Fourth Amendment
exceptions to Fruit of the Poisnous Tree Doctrine
1. confidential informant: if police had an independent source of knowledge aside from the fruits of the illegal search, then the doctrine will not exclude the discovered evidence 2. doctrine of inevitability: if discovery of evidence was "inevitable," the evidence may be admitted, as it was not then the illegal search that caused the evidence to be found -"inevitable": strong word, and in order to admit evidence under this exception, a court must find that police would have discovered the evidence whether or not they conducted the unreasonable search 3. good faith: police have probable cause with barely any cause and judge issues warrant (which isn't valid), but they thought it was -all evidence is admissible because the cop didn't deliberately violate the Fourth Amendment
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
1. inevitability 2. good faith 3. 3rd party source 4. automobile search 5. consent search -if you give consent to law enforcement, they don't need a warrant to search home, but search is normally limited to 2 rooms and many police officers have people sign off on their consent 6. crime scene search -cops have enormous power -"elephant in the matchbook": don't search in places you know the weapon won't be 7. emergency situation -exigent circumstances: if anyone's life is at risk 8. Open Fields Exception -curtilege: any enclosed area of property including areas that are your primary dwelling -any property that extends away from your dwelling that is prescribed by the local municipality, fence may or may not be considered curtilege -don't need warrant if something is on your property & not in curtilege
sources of probable cause
1. observation 2. expertise 3. informants 4. circumstantial evidence
Identify possible Fourth Amendment violations in the investigation.
A possible Fourth Amendment violation in the investigation was that the search was unconstitutional since there was not a warrant (the exclusionary rule - if people obtain evidence violating your Fourth Amendment rights for protection against unreasonable search and seizure, then the evidence can't be used against you for prosecution) and this was very significant at the time.
When the police showed up at Dolly's door, what did she want to see? Why?
Dolly wanted to see a search warrant because she knew that if they didn't have a certified reason to enter into her house, then it would be a restriction of her liberty. Since he didn't have a warrant, she didn't let him in and she also talked to a lawyer who confirmed what she did.
What did you learn about law enforcement practices in 1957?
I learned that law enforcement practices in 1957 did not follow all the rules and possibly invaded people's liberty because they conduct warrant less searches since they knew there were no ramifications. Therefore, there was nothing to deter them from acting in an illegal fashion.
In our system of government, who ultimately has the power to tip the scales of justice?
In our system of government, the Supreme Court and the Constitution ultimately has the power to tip the scales of justice.
Explain the process and purpose of incorporation. When did the Fourth Amendment get incorporated? Which case? Why wasn't the exclusionary rule included, too?
Incorporation is when the rights and protections found in the amendments are applied to the states. In Wolf v. Colorado in 1949, the Court said that states have to incorporate the Fourth Amendment, but states don't have to use the Exclusionary rule to enforce those rights, because the Exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution.
Explain the meaning and significance of these statements by James Otis: • "A man's house is his castle." • "A man's right to his home is derived from nature."
James Otis was arguing about the importance of privacy and how it was offensive to democracy how they could just have that much power to search and seize at will. Adams even said that this was when liberty was born because it is such an essential idea to our democracy.
How did law enforcement use the evidence gathered? Was it legal? Explain.
Law enforcement used the pornography they discovered to prosecute Dollree for the possession of obscenity. This was not legal because it was not her materials and they searched her house without a certified warrant.
Are all search-and-seizure situations involving the government Fourth Amendment violations? Explain and give some examples.
No, not all search-and-seizures involving the government are Fourth Amendment violations because there are exclusions on how the exclusionary rule can be used and there are many other exceptions. For example, the exclusionary rule may not apply if the police act in good faith or may not apply in grand juries.
Katz v. United States (1967)
-Charles Katz was head of an organization making illegal gambling phone calls across state lines so the police tracked his phone calls to a public phone booth, and the federal police installed listening devices when he went in -he was arrested & convicted of violating 20 different law, Katz's lawyer said his 4th amendment right was violence because phone booth is a private place -SCOTUS ruled in favor of Katz, by closing door in phone booth he had a reasonable expectation of privacy **this overturns Olmsted -> no longer need to trespass for a fourth amendment violation, as long as you have reasonable expectation of privacy, 4th amendment protects it
pre-revolutionary era/history of amendment
-Parliament tried to get money from America through acts that taxed products, so Americans smuggled products -British started to enact writs of assistance - blank search warrants that allowed for open searches of colonial homes
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
-in the middle of prohibition, Olmsted was apart of group trying to get bootlegged alcohol -Federal Agents installed listening devices outside of his apartment and got their evidence so they arrested him -Olmsted argued that they didn't have a warrant, he cites the Weeks case which said you need one -SCOTUS upholds conviction and Chief Justice Taft wrote the majority opinion saying the police never trespassed his apartment, so 4th amendment wasn't violated -said 4th amendment only applies to places
4th Amendment protections
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, need probable cause -search: invasion of individual liberty -seizure: deprivation of liberty (taking possession of something/someone) -need a probable cause, legitimate + realistic reason
What motivated Dolly and gave her confidence to keep going?
Her lawyer argued that Ohio's obscenity law violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech and this went all the way to the Supreme Court with the ACLU in order to support Dollree's lawyer. At the end of the brief, the ACLU added a section that asked the Court to overturn the Wolf v. Colorado decision and apply the exclusionary rule to the states.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
SCOTUS establishes the right to privacy as being in the penumbra (hidden in the shadows) of the Bill of Rights -illegal to counsel birth control -> Griswold and partner opened a Planned Parenthood and she wanted to test law -fined $100 and appealed to state saying that what married couples do at home is no one's business -SCOTUS agreed with Griswold -> right to privacy which is found in amendments 9,5,3,4,1
Exclusionary Rule
fourth amendment warrants are needed to conduct searches (invasion of liberty) everyone is entitled to fair trial, including state - evidence used to prosecute you has to be obtained legally ***illegally gained evidence cannot be included at trial -exclusion becomes a remedy
What right does the Fourth Amendment give us? What protections?
The Fourth Amendment requires that we be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government has to show probable cause and in many cases, it has to show a warrant, which is an essential right of the people.
What is the significance of the decision in Weeks v. United States (1914)?
The decision in Weeks v. United States (1914) was significant because it said if you don't have a warrant, you can't use the evidence. The Exclusionary rule was the Court's way of enforcing the Fourth Amendment, but it did not apply to the states.
What did you learn about Dollree Mapp? Respond in 1 or 2 words or phrases.
The police suspected that Dollree Mapp had been involved in the illegal money competition for some time. She was known as tough, outgoing, and driven and lived in one a nice neighborhood in Cleveland, so she took care of himself. When they came to the house, they asked to come inside and talk and she asked if they had a search warrant, which comes from the Fourth Amendment which has to be very specific and signed by a judge.
What were the police after? What did they find?
Three hours after they originally knocked on the door, they came back and broke down the door and broke a window to gain entry into the house. Dollree continued to tell them they weren't allowed in and they said that they had a warrant, so Dollree asked to see it. The paper was not a real warrant, which she then stuffed down her shirt, so the police handcuffed her so they could search her house. They found a "suspect" downstairs and arrested him, but he was then released the next day because he was found to have had nothing to do with the bombing. In an upstairs bedroom, they found some pornography and erratic comic books, which Dollree said was one of her former borders', and she was prosecuted for obscenity.
Weeks v. United States (1914)
Weeks was a numbers runner in a lottery and cops went into his house and found gambling receipts -Weeks lawyer said they can't use it because they don't have a warrant **establishes Exclusionary Rule
reasonable expectation of privacy in court
if law enforcement is going to invade people's live, they need good reason -prior to 1961, privacy doesn't exist
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
incorporated the exclusionary rule to the states -NOT designed to help defendants, designed to penalize peace if they operate outside of the law
probable caluse
belief that the result of a search is going to show that a crime a. has happened b. is currently happening c. will happen somewhere in the near future -need more than a hunch take probable cause to a judge, who can grant search warrants
Fruit of the Poisnous Tree Doctrine
any evidence gathered as a result of an illegal search, even at a time later than the illegal search itself, will be excluded from evidence
reasonable expectation of privacy
the individual believes and more importantly, society believes that whatever the individual is trying to keep private should remain private -don't have it in public, school, or online -everyone has this
