says she wanted to "burn" him o Officer verifies motor home is at address - Following the phone call the officer went to Upton's house and verifies that the motor home is parked on the property A magistrate issued a warrant and the search uncovered the evidence described and other illegal activity. - Mass Sup Jud Ct: Basis of knowledge not "forcefully apparent," credibility or reliability is lacking, and insufficient corroboration o Caller did not say that the items were in the motor home because she saw them, just that they were there, and the officers assumed who she was, she was still anonymous which doesn't give her as much as credibility as if she were his girlfriend. o The corroboration related to innocent or otherwise usual conduct. - "We think the Massachusetts Supreme Court misunderstood our decision in Gates. We did not merely refine or qualify the two-pronged test" we rejected it as hyper technical and divorced from the practical considerations of everyday life." - "The Supreme Judicial Court erred in failing to grant any deference to the decision of the magistrate to use a warrant, instead of determining whether the evidence as a whole provided substantial basis for probable cause, the court conducted a de novo probable cause determination...we reject it." - "Examined in light of Gates, the affidavit provides substantial bias of the issuance of the warrant...it is enough that the inference was a reasonable one and conformed with the other pieces of evidence making up the total showing of probable cause." - On remand, state court refused to follow Gates and used State Constitution to reaffirm its commitment to the two-prong test.

Draper v. United States

- The Gov informer did not state the way which he obtained his information, he reported that Draper had gone to Chicago the day before by train and that he would return to Denver by the same train with three ounces of heroin on one of two specified mornings. o Went on to describe the clothes that Draper would be wearing upon arrival - "A magistrate when confronted with such detail could reasonably infer that the informant had gained his information in a reliable way." - Independent Police work in this case provided a much more than one small detail that had been provided by the informant, "since the report was of the sort which in common experience was obtained in a reliable way, itw as perfectly clear that probable cause had been established."

Minnesota v. Carter

- Two Men Cutting Up Cocaine in Apartment - Officer Saw Them By Looking Through Crack in Otherwise Closed Blind After Informant Gave a Tip - Officer Phones in Info So Search Warrant Can Be Obtained - Men Leave Apt in Car - Car Stopped and Men Arrested - Police Return to Apt and Arrest 3rd Person - Issue is Whether Officer's Observation Was an Unconstitutional Search - Holding: Men Have No Right to Complain; No right of Privacy in the Apartment - 5 Separate Opinions - Who Knows What the Current Justices Would Say - No C.J. Rehnquist, No O'Connor, Souter - 5 Votes for Protecting Social Guests - Apartment Renter's Rights Not At Issue in Case - Rehnquist joined by O'Connor - Commercial, short period, no connection - Scalia (w/Thomas) (concurring) - Not "Their Home" - Kennedy (concurring) - Distinguished between business (not protected) and social guests (protected) - Ginsburg (w/Stevens and Souter)(dissenting) - All guests protected - Breyer (agreed with Ginsburg and concurred in result; no search) - "Held that the defendants had no expectation of privacy sufficient to trigger there fourth amendment rights"

United States v. Watson

- Watson Arrested for Stolen Credit Card - Khoury Tells Postal Insp. W Has Card - K Has provided 5-10 Tips Previously - K Delivers Card to PI - PI asks K to Get Additional Cards from W - K Meets W in Restaurant, Gives Signal - Officers Arrest, Find No Cards - Ask W for Permission to Search Car - Find 2 Cards in Other Names Under Floor Mat - Watson moves to suppress the cards, claiming that his arrest was illegal without an arrest warrant, the motion was denied - "The Court of appeals held that Watsons arrest was illegal because the officers had not obtained an arrest warrant and there was no exigent circumstances to justify the arrest absent of the warrant. The court of appeals further held that the credit cards should have been suppressed as the fruits of the illegal arrest." - Common Law Rule - Officer May Arrest for Crime Committed in Presence and for Felonies - Codified in 18 U.S.C. 3061 - "The cases construing the Fourth Amendment thus reflect the ancient common law rule that a peace officer was permitted to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor or felony committed in his presence as well for not committed in his presences if there is reasonable ground for making the arrest. This has been the prevailing rule under the state constitutions and statutes." - Concurrence "If the officers attempted to meet such a contingency by procuring a warrant as soon as they had probable cause and then merely held it during there subsequent investigation, they would risk a court decision that the warrant had grown stale by the time it was used." - Dissent: "Delay by law enforcement officers in executing an arrest warrand does not ordinarily affect the legality of the arrest. In Short, staleness should be the least of an arresting officer's worries."

Los Angeles v. Mendez

- all claims of excessive force in the making of an arrest should be governed under the Fourth Amendment.

Plumhoff v. Rickart

- all claims of excessive force in the making of an arrest should be governed under the Fourth Amendment. (deadly force during chase is reasonable when there is grave public danger)

United States v. Blake

¥ In United States v. Blake - The Court found such a broad description of information uncessary to ask that Facebook turn over information about a particular users account. Ð The Blake court ultimately found it unccessary to decide whether the warrant was overbroad, however, because even if it was, exclusion of evidence was not justified, under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, discussed later in this Chapter, officers could reasonably rely on the warrant."

Knapp

¥ Knapp - 12 Second Delay --- Break In OK, An officer can break open premises if he has announced his authority and purpose and is refused admittance - Officers smashed down the defendants door with a battering ram after announcing their presence and waiting in vain for 12 seconds for a response from a defendant, whom they knew was inside. ¥ If the door to be residence is already open, police are not required to announce their presence before entering, because the prohibition is against breaking the door.

Lyons v. Robinson

¥ Lyons v. Robinson - "the warrant listed the wrong address, and the Court stated that the description though inaccurate was sufficiently particular because it made it unlikely under the circumstances that another preemies might be mistakenly searched."

Maryland v. Garrison

¥ Must Limit Search to An Apartment But Innocent Error Will Not Invalidate Warrant ¥ Maryland v. Garrison (1987) Ð "third floor apartment" was really 2 Ð Officers mistakenly went into wrong apartment, found evidence led to arrest of Garrison, and was used to convict legally at trial

Wilson v. Arkansas

¥ The Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment requires the police to announce their presence before entering a premise - they ruled that the announcement rule was not a rigid conditional requirement, but rather a component of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry,

Gerstein v. Pugh

¥ The Supreme Court has held that while a warrant is not required for public arrest, certain post-arrest protections are necessary to minimize the intrusion on a person who I sarrested without probable casue Ð Gerstein v. Pugh - "The Court declared that if a person is arrested without a warrant, he is entitled to 'prompt' post-arrest assessment of probable casue by a magistrate, however the state need not provide the adversary safeguards associated with a trial. The Corut reasoned that the proabbelc aseu standard traditionally has been decided by a magistrate in a nonadversary hearing on the basis of hearsay and written testimony."

Hill v. California

Probable cause is not accuracy but rather fair probability = if police have probable cause to arrest Hill and have probable cause to believe that Miller is Hill, they act properly if they arrest Miller.

What is the Particularity Requirement?

¥ The warrant clause requires a particular description of the place to be searched, the particularity requirement is designed to protect against the abuses of a general warrant Ð Provides three protections ¥ 1.) If the executing officer has no knowledge of the underlying facts, a particular description of the premises in the warrant operates as a necessary control on his discretion. ¥ 2.) even if the executing officer knows the place she wants to search, the particular description in the warrant establish a specific record of probable cause as to location prior to the search ¥ 3.) The particularity requirement prevents the officer from using the warrant as a blank check to expand a search of a location by relying on over general descriptionsb. ¥ Must Limit Search to An Apartment But Innocent Error Will Not Invalidate Warrant

Authority to Arrest without a Warrant?

¥ Authority to Arrest without a Warrant - A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has reasonable cause to belevie that such a person has committed: Ð 1.) a felony Ð 2.) A misdemeanor, and the offier has reasonable cause to beleivet that such as person ¥ a.) will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested ¥ b.) may cause injury to himself or other or damage to property unless immeditatley arrested Ð 3.) A misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor in the officer's presence

United States v. Magluta

¥ Courts have found that evidence can be excluded only if it was obtained as a result of an unreasonable detention, thus exlcuson is not required if the magistrate would have found probable casue for the detenetion even if the hearing had been promptly conducted. ¥ United States v. Magluta - the Court found that the officers had no reason to beleuive that the suspect was home, because a visitor was on the premises, and the car was in the driveway, only need reason to believe that the suspect was hom not probable cuase. ¥ *If the arrest is made after the entry to the home, and without a warrant, then ther has been a Payton violation and the information obtained in the during the entry is illegal.* -¥ "The protections against warrantless intrusions into the home announced in Payton apply with equal force to a properly rented hotel or motel room during the rental period, however this is only the case as long as the arrestee has rightful possession to the room."

Mere Evidence / Fair Probability

¥ Fair Probability is present when it is u is unknown whether a certain crime has been or is being committed. ¥ Up until 1967, the Court had consistently held that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the government for searching or seizing anything other than the "fruits and instrumentalities" of a crime Ð Mere evidence of a crime was considered beyond the scope of a permissible Fourth amendment search ¥ The Warren Court rejected the Mere Evidence Limitation in Warden v. Hayden - a decision that dramatically expanded the possibilities for law enforcement, both when searching pursuant to a warrant and when searching pursuant to an exception to the warrant requirement

Winston v. Lee

¥ A magistrate cannot issues a warrant that violates the reasonableness portion of the Fourth Amendment Ð Winston v. Lee - the defendant had been wounded in the course of committing a robbery, th estate obtained a court order forcing the defendant to undergo surgery to remove a bullet, the state had probable cause, but the defendant argued tthat the procedure was still reasinabel, The Court agreed with the defendant, and noted that the medical risk of the operation wer disputed, and reasoned that the uncertainity militated against a finding that the operation was a reasonable search, moreover, the commonwealth failed to show a compelling need for the bullet, as it had substantial other evidence tying the defendatnt to the robbery and could offer evidence of the location of the bullet in the defndants body.

What is the warrant clause?

¥ An arrest warrant must describe with particularity the person to be arrest ¥ The warrant clause mandates that a warrant to be valid must particular describe the things the officer is looking for and to be seized. ¥ The search of an entire server for Child Pornogrpahy is allowed, same for cellphones as there might be evidence that indicates a crime and that it could be covered or hidden

Arrest v. Summons?

¥ Arrest v. Summons - Why is it reasonable to begin the criminal process by arresting a suspect rather than by notifying them to appear in court Ð Gustafson v. Florida -"The Court held that a persuasive claim might have been made that the custodial arrest of the petitioner for a minor traffic offense violated his rights under the the 4th and the 14th amendment, but that suggestion has never become law" Ð Atwater v. City of Lago Vista - The Court opted for a bightline rule that a custodial arrest is always reasonable if the officer has probable casue of a criminal violation, Atwater was arrested for not wearing a seat belt -> punishable by fine, but was detained and brought to police custody and booked -> The Court reasoned among other things that it would be to difficult to distinguish among offenses that could justify custodial arrest and those that cannot. "It is clear after Atwater that the decision to proceed b

What is required to be a magistrate?

¥ What is required to be a magistrate Ð Coolidge v. New Hampshire - the Court invalidated a warrant issued by a state attorney' General who was authorized by state law to act as a justice of the peace, because the person could not be neutral and detached Ð Connally v. Georgia - A magistrate who was paid when given a warrant, and not paid when he didn't is unreasonable Ð United States v. MckEever - Magistrate can retain some law enforcement training and attachment and still be neutral. Ð United States v. Decker - Magistrate loses nuetral and detached status when he fails to read a warrant because he was intrigued by the manner in which eh officer became suspicious of the defendant. Ð Shadwick v. City of Tampa - Magistrate Need Not Be Lawyer - Can Issue Warrants for Minor Offenses - Breach of Peace, Trespass ¥ "The Court is not making a categorical rule that the issuance of warrants by non-lawyers would always satisfy the fourth amdnemtn requirement of neutrality and detachment, but rather the Court simply rejected the categorical rule that non-lawyers could never act as neutral and detached magistrates." Ð There is no requirement that a magistrate give reasons for finding probable cause or for rejecting a warrant application.

Richards v. Wisconsin

¥ the Court considered the exigent circumstances exception to the knock and announce requirement in the context of a search of the premises of a suspected drug distribution operation. ¥ If the officers make an advanced showing of conditions at a premises that would excuse the knock and announce requirement, then a no-knock and announce warrant can be valid as issued. ¥ If the door to be residence is already open, police are not required to announce their presence before entering, because the prohibition is against breaking the door. ¥ Courts have held that if the officer can trick the homeowner into opening the door, there is no violation of the knock and announce requirement. *After noting the general importance of following conventional "knock-and-announce" procedures, the Court held that in those circumstances when police have good reason to suspect that announcing their presence and intentions may be dangerous, futile, or result in the destruction of evidence, a "no-knock" entry is justified. The Court added that by immediately closing the door after witnessing the officers outside it, Richards gave police sufficient justification for breaking into his room - especially considering the disposable nature of the substances they were seeking.*

All Jursidictions Permit Arrests of Material Witnesses

Ð "E.g., 18 U.S.C. 3144 - "If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. * * * "

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 (e)(2)(A)

Ð 1.) Warrant must identify person or property to be searched, identify any person or property to be seized, and designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned, The warrant must command the officer... ¥ 1.) execute the warrant with in a time no longer than 14 days ¥ 2.) Execute the warrant during the day time unless the judge expressly authorized the execution at another time, ¥ 3.) return the warrant to the magistrate judge designated in the warrant. ¥ Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (f)(1)( c) requires that an officer executing a warrant give a copy to person whose premises is searched ¥ 41 (f)(3) permits a judge to delay notice if authorized by statute ¥ Section 213 of the Patriot Act permits agents to enter a person's home or officer covertly and delay notice if they can show reasonable cause to believe that notice may have an adverse effect: endangering an individual, flight, destruction of evidence, intimidation, or jeopardizing an investigation or delaying a trial ¥ Statutes throughout the country require that officers executing a warrant knock and announce there presence before attempting to enter the dwelling.

United States v. Brown

Ð The Blake court ultimately found it unccessary to decide whether the warrant was overbroad, however, because even if it was, exclusion of evidence was not justified, under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, discussed later in this Chapter, officers could reasonably rely on the warrant." While a search warrant must describe the items to be seized with reasonable particularity sufficient to prevent a

United States v. Banks

Ð United States v. Banks - when a warrant applicant gives reasonable grounds to expect futility or to suspect that one or another exigency already exists or will arise instantly upon knocking, a magistrate judge is acting within the Constitution to authorize a "no-knock" announcement.

United States v. Conteras

Ð United States v. Contreras - Ceballos set fourth the purpose of the knock and talk requirement, to give notice of their authority and the purpose of entering prior to forcing entry, it protect citizens, law enforcement, and individual privacy rights, and against the destruction of private property.