Exceptions to the warrant requirement (4th amendment)

3.1)stop

"Terry stop" is a limited and temporary intrusion on an individual's freedom of movement short of a full custodial arrest. A stop is justified on the reasonable suspicion, based upon articulable facts, that the detainees are or were involved in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Whether reasonable suspicion exists is based on the totality of the circumstances.

Exceptions to warrant requirement

1) Search incident to a lawful arrest 2)Exigent circumstances 3)Stop and frisk 4) Automobile exception 5) Plain view doctrine 6)Consent searches 7) Administrative searches

Chimel standard

A lawful arrest creates a situation that justifies a warrantless contemporaneous search of the person arrested and the immediate surrounding area (his "wingspan") from which a weapon may be concealed or evidence destroyed. If the arrest occurs in a home, it is permissible to search "closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be launched."

Impounded vehicle

A legally impounded vehicle may be searched, including closed containers, such as glove box or a backpack, as part of a routine inventory search. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369-71 (1976). The warrantless search need not take place at the time that the vehicle is seized.

Emergency situations

A search without a warrant is authorized whenever there is a reasonable apprehension that the delay required in obtaining the warrant would result in the immediate danger of evidence destruction or the threatened safety of the officer or the public, or when a suspect is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.

1)Search incident to a lawful arrest

A warrantless search is valid if it is reasonable in scope and if it is made incident to a lawful arrest. If the arrest is invalid, any search made incident to it is likewise invalid. Therefore, if a suspect is stopped for a traffic offense and given a citation but not arrested, then there can be no search incident to lawful arrest. includes the right to search pockets of clothing and to open containers found inside the pockets. The right also extends to containers "immediately associated" with the person (such as a shoulder bag or purse), so long as the containers are large enough to conceal a weapon or evidence of a crime.

3.2) Frisk

An officer who does not have probable cause to arrest may make a limited search of the person, such as a pat-down of the outer clothing, if he has reasonable suspicion that the suspect was or is involved in criminal activity and that the frisk is necessary for the preservation of his safety or the safety of others. See "plain feel" exception

6) Consent searches

Consent can serve to eliminate the need for police to have probable cause as well as to first obtain a warrant in order to conduct a search. Permission must be voluntary. Permission given in acquiescence to lawful authority (e.g., a warrant) is not voluntary. Failure to inform of the right to withhold consent does not invalidate the consent.

Hot pursuit

If the police have probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a felony and they are pursuing him to arrest him, then they have the right to enter a private building during the pursuit, to search that building while they are present on the premises, and to seize evidence found there, even though the material found is "mere" evidence and neither fruits nor instrumentalities of a crime.

5) Plain view doctrine

Items in public view may be seized without a warrant because one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things that are exposed to the public (e.g., physical characteristics, vehicle identification numbers, or items in open fields). In situations in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., in a suspect's house), a police officer may seize an item in plain view of the officer, even if it was not named in the search warrant or the discovery was not inadvertent, as long as (i) the officer is on the premises for a lawful purpose, and (ii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent. If the officer is not legitimately on the premises, the plain view doctrine does not apply.

Valid Terry stop and frisk

Police may order occupants out of a vehicle that they have lawfully stopped. When police lawfully detain a driver or a passenger after a traffic stop, they may frisk the person if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual has a weapeon.

Terry stop of a car

Pursuant to a lawful stop of a vehicle, police may conduct a search of the passenger compartment for weapons, if: i) The police possess a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons; and ii) The search of the passenger compartment is "limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden."

"plain feel" exception

Under the "plain feel" exception, if an officer conducting a valid frisk feels an object that has physical characteristics that make its identity immediately obvious (i.e., he has probable cause to believe that the item is contraband), then the officer may seize the evidence

4) Automobile exception

Warrant not required to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a criminal activity. The police may search anywhere in a car that they believe there to be contraband, including the trunk and locked containers, so long as they have probable cause to do so. The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a criminal activity. In this case, the strong smell of marijuana coming from the car provided probable cause to believe that the car might contain contraband, and thus the officer could search the car without first obtaining a warrant.

Third party consent

a third party has the authority to consent to a search of property that she owns or occupies. a third party does not have the authority to consent to a search of property owned or occupied by the defendant. The defendant can suppress evidence seized during such a search unless (i) an agency relationship exists between the third party and the defendant that gives to the third party the right to consent on behalf of the defendant, or (ii)the defendant otherwise gives the third party such rights with respect to the property that the defendant assumes the risk that the third party would allow the property to be searched. If the property to be searched is under the joint control of the defendant and a third party, and the defendant is not present at the time of the search, then the third party has authority to consent. For joint control property if defendant is present at the time of the search, then the police may not rely on third-party consent if the defendant objects to the search.

2) exigent circumstances

warrantless entry into a home or business ok if government demonstrates both probable cause and exigent circumstances. "exigent circumstances" exist in (1) hot pursuit and (2) emergency situations.