Exceptions to Warrant Requirement

Blood Alcohol Tests and Exigent Circumstance

(1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application.

Hot pursuit of fleeing felon

(1) Hot pursuit allows police officers to enter the home of a suspect or a third party to search for a fleeing felon. (2) During hot pursuit, any evidence of a crime discovered in plain view while searching for the suspect is admissible.

Exceptions to Warrant Requirement

**Generally, other warantless searches unreasonable/unconstitutional under 4th amendment: 1. Search incident to lawful arrest 2. Automobile Exception 3. Plain view 4. Exigent Circumstances 5. Good faith reliance 6. Consent 7. Stop and frisk 8. Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon 9. Evanescent Evidence 10. Emergency aid/community caretaker 11. Open Fields Doctrine 12. Special Circumstances (public schools, prison, military) 13. Inventory Searches Incident to Arrest 14. Mandatory Drug Testing 15. Border Searches 16. Dog sniffs

Traffic Stop Analysis

1. Did officer have the right to stop (only for traffic violations/routine stop) 2. Once stopped what can officer do? (routine measures - license, warrant check); deal with traffic violation (arrest, citation) 3. Can officer do anything else? Yes so long as it doesn't violate stop

Stop and Frisk

1. during valid Terry stop 2. police have RS that detainee is armed and dangerous 3. may patdown outer clothing for weapons 4. may seize anything that by plain feel is weapon or contraband

Breath test and warrants (Birchfield v. ND) (exigent circumstance) (refused to take breath test, arrested, charged w/ crime for not taking breath test)

A law requiring a motorist to submit to a blood-alcohol-concentration breath test after being lawfully arrested for driving while impaired does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches **but if you are conscious, you can deny a blood test ( can't make laws against this)

Rodriguez v. US (2015) (dog sniff can't prolong stop) (traffic stop; issued warnings; backup; sniff)

A police officer may not prolong a routine traffic stop to have a drug sniffing dog walk around the vehicle - routine traffic stop similar to Terry stop

Search and seizure of car at station Chambers v. Maroney (1970) (robbery gas station/reliable information/men arrested/car brought back to station)

A warantless search of a car is constitutional so long as the police have probable cause that the car contains items that they are entitled to seize **No warrant needed for police to search a car that's been seized and brought to the police station based on PC**

Emergency Aid/Community Caretaker (Michigan v. Fisher) (2009) (blood on car/screaming in house)

A warantless search of a home is permissible where there is an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone within the house is in need of immediate aid *someone seriously injured or in threat of injury* -- objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that someone inside the home may be hurt

Exigent Circumstances, (Generally Payton v. New York (1980) (go into home and arrest murder/robbery victims warantless)

Absent exigent circumstances, the police can't enter a person's home to make an arrest without a warrant **exigent = necessary and emergency **A warrantless arrest in a public place is valid if officer had PC to believe suspect was a felon (street, gym, place of employment)

Open Fields Doctrine

An individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. Even if land is privately owned and owner has taken reasonable signs to prevent trespassing, if police go onto land (leaving aside curtilage) they can look in the open field.

Consent - Scope Limited

Authority to search is no greater than what's given by the consenting party, both as to scope and time: - person who granted consent can revoke -to determine scope, look to the words of the police and person consenting Ex) "we're looking for a gun" = can only look in places in which there can be a gun *consent not a waiver; parent has authority to consent to search a child's room if parent has access

Automobile Exception, Generally

Automobile Exception: 1. Need probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or fruits, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime 2. May search anywhere in/on car where item that's subject to search may be found 3. Contemporaneousness not required 4. This is an exception tot he warrant requirement ONLY (still need PC) 5. Lesser expectation of privacy for vehicles

Plain View Doctrine, Generally/Elements

Elements: 1. Legitimately on the premises 2. Discover contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime 3. In plain view (via sight, smell, sound, etc)

Evanescent Evidence

Evidence that will change or be lost over time. Examples: - Blood samples to test for drugs or alcohol levels - Scrapings from under a suspect's fingernails

Warantless search or seizure & Plain View doctrine (Arizona v. Hicks) (1987) (bullet shot/stereos)

For a warrantless search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the plain view doctrine can only be invoked to search or seize evidence if the police have probable cause of the evidence's incriminating character *search of the stereo equipment was unrelated to the lawful purpose for which the officer was in Hick's apartment* *if serial numbers were visible, would've been no 4th amendment violation*

Consent, Generally (Exception)

Fourth Amendment test for a valid consent to search is that the consent be voluntary, and "voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances AND must be freely given

Dog Sniffs (Florida v. Harris) (2013) (dog certification)(dog alert = PC to search)

If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing its reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides PC to search. The same is true, even in the absence of certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.

Good Faith Reliance/Leon Rule (Exception)

If the warrant looks good on its face AND that officer knows of no improperiety, good faith standard may apply Leon Rule: If an officer is relying in good faith on a warrant, evidence that is obtained (that's not beyond scope and is a search that is allowed), is admissible)

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest, Generally

If you have a lawful arrest, you don't need any basis for a full, field search Goal (U.S Robinson): 1. protect officer safety 2. preserve evidence and protect against destruction Consider Scope (Chimel) - Search limited to arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control (which may include an area from which he might gain possession of a weapon); the search isn't justified for routinely searching any other room or through all desk drawers, concealed items *only can be justified w/ a warrant) Consider Vehicles (Gant) (different)

Requesting driver/passengers to step out of car (Pennsylvania v. Mimms) (1977)

In assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure, a court must weigh the incremental intrusiveness of the search against the public policy justifying the search. **Even without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe one is armed and dangerous, officer can ask the person stopped (and car's passengers) to step out of, or remain in car.**

Missouri v. McNeely (can't force someone to take a blood alcohol test (except with a warrant) (can charge someone w crime for not taking a breathalyzer)

In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency that in every case is sufficient to justify conducting an involuntary blood test without a warrant.

Scope of Search Incident to Arrest (Chimel v. California) (coins; arrest; search of entire house)

Incident to a lawful arrest, a warantless search of the area in possession and control of the person under arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment

"Reason to Believe" Standard; Vehicles (Arizona v. Gant) (2009) (guy arrested for driving without a license)

Police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that crime-related evidence is located in the vehicle; Standard is NOT reasonable suspicion

Passenger Contents & Search & Automobiles (Wyoming v. Houghton) (1999) (drug syringe in pocket)

Police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect passenger's belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search *there is no distinction made between containers owned by the driver or by anyone else. As long as there is probable cause to search the car itself, any containers in the car may be searched, regardless of ownership* - we don't know if this rule extends to when purses are on the lap of a person

Special Circumstances

Students in public, elementary, and secondary schools (doesn't apply to public colleges); prisons; military

School Searches (TLO)(marijuana in backpack)

TLO (two prong test): 1: a search may be justified at its INCEPTION if there's reasonable grounds for suspecting it'll result in evidence of school law or rule violation 2: The search's scope is permissible if it's reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive Search by school officials valid if: 1. offers a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing 2. implemented through means reasonably related to objectives of search 3. search not excessively intrusive

Exceptions to Probable Cause (search)

Terry; search incident to lawful arrest (if you have a lawful arrest, you don't need any basis for a full, field search)

Container Rule (Florida v. Jimeno) (drugs in bag in car)

The 4th amendment allows a law enforcement officer to open a closed container within a suspect's vehicle, if, under the circumstances, it is objectively reasonable to believe the scope of the suspect's consent permits the officer to do so (it was reasonable for officer to look in bag when he said that he was searching for drugs)

Dog Sniff and Traffic Stop (Illinois v. Caballes) (2005) (traffic stop/another trooper brought dog to scene/marijuana)

The 4th amendment doesn't require reasonable, articulable suspicion to administer a canine sniff test during a routine traffic stop *stop cannot be unreasonably prolonged *if dog alerts to drugs, police have PC

Narrow Scope of Exigent Circumstances (Welsh v. WI) (1984) (drunk driver, go to home w/o warrant to arrest)

The exigent circumstances exception to the 4th amendment doesn't allow warantless entry into a home to make an arrest for a MINOR offenses *analysis: seriousness of the offense and potential dangers (are they going to be a threat?)

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)(co-occupants)

The police may not enter a home without a warrant to search for evidence where they obtain consent from an occupant, but a co-occupant is present and objects to the search

U.S v. Drayton (Greyhound bus) (reasonable person) (consent)

The police may request consent to search a person, even if they have no basis for suspecting that individual of illegal activity, and the citizen is not subject to a Fourth amendment seizure if a reasonable person would feel he is free to leave *totality of the circumstances - nothing officers did or said indicated that they were NOT free to leave

No search allowed when issued w/ citation (Knowles v. Iowa)

The search incident to arrest exception to the 4th amendment does not authorize the full search of a car after the issuance of a citation. (once citation is issued, no search, unless PC)

No Consent w/ Fake Warrant Bumper v. NC (1968)

There can be no justified, lawful search on the basis of consent when that "Consent" has only been given after the official asserted he had a warrant b/c there can be no consent under such circumstances

Cell phones and search incident to arrest (Riley v. California)

Under the 4th amendment, the gov can't conduct a warantless search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest absent exigent circumstances (one exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warantless search is objectively reasonable under the fourth amendment)

CURTILAGE (Florida v. Jardines)(2013)

Using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search

Inventory Searches Incident to Arrest (Colorado v. Bertine) (1987) (drunk driving/inventory search/drugs)

Valid if pursuant to established police department procedure Rule: Reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment

Kyllo v. US (2001)

While an unwarranted search of a private home is uncon, home owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the things freely observable by the public. Use of thermal imaging = search (details of what transpires in a home are intimate details and protected by 4th amendment)

Actual v. Apparent authority

apparent authority must create a reasonable belief in the police officer that the person has apparent authority to give consent to enter a home

SD v. Neville (refusal to take BAC test used against D in court not violate self incrimination)

can introduce evidence that D denied BAC test

Schmerber v. California (blood test, fifth amendment, self incrimination)

forcing drunk driving suspects to undergo a blood test does not violate their constitutional right against self incrimination 5th amendment self incrimination only in regards to testimonial evidence (speaking)(1) *BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application*

Mandatory Drug Testing

has been upheld when it serves a special need beyond needs of law enforcement (HS students in extracurriculars, gov employees with access to drugs)

Curtilage

the area immediately surrounding the home; considered a part of the home itself; extend to intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home

Open Field Doctrine (Oliver v. US) (1984) (Marijuana field)

under the open fields doctrine, a field may be entered and searched without PC or a warrant (even if property is gated, locked, no trespassing)(more than a mile from D's house) Reasonable expectation of privacy: 1. person's use of the area 2. sanctity of some places 3. intent of the Framers

Borders Searches

warantless searches broadly upheld to protect sovereignty (no pc or RS) unless super invasive - then maybe RS

Mitchell v. Wisconsin (exigent circumstances) (blood draw) (can order blood draw if unconscious) (unconscious = emergency)

when police have PC to believe a person has committed a drunk driving offense, and the driver's unconscious or stupor required him to be taken to the hosptial or similar facility, before the police had a resonable opportunity to adminsiter a standard evidentiary breath test, they might also always order a warantless blood test to measure driver's BAC **** (only way to go against this is if the D can prove that there was not an emergency and warrant should have been gotten)