4A Search

Question 1

Did the conduct of the gov’t constitute a search or seizure?

Answer 1

2 ways to find out:
1) Common Law trespass. search or seizure physically intrudes on a protected area or item to obtain information

2) Katz Standard: a) if the search/seizure implicates a person’s subjective expectation of privacy. b) one that society would recognize as reasonable

Katz “adds to” not “substitutes from” the trespass doctrine. So a search could be reasonable under either.

Question 2

if the 4A applies, then we must determine whether the search or seizure was REASONABLE.

Answer 2

Was the search conducted with a warrant?

If Yes: a) was the warrant supported by probably cause?
b) did the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized?
c) was the warrant properly executed by the police in that the officers complied with its terms and limitations?

If NO: does a warrant exception apply, making the search reasonable in the absence of a warrant?

E: Extingency
S: Search Incident to Arrest
C: Consent
A: Automobile
P: Plain View
I: Inventory
S: Special Needs
T: Terry stop and frisk

Question 3

Curtilage/Open Field Doctrine

Answer 3

The curtilage is the land “immediately surrounding and associated with the home,” e.g., the front porch. Courts look to a four-factor test to determine whether a particular area is within the “curtilage”: 1) its proximity to the home, 2) whether it is enclosed, 3) the nature of its uses, and 4) the steps taken to protect it from observation. US. v. Dunn

Open Field Doctrine: gov’t intrusion upon an open field is NOT a search. Oliver v. US.

Florida v. Riley: Helicopter case. could see with naked eyes the weed being grown through the greenhouse. Aerial surveillance in not a search. Flying in public is a routine activity now.

Question 4

Dog/Drug Sniff Cases

Answer 4

Florida v. Jardines: dog sniffing in the curtilage of someone’s home is a search.

US v. Place: Sniffing in a public place (airport) is NOT a search; not intrusive and limited info obtained (presence or absence of drugs).

Ill. v. Caballes: sniff during a routine and lawful traffic stop was not a search.

Rodriguez v. US: sniff that extended lawful stop WAS A SEARCH

Question 5

Tactile Manipulation

Answer 5

US v. Bond: In this case it was a search because officers manipulated the bag to find drugs. but it may or may not be a search. it depends on if the item were handled in a way one would normally expect in the circumstances. if not, it is a search.

Question 6

Third Party Doctrine/Privacy Exposed: a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily turn over to third parties. (KNOWING EXPOSURE)

Answer 6

US v. White: b/c 4A doesn’t protect a wrongdoer from a former accomplice’s testimony, nor does it protect from an accomplice wearing a wire—it’s functionally the same thing. Criminal accomplices must realize the risk that they may turn on one another.

CA v. Greenwood: searching of trash left out on the curb is NOT a search. “Knowing Exposure.” if you expose your garbage to the public then you defeat your 4A claim. Exposure counts even if not full exposure.

Kyllo v. US: use of thermal image to see inside a home is a search. Sense-enhancing technology. Tech (at the time) not widely available to general public.

Carpenter v. US: Third party doctrine is NOT a categorical rule; assess nature of information and degree of voluntariness in sharing. This case is diff than cases above. cell phone data is not truly shared; cell phones and series are a pervasive and insistent daily part of life. info not really voluntarily turned over. TPD is an exception of privacy and Carpenter is an exception to TPD. Narrow holding. Meant for only CSLI info.

Question 7

Privacy and Property Redux

Answer 7

US. v. Jones: attaching a GPS to a person’s car to obtain info is a search. Car is an “effect.” Katz added to property rights, did not usurp them. physical trespass into private prop/curtilage by gov in order to obtain information = search.

• Physical trespass is NEITHER SUFFICIENT NOR NECESSARY FOR A SEARCH TO OCCUR under the 4th amend
• Example: physical trespass into a non protected area/place is not sufficient, unless Katz applies
• Example: physical trespass into a protected area/place without intent to gather information is also not sufficient, unless Katz applies
• Specific from JONES: When law enforcement physically invades or intrudes on another’s personal property that has privacy interests, to gather information, a search occurs

Carpenter v. US: