4th Amendment Flashcards

Question

Are public areas under TPD protected?

Answer 1

U.S. v. White (1989): ofﬁcer peaked through gap in bathroom stall and saw defendant engaged in criminal activity; not a search because while defendant could expect a signiﬁcant amount of privacy in the stall, the design of stall allowed ofﬁcer to make her observations without placing herself in any position that would be unexpected by an occupant of the stall

Answer 2

U.S. v. Knotts & Karo (1983): If the public can see you moving around, there is not expectation of privacy. The surveillance was only for a day and could have been done visually, and was placed in a container/can - Takeaway: 4th amendment does not regulate the use of radio beeper tracking devices to monitor public movements - at least where the installation of those devices does not involve a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected person, house, or effect

Answer 3

U.S. v. Carpenter (2018): Cell Site Location Data is an exception to Third Party Doctrine Facts: Police used cell records from Carpenter to track his location and place him in the vicinity of burglaries in which he was suspected. He was tracked for over 4 months. Holding: warrantless search of cell phone records, which include the location movements of cell phone users, violates the 4th amendment - Have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone location data (including in public places) + cell phones have so much information - D did not voluntarily give this information to the cellphone carrier. - Distinguishing: Smith: pen registers have limitations - Distinguishing: Miller: cell phones are a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life., don't require afﬁrmative act by the user, and not really “shared”

Answer 4

If it is POSSIBLE for someone else to see then no expectation of privacy California v. Ciraolo (1986): aerial observation from a 1000 ft of a fenced-in backyard is not a search because any public member ﬂying in the public airspace could've peered into the yard

Answer 5

California v. Greenwood (1988): there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when defendant places their trash on the street because they have made the trash available to the public. The police should not be expected to avert their eyes from what is publicly available

Answer 6

Bond v. U.S. (2000): Police squeezing bags on bus is a search because it goes beyond what would be expected by members of the public. Court uses normative analysis

Answer 7

U.S. v. Place (1983): a canine sniff of closed luggage for drugs is not a search under the expectation of privacy test because the manner was not intrusive and the information obtained was limited Rodriquez v. U.S. (2015): five-minute extension of a traffic stop constituted an unreasonable search when waited for drug dog

Answer 8

U.S. v. Jacobsen (1984): a law-enforcement officer is not required to obtain a warrant before conducting a chemical field test of a substance suspected to be an illegal drug because the tests could only disclose whether it was cocaine or not Skinner v. Railway Labor Execs (1989): A drug test of urine is a search because it can reveal a lot more info (pregnancy! Prescriptions!)

Answer 9

Kyllo v. U.S. (2001): using a thermal imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home is a search - Where the police uses a device that is (1) not in general public use to explore details of the home (2) that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant

Answer 10

Court in Hudson v. Palmer (1984): prison cell has no constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in his personal cell or in papers or property in his cell

Answer 11

When government agents materially interfere with a person’s interest in being free from physical disruption and inconvenience Seizure of houses, papers and effect occur when government agents exercise dominion and control over property or otherwise materially interfere with possessory interests.

Answer 12

(1) Physical touched (physical display of authority) OR - Whether or not the suspect is subdued (2) Non-physical show of authority - BUT only if the suspect is subdued

Answer 13

Facts: Torres drove away from police and cops started shooting, striking her but she was still able to get away from the police Holding: the use of physical force with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the force used does not successfully restrain the subject. The test  use of force + objective intent to restrain

Answer 14

Facts: Mendenhall was suspected of being a drug courier and when she hopped off her flight the DEA questioned her. She submitted to a strip search where they found drugs. Holding: a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leav

Answer 15

* Location of the encounter, particularly whether the D is in an open public place where he is within the view of persons other than law enforcement officers * Whether the officers touch or physically restrain the D * Whether the officers are uniformed or in plain clothes * Whether their weapons are displayed * The number, demeanor and tone of voice of the officers * Whether and for how long the officers retain D’s personal effects like tickets or identification * Whether or not they have specifically advised D at any time that he had the right to terminate the encounter or refuse consen

Answer 16

Florida v. Royer Facts: Royer at airport and police thought he fit drug courier profile. ID themselves and requested ticket/license and then to accompany them to a room and unlock his suitcase. Royer said nothing but complied and the officers found drugs. Royer argued not free to leave. Holding: law enforcement ofﬁcers do not violate the 4th amendment by merely approaching an individual in a public place and asking if he is willing to answer questions

Answer 17

INS v. Delegado Facts: Officers positioned themselves at exits of factory and displayed badges while being armed. Officers questioned immigrants in factory about immigration status Holding: "police questioning, by itself" does not constitute in a 4th amendment violation, the employees had no reason to think they would be punished for giving truthful answers - Doesn't matter there were guards at the door, the employees were at work and thus were not going to leave the factory in any event - the guards were not custodial or coercive

Answer 18

Facts: Two police officers were searching a bus and asked the passengers if they could search their bags, Bostick agreed, and police found cocaine Holding: No violation of 4A on bus when people were told they were free to give/deny consent and D consented - Free to terminate is a better test than free to leave because people put themselves on a bus, a place where they are already not free to go where they want

Answer 19

Drayton Facts: Officers in plainclothes entered Greyhound bus, one at the front and another going row by row searching bags for drugs but exits were not blocked. Officers did not inform passengers of their right to refuse. Officers found drugs in D’s bag; D’s friend was arrested next to him before the police spoke with D Holding: Cops do not need to inform passengers of their right to not cooperate, and it did not matter that his friend was arrest (if anything D was more on notice of the consequences of continuing the encounter

Answer 20

California v. Hodari Facts: officers approached youths and they all fled. Hodari threw a small rock (cocaine) as officer chased him and Hodari was tackled and handcuffed Holding: In order for a show of authority to be a seizure, the suspect MUST submit to officer’s command - No seizure because Hodari was not stopped at the moment he threw cocaine because he did not submit to authority, was not seized until they tackled him Note: Under Mendenhall would have been seized when started being chased but court carves this out because do not want to reward people who do not obey

Answer 21

California v. Hodari Facts: officers approached youths and they all fled. Hodari threw a small rock (cocaine) as officer chased him and Hodari was tackled and handcuffed Holding: In order for a show of authority to be a seizure, the suspect MUST submit to officer’s command - No seizure because Hodari was not stopped at the moment he threw cocaine because he did not submit to authority, was not seized until they tackled him Note: Under Mendenhall would have been seized when started being chased but court carves this out because do not want to reward people who do not obey

Answer 22

Probable Cause: fair probability of criminal activity based on facts and reasonable inferences - Threshold of proof for obtaining a warrant Oath/Affirmation: ensures probable cause shown by persons willing to swear to the truth of statements Particularity: must be reasonable

Answer 23

Guards against ARBITRARY searches/seizures- specific person place/thing they are looking for

Answer 24

Johnson v. U.S. Facts: Informant called about the smell of burning opium, police located smell to hotel room (a constitutional protected space like a home), cops asked to come in, then searched the place, finding opium and arrested occupants without a warrant Holding: purpose of the warrant clause is to require probable cause judgments to be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate (not an ofﬁcer with adrenaline and who is engaged in the ‘competitive enterprise of fettering out crime’)

Answer 25

Probable cause to search: fair probability the area or object searched contains evidence of a crime Probable cause to arrest: fair probability to believe that the person arrested has committed a crime

Answer 26

The source of information giving rise to probable cause must be vetted - If based on police officer’s own observations, presumed reliable - But if from a third party, reliability of the source must be considered

Answer 27

Facts: FBI had search warrant and affidavit was based on information from confidential information and FBI corroborated some of information on their own for Spinelli illegal gambling Holding: Although FBI did corroborate some information, it was unable to corroborate enough to arise to probable cause, the facts given to FBI were innocent facts

Answer 28

Aguilar/Spinelli Test: Both prongs must be satisfied before the magistrate can find probable cause 1. Reliability: Is the informant reliable - Police officers and law-abiding citizens are presumed to be reliable - Traditional informants (usually criminals and ex-criminals) are reliable IF (1) if they have good track records of providing good information, OR (2) if they make a declaration against their own interests - Anonymous tips cannot be credible 2. Credibility: Is the information reliable - If the informant makes a direct statement of personal knowledge (seeing drugs personally), OR - If no direct statement of personal knowledge, but makes a statement that contains a wealth of detail that there can be an inference of personal knowledge

Answer 29

A defect in one or both prongs can be remedied if the police obtain independence evidence. The corroboration must be substantial or corroborative of suspicious facts (can’t be based on the corroboration of only innocent facts)

Answer 30

Illinois v. Gates (1983) Facts: Police got anonymous letter (highly detailed with specific information) about Gates in drug scheme. Police corroborated with financial records, flight reservations, surveillance of Gates’ flight and movements, there was only one discrepancy with the tip. - Failed Spinelli test because it was an anonymous informant and only innocent facts were corroborated. Holding: probably cause standard is a practical, nontechnical conception, (common sense), and veracity/reliability of informants shouldn't be rigidly applied – Aguilar/Spinelli is overturned - Here: the fact that the letter was correct about the Gate’s future plans gives the magistrate PC to assume the non-innocent allegations are also true

Answer 31

Gates Totality of Circumstances/Fair Probability Test: based on common sense/practical considerations: - The nature of the information - Whether there has been an opportunity for the police to see or hear the matter reported - The veracity and basis of knowledge of the informant - Whether there has been an independent verification of the matters reported through police investigation.

Answer 32

although Aguilar/Spinelli is overruled, courts still use it (easier to apply) because if there is probable cause under Aguilar/Spinelli then there is always probable cause Gates

Answer 33

Corroboration is sufficient as long as it gives the magistrate a reasonable basis to believe the informant knows what she’s talking about

Answer 34

Probable Cause to Search Facts: D walking through train station and officer saw small block wrapped in silver duct tape and thought it was narcotics and handcuffed person and searched further and found cocaine Holding: Probable cause is evaluated not only from the perspective of a prudent man, but also from the particular viewpoint of the officer involved in the search or seizure - there was a fair probability that the rectangular block contained drugs

Answer 35

U.S. v. Valez (1983) Facts: Officer observed narcotics sale and sent in undercover to purchase and radioed description to other officers who then arrested someone who looked similar but had facial hair (description did not) - had drugs on him but wasn’t the right person Holding: probable cause to arrest/to search can exist even though police are mistaken in believing that the person arrested committed a crime - Probable cause standard is based is not accuracy but fair probability - Officers acted properly- detailed description of clothing and facial hair is irrelevant – could be worn as a disguise

Answer 36

Maryland v. Pringle Facts: Officer pulled car over for speeding- 3 people inside, saw roll of money in glove compartment, all 3 claimed ignorance and he arrested all 3 Holding: entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all 3 of the occupants had knowledge of and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine --> could infer a common enterprise (fair probability of crime) Probable cause to arrest all of the suspects in the car

Answer 37

Florida v. Harris Facts: Dog sniff of car found no drugs but positive feedback for substances to make meth, once he was released a positive ID by dog happened again even though this time no drugs in the car Holding: if a certified dog or with a good track record (certification from legit training record or evidence of proficiency evaluation), the alert in itself is probable cause - D can challenge the reliability of the dog

Answer 38

Requires “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.

Answer 39

Warden v. Hayden Facts: Clothing, a cap, and a jacket, trousers, were admitted as evidence during a search for a robbed robbery Holding: 4th amendment permits officers to seize mere evidence of a crime that is not a fruit or instrumentality of crime or contraband - Prior to 1967: Courts limits what the government can seize executing a search warrant to only seize Instrumentalities, fruits of crime, and contraband, not mere evidence

Answer 40

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily Facts: officers had probable cause to believe that Stanford photographer had taken pictures of demonstrators who attacked a group of police officers. Obtained a search warrant for Daily's offices. Stanford argued unconstitutional because no one in office is suspect of the case Holding: Valid warrants may be issued to search any property, whether or not occupied by a third party, at which there is probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime will be found - If there is probable cause for the search, the search still needs to be reasonable (ex. unreasonable to forcibly get bullets out of a victim even though that is evidence of a crime)

Answer 41

Necessary control of officer’s discretion Record of probable cause as to location prior to search Prevents officer from using warrant to search wherever she chooses

Answer 42

Andersen v. Maryland: catchall phrase for warrant is constitutional Facts: Police investigated real estate fraud, Andresen was a suspect so investigators got warrants to search his law offices for documents about the sale and conveyance of a specific lot of property. They seized 4% of his files. Holding: The inclusion of a catch-all phrase on a search warrant doesn’t convert the search warrant into a general warrant that violates the 4th amendment. So long as it has language limiting the warrant to items related to the specific crime.

Answer 43

Neutral & Detached: Constitution requirement to magistrates reviewing warrants - Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971): an executive officer, the head of law enforcement in the State, could not be the neutral and detached magistrate required by Constitution - U.S. v. McKeever (1990): magistrate who issued the warrant was formerly in law enforcement and retained reserve status, husband was a deputy, and visited the search while being conducted was not enough to show lack of neutrality Rubber Stamp (very hard to prove) - U.S. v. Decker (1992): magistrate loses neutral and detached status when he fails to read a warrant because he was "intrigued" by the manner in which the officer became suspicious of the defendant Legal Training is not Required - Shadwick v. City of Tampa (1972): municipal clerks who weren't lawyers were ﬁne; only need competence Records of Magistrate Decisions: there is no requirement that a magistrate give reasons for finding probable cause or for rejecting a warrant application

Answer 44

Gerstein v. Pugh (1975): if someone is arrested on probable cause (usually in public) without a warrant, they are entitled to a prompt, post-arrest assessment of probable cause by a magistrate County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991): Providing a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours, as a general matter, will comply with the promptness requirement. Even within 48 hours, it may be possible to show that there was an unconstitutional/unreasonable delay

Answer 45

Purpose: (1) Protects citizens and law enforcement officials from violence, (2) protects individual privacy rights, and (3) Protects against needless destruction of property

Answer 46

Wilson v. Arkansas (1995): Announcement requirement is not a rigid constitutional requirement, rather a component of 4th Amendment reasonableness inquiry

Answer 47

Refused Admittance: Officers may break in if they’ve announced presence and were refused entry - U.S. v. Knapp (1993): failure to respond in 12 seconds constituted a refusal of entry - U.S. v. Moore (1996): entering in after 3 seconds is too fast

Answer 48

No “Breaking”: If the door to a residence is already open, police are not required to announce their presence before entering, because the prohibition is against a “breaking” of the door Richards v. Wisconsin (1995): exigent circumstances exception - Must look at reasonableness – police must have reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous of futile or would inhibit effective investigation by allowing destruction of evidence then they do not have to - But there is no brightline rules or categories when it is always acceptable to not knock and announce

Answer 49

1. Arrests 2. Stop and Frisk 3. Search Incident to Arrest 4. Plain View and Plain Touch 5. Automobiles 6. Exigent Circumstances 7. Special Needs 8. Consent

Answer 50

To make a warrantless arrest the officer has probable cause (must be in public) to believe the person has committed: - A felony (year or more in prison) & the officer is somewhere he has a right to be --> Officer doesn’t have to see the felony - A misdemeanor (less than one year in prison) in the officer’s presence --> Officer needs to see the misdemeanor

Answer 51

- Public safety – prevent someone from committing future crimes - Deterrence - Identifying the suspect (if they run away you cannot secure the ID) - To search the person - To prevent the flight of someone officers have PC of committing a crime

Answer 52

U.S. v. Watson Facts: Informant with good track record accused Watson of possessing stolen credit cards, was set up on a sting to see if Watson had more cards, he indicated that Watson did, but the police arrested him and found none. They searched his car with his “go ahead” and found two cards. Holding: Officers do not need a warrant to arrest defendant for a felony in public but have to be somewhere they have a right to be Concurrence: anomaly in majority is that there are more protections for a search than for an arrest (things have more protections than persons?)

Answer 53

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001): Bright Line Rule --> custodial arrest is always reasonable if officer has probable cause of criminal violation - any crime (even if punishment has no jail time)

Answer 54

Tennessee v. Garner (1985): deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a felon unless: - (1) it is necessary to prevent the escape AND - (2) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of causing death or serious physical injury to the officers or others

Answer 55

Graham v. Connor (1989): all claims of excessive force in the making of an arrest are to be governed by the 4th amendment standards of reasonableness Factors: - (1) Severity of the crime - (2) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and - (3) Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight

Answer 56

Scott v. Harris (2007): enforcement officials can, consistent with the 4th amendment, attempt to stop a fleeing motorist from continuing a public-endangering flight by ramming the motorist's car from behind - Officers are not required to avoid risk to the public while stopping their pursuit in a car - Danger is not that Harris committed a traffic infraction, but he posed a deadly threat by fleeing/driving away (ex. of Garner test applied to misdemeanor)

Answer 57

Forrester v. City of San Diego Facts: Anti-abortion demonstrators wouldn't let people enter and exit the buildings and police used pain compliance techniques Holding: 4th amendment does not require best practices just reasonableness - BALANCING TEST: Nature and quality of intrusion upon arrestee’s personal security is less significant than most claims of force - no deadly force, no blows or cuts vs. City had legitimate govt. interest in dispersing and removing law breakers who were invading property and obstructing business - Balancing based on Graham factors - Does not need to be the most reasonable/least intrusive --> just reasonable

Answer 58

Use of force should not be used when someone is fleeing a misdemeanor, rather people should know that if they don’t comply, they will be charged with an additional crime

Answer 59

Payton v. New York (1980): arrests in home are not warrant exception Facts: Probable cause to believe P committed murder but no warrant. No response to knock and used crowbar to break in and enter his home Holding: The exception to warrant requirement for public arrests does NOT extend to arrest in the home absent exigent circumstances - ARREST WARRANT: carries with in limited authority to enter dwelling in which suspect lives only if there is reason to believe suspect is within

Answer 60

Payton rule applies equally to PROPERLY rented hotel/motel room during rental period and campsites as long as people are not overstaying

Answer 61

U.S. v. Holland (1985): D lived in an apartment. He was arrested in the common hallway where he had to go to open the door. Court found intent in Payton to broaden the definition of “home” to include the entrance to a common hallway.

Answer 62

Stegaald v. U.S. (1985): Search warrant needed to search third party home Facts: Fugitive wanted on drug charges, police got info he was staying at Steagald’s house, went to search, did not find fugitive but found drugs from Steagald Holding: A SEARCH warrant must be obtained to search for a suspect in home of a third party - An arrest warrant did not sufficiently protect the privacy and property interests of the third-party homeowner

Answer 63

After Steagald, it is important for the officer to determine whether the suspect lives in the premises (in which an arrest warrant is sufficient) or is merely a visitor (in which case a search warrant is required)

Answer 64

U.S. v. Litteral (1990): if suspect is CO RESIDENT of third party, then Steagald does not apply and Payton allows both arrest of subject of arrest warrant AND use of evidence found against the third party

Answer 65

Stop: when a cop reasonably believes a suspect is engaged in criminal activity, a stop is permitted

Answer 66

Frisk: when a cop reasonably believes a suspect is armed and dangerous, a frisk is permitted

Answer 67

Stop = reasonable suspicion = brief detention = No magistrate Arrest = probable cause = full custody = magistrate involved

Answer 68

Facts: Experienced officer observed 2 men outside a store who walked up to window, peered inside, and walked away and then 3rd man approached and talked and then walked away. Found behavior suspicious and suspected men of planning a robbery outside the store AND thought they be armed. Officer Grabbed terry (D) and patted down his outer clothing looking for gun and found one Holding: Officer can stop when there's reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, can frisk when there is reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous to the officer or the public  this standard is based on balancing the government interest against the nature of the individual interest - Officer acted reasonably in assuming that the 2 men were planning a robbery and patdown was also reasonable because it was limited to search for weapons and officer safety outweighed individual intrusion

Answer 69

Adams v. Williams (1972): informants and Terry: RS can come from officer’s observations or a reliable informant Facts: Officer got tip from informant about individual seated in nearby vehicle and had drug/ gun. Approached car and when Williams rolled down window he reached in and removed gun. Williams arrested and search occurred later Holding: Informant tips, like all other clues and evidence, can be used as reason for a stop and frisk - Unverified tip may have been insufficient for narcotics arrest or search warrant, the info here is enough to justify reasonable suspicion

Answer 70

Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977): officers in the course of a legal stop of an automobile based on RS have an automatic right under Terry to order the driver out of the vehicle (without any individual suspicion of the driver) Maryland v. Wilson (1997): court extended Mimms to passengers Arizona v. Johnson (2009): Officers who conduct routine traffic stops may perform a patdown of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous

Answer 71

Reasonable suspicion = fair possibility

Answer 72

U.S. v. Cortez (1981): Officers must have an objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity (1) the assessment must be based upon all circumstances (facts alone might be innocent, but in the totality are suspicious) (2) concept that the process just described must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing

Answer 73

Facts: Officer on patrol ran a car’s plates, found it was registered to an owner whose license was revoked. Officer did not observe anything else, no traffic infractions, and initiated a stop based solely on the revoked license. Glover (owner) was the driver Holding: Reasonable suspicion can be based on reasonable inferences drawn from known facts - To have license revoked in KS drivers demonstrate disregard for law - Officer drew a commonsense inference that Glover was likely the driver of the vehicle, which provided more than reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop

Answer 74

Alabama v. White (1990): an anonymous tip that is "significantly corroborated" by a police officer's investigation provides reasonable suspicion for a stop (lesser standard that Gates test for PC) Navarette v. California (2014): low standard Facts: Person called 911 reporting truck ran them off the road and gave make/model of car and license plate number and location. Officer saw Ds car 20 min later and followed it for 5 min and pulled him over, smelled weed and searched car and found it. Holding: reasonable suspicion depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians (lowering bar for RS) - Running someone off road is indicative of criminal conduct and just because there is a possibility of innocent conduct does not mean there is no reasonable suspicion - Distinguish from JL: here the caller claims to have actually witnessed the alleged conduct, unlike JL

Answer 75

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000): Flight + high crime area = reasonable suspicion Facts: Defendant fled upon seeing caravan of police converge on an area. Officers caught up to him and stop/frisked him Holding: flight alone cannot give rise to reasonable suspicion, but it is a factor that can be considered

Answer 76

Henien v. North Carolina (2014): reasonable suspicion based mistakes of law Facts: Officer saw a car pass and driver looked stiff and nervous, so he followed and noticed only one brake light came on, so he pulled driver over. One break light not against the law in NC, but the law was written pretty unclear Holding: Searches and seizures based on reasonable mistakes of fact and law can be reasonable suspicion (under the objectively reasonable standard)

Answer 77

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993): limits Terry for protection purposes only --> officer has reason to believe that the suspect is armed & dangerous Facts: Officer suspected drug activity and conducted a lawful stop and pat down, felt small object in pocket and determined it was not weapon but still pulled it out and it was drugs Holding: Terry frisks are justified only for protective purposes and a search for evidence is not permitted

Answer 78

Michigan v. Long (1983): Terry extends to protective examinations of area beyond the person of the suspect (grab area)

Answer 79

Samson v. California (2001): Suspicionless searches of parolees also found reasonable Balance: Parolees expectation of privacy is substantially diminished because his liberty is conditional (signed parolee agreement) & RS would undermine ability of gov to enforce laws because parolees could anticipate searches and hide evidence

Answer 80

U.S. v. Knight (2001): no more than reasonable suspicion is required to search a probationer's home, RS is the proper standard because probationers have diminished expectations of privacy. Note: this is not a Terry RS case, Court is doing reasonabless analysis outside of stop and frisk

Answer 81

Yes always!

Answer 82

D was stopped near the Mexican border, Court said that the fact that someone is Mexican cannot be a part of the RS analysis, but it was okay to consider someone LOOKS Mexican - Some scholars argue this is SCOTUS approving race in the RS totality test, but SCOTUS says they have not decided the issue

Answer 83

it’s rationale & it works: Majority Rule: race can be a factor in totality of the circumstances analysis; it can’t be dispositive or the only factor, but it can be considered

Answer 84

U.S. v. Weaver (8th Cir, 1992): Officer here stopped only black man on a flight for suspicious drug trafficking because the officer knew that black gangs were a problem; upheld along with other factors: came from source, city for drugs, had no identification - “race alone cannot be the only factor, but “we cannot ignore facts simply because they may be unpleasant” U.S. v. Ramos (1st Cir, 2010): defendants were seized while parked in a van outside a Boston train station and appeared to be Middle Eastern, there were recent terrorist bombings in urban centers so reasonable suspicion was justified  there is a real risk of terrorist attacks by people from the Middle East! (& there were other factors)

Answer 85

It’s irrational, ineffective and shouldn’t be used: Minority Rule: racial incongruity is not allowed to be a factor in suspicion (it is unAmerican to think someone might be out of place because of their race)

Answer 86

It’s irrational, ineffective and shouldn’t be used: Minority Rule: racial incongruity is not allowed to be a factor in suspicion (it is unAmerican to think someone might be out of place because of their race)

Answer 87

It’s irrational, ineffective and shouldn’t be used: Minority Rule: racial incongruity is not allowed to be a factor in suspicion (it is unAmerican to think someone might be out of place because of their race)

Answer 88

U.S. v. Weaver (8th Cir, 1992): Officer here stopped only black man on a flight for suspicious drug trafficking because the officer knew that black gangs were a problem; upheld along with other factors: came from source, city for drugs, had no identification - “race alone cannot be the only factor, but “we cannot ignore facts simply because they may be unpleasant” U.S. v. Ramos (1st Cir, 2010): defendants were seized while parked in a van outside a Boston train station and appeared to be Middle Eastern, there were recent terrorist bombings in urban centers so reasonable suspicion was justified  there is a real risk of terrorist attacks by people from the Middle East! (& there were other factors)

Answer 89

City of St. Paul v. Uber (Minn, 1990): - Facts: Officer saw car late at night and ran plates- saw it was from a town 20 miles away, was in an area where lots of people solicit prostitutes (he thought it was out of place to see a white guy in a black neighborhood) - Holding: no reasonable suspicion - No one from any suburb needs to justify his or her lawful presence on a public street in St. Paul Floyd v. City of New York (SDNY, 2013): stop & frisk struck down - Facts: NYPD disproportionately stopped and frisked blacks and Latinos, so they claimed the NYPD implemented it in a racially discriminatory fashion - Holding: Found S&F policy violated the 4th (arbitrary stops – too many of the stops were not based on RS, they were too vague = the police violates the 4th) and 14th amendment (racial profiling violates EP) - On efficacy of the program: Data showed that only S&F had very low hit rate (across races), but the judge did not consider the efficacy of the program in her analysis

Answer 90

racial profiling is rational, but it is unamerican/immoral and should not be used (Kennedy)

Answer 91

racial profiling should be used for terrorism and national security but not for ordinary domestic crimes (Turley, Obama Admin)

Answer 92

Bellin: inverse relationship btw constitutionality & effectiveness of NYC stop and frisk - Thesis: NYPD aggressive policing drove down crime & incarceration, proportion to its unconstitutionality - Worked (not because of Broken Windows) but deterrence theory: young black, brown men knew they could be S& at any time so they didn’t carry guns

Answer 93

Turley: Profiling Arab and Muslim men at the airport is not only necessary but inevitable in the fight against terrorism  not racist & useful; we should focus on police conduct after a stop to make sure this isn’t abused Taylor: Profiling at airports based on national origin is imperfect, but it is cheap and effective it is a small intrusionbased on potential risk Kennedy: Racial profiling isn’t racist (in fact it’s always used & black men commit a disproportionate mount of street crime), but its unAmerican. The costs are too high  the burden is not born equally and leads to great societal tension

Answer 94

A warrantless search incident to a valid arrest was an accepted practice at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted: per se rule – if PC for an arrest, then no reasonable suspicion is needed to search; can search to make sure there is no evidence or a weapon

Answer 95

Prevent destruction of evidence Officer safety

Answer 96

grab area --> area in possession and immediate control of the person under arrest entire person arrested

Answer 97

Chimel v. California (1969) Facts: Officers arrive at house with arrest warrant based on PC for burglaries but did not have search warrant however they proceed to search his home (Chimel objected) Holding: when an arrest is made, reasonable to search the person arrested to remove any weapons that they could use to resist or free, but cannot search any room other than where the arrest occurs or even dosed/concealed areas within the room itself  limited to grab area - Automatic right to search the room someone is arrested in (& other rooms if they are in the ‘grab area’

Answer 98

U.S. v. Robinson (1973): search incident to arrest = automatic right Facts: D arrested for driving with expired license, cop felt an object in D’s breast pocket, reached into pocket, pulled it out - crumbled cigarette pack. Continued to search/open the cigarette pack and found drugs Holding: Bright Line Rule: automatic right to search an arrestee’s entire person & grab area when police make an arrest, no case-by-case determination - The search of a person incident to arrest is much more extensive that what is allowed under Terry, because the danger to officers of taking suspect into custody & transporting him is far greater than in a Terry stop

Answer 99

New York v. Belton (1984): a passenger compartment of a car is within the grab area so cops can always search incident to arrest along with any containers found

Answer 100

Thornton v. U.S. (2010): search power to passenger compartment granted in Belton applied whenever the person arrested was a recent occupant of car to be searched

Answer 101

Arizona v. Gant (2009): clarifying Belton Facts: Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He was handcuffed and locked in the back of a patrol car. Officers searched his car, found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the backseat, and a gun Holding: Police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant’s arrest only if: (1) the arrestee is within the grab area of the passenger at the time of the search or (2) it is reason to believe that the passenger compartment contains (grab area) evidence for the offense the person was arrest for Dissent: What is reason to believe?? This is bad application of the law (Belton established a per se rule) & it creates perverse incentives for police to prolong arresting someone

Answer 102

Riley v. California (2014): Robinson does not extend to cellphones Facts: Riley stopped for driving w/ expired plates, when riley was arrested officers seized smart phones and searched it (pursuant to Robinson)- and found gang evidence; combined case concerned a flip phone Holding: Applied the balancing test: Searching a cellphone is a significant intrusion into personal privacy that cannot happen without a warrant absent exigent circumstances - Gov Int: Minimal/none: The two concerns with searches incident to arrest - safety and evidentiary – are not present with cell phones  No safety risk (they can still look at the outside for a knife)  Ofﬁcers could easily seize and secure phone, while seeking a warrant to search it - Privacy Interest: HUGE!!cell phone exposes government to far more than even a most exhaustive search of a house  quantitively & qualitatively there is SO much and such personal info

Answer 103

Birchfield v. North Dakota (1973): blood tests unconstitutional & breathalyzer constitutional Facts: Birchfield accidentally drove off the road and seemed drunk, but refused the officers’ demand to let his blood be drawn, and they took it anyway, without a warrant Holding: states can criminalize noncompliance with a warrantless breath test; cannot do warrantless blood tests - Breath tests don't implicate serious privacy concerns (balancing test: government interest > privacy concerns) - Blood tests are more intrusive and reveal much more information

Answer 104

Atwater v. California (1969): custodial arrests constitutional & warrant requirement exception Facts: Officer who seemed to target Atwater went through a full arrest of her just for improperly seating her children (offense punishable by a $50 fine). She was removed of everything, had a mugshot, put in a jail cell, despite the fact that the crime came with no jail time, just fines and citations. Holding: Bright line rule: custodial arrest is always reasonable if officer has probable cause of criminal violation (even if punishment for crime has no jail time) Dissent: the woman of the court: this gives officers UNBOUNDED discretion that can be abused, people can be harassed and pre-textually searched for nothing more than a minor traffic infringement

Answer 105

Pretextual stops: concern that investigatory powers to minor crimes can be used to search for evidence of a more serious crime where PC or reasonable suspicion does not exist Pretextual stops are allowed, and may be effective, but bad for relations (large negative imparch on relationship between police and people)

Answer 106

Whren v. California (1996): ofﬁcers subjective intent is irrelevant = pretextual stops are Constitutional Facts: officers observed men, suspicious of drug deal, after stopping at stop sign for too long so pulled them over for traffic violations under PC standard (which is the DC standard) and saw cocaine Holding: when there is PC to believe offense has occurred, the officer's subjective motives for detaining person do not invalidate officers’ actions under 4th amendment - Note: Traffic stop can only be used as a pretext under Whren if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the motorist has actually violated a traffic law

Answer 107

Equal Protection: equal protection clause as a constraint on ofﬁcers in cases where the stop or arrest is reasonable under 4th but ofﬁcers are acting pretextually against a minority

Answer 108

Plain View Doctrine: permits an officer to make a warrantless seizure of incriminating items that they come upon while otherwise engaged in a lawful arrest, entry, or search - mainly applies to seizure not searches

Answer 109

Doctrine Requirements 1. Item must have incriminated character that is immediately apparent (as soon as officer looks, she must know it's incriminating) 2. Officer has to be lawfully located in a place where she can gain access to the object (lawful right of access)

Answer 110

Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971): if officers have a right to be in a particular place and come upon evidence that they have probable cause to believe is subject to a seizure, then they may seize it - Concurrence: Stewart: there should also be an inadvertence requirement, if officers are expecting to find something then they should put it in the warrant (then the warrant is particularized and not a general warrant)

Answer 111

Horton v. California (1990) Facts: Police had PC to believe that D was responsible for an armed robbery and got a warrant to search home only for rings from the robbery (not for the weapons). Cop went into search hoping to find guns anyways and did see one in plain view and seized it not inadvertently Holding: under 4th amendment police can seize an item in plain view w/o a warrant, even if finding the item was not inadvertent, as long as police have legal right to be where item is found - inadvertence would require knowing subjective mind of officer which court has repeatedly ruled against

Answer 112

Arizona v. Hicks (1987): plain view applies to seizures not searches Facts: Police entered Hicks apartment after a bullet was fired through its floor into apartment below. Officer noticed stereo that seemed out of place and moved it to find serial numbers, telephoned them in, and learned it was stolen, and seized it Holding: probable cause is necessary to justify a search that precedes a plain view seizure and need probable cause to seize the item  moving the stereos was searching them (& they didn’t have a warrant)

Answer 113

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993): Permits seizure of evidence discovered through the sense of touch in the course of a lawful search is allowed under plain touch doctrine, but does not apply in this case because he did more than merely touch - he pushed and prodded it

Answer 114

Police may search an automobile without a warrant so long as they have PC to believe it contains evidence of criminal activity

Answer 115

Cars are mobile (Caroll) - Contents may never be found again if warrant obtained, and car moves) - Occupants are altered Diminished expectation of privacy in a car (California v. Carney (1985)) - Public views and subject to all kinds of inspections

Answer 116

Facts: D was driving in Detroit on a highway known to be used to transport bootleg liquor, officers knew the man had been previously involved in transporting liquor - searched the car without a warrant. Holding: An officer can search car without a warrant so long as they have PC to believe it contains evidence of criminal activity

Answer 117

Chambers v. Maroney Facts: 2 men robbed gas station, police pulled men over, had PC to believe they were responsible for robbery, so they were arrested and car was brought to police station and searched and evidence of the robbery was found Holding: police may seize a car and search at police station without a warrant if they have PC to believe the car contains evidence of criminal activity - Policy: It would be a greater intrusion to get a warrant because it would take longer (hold car for longer)

Answer 118

Rule: if there is a movable container and there is probable cause can be seized without a warrant but a warrant is needed to search the item U.S. v. Chadwick (1977): mobility of a footlocker justified its seizure upon PC but a warrant was required to search it unless emergency circumstances rendered a seizure insufficient to protect state interest - Factors which diminish privacy of car DO NOT apply here luggage is not open to public view, not subject to regular inspections, not mainly for transport but rather personal effects = there is a high expectation of privacy

Answer 119

California v. Acevedo (1991) Facts: Police watched D enter home carrying package they had PC to believe had marijuana in it. Before warrant was obtained, D arrived at house and left after 10 min carrying bag that was same size as package and put it in trunk of car. Police followed and pulled him over and opened trunk and looked inside bag- didn’t want to lose evidence Holding: police can conduct a warrantless search of a container within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe that the container holds evidence - Constitutional; 4th does not require separate rules for cars and containers in cars, if you have PC for either you can search the car

Answer 120

Exigent Circumstances Exception: allows warrantless entries into constitutionally protected areas when the balance of competing interests at stake in rapidly developing circumstances to show that immediate action is necessary to prevent flight, to safeguard the police or public, or to preserve evidence - Excuses officer from having to obtain magistrate's determination, but probable cause is still required - Note, this exception is very fact-specific inquiry, there are no bright line rules

Answer 121

Hot Pursuit: if officers are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect when he enters a constitutionally protected premises, then the officers may be permitted to continue their pursuit without securing a warrant - Rationale: unrealistic to expect police officers to stop in the middle of a chase in order to apply for a warrant & suspect knows being pursued so may escape, destroy evidence, or create a safety threat - Officers need PC that the person has committed a crime and PC that they will be found on the premise entered

Answer 122

U.S. v. Santana (1976): officer had PC to arrest someone when she retreated into her home, so they followed her in and arrested her - A suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by escaping to a private place Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984): "hot pursuit" doctrine cannot apply where the suspect is unaware that he is being pursued by officers

Answer 123

Police & Public Safety: No warrant required if a reasonable officer would believe that a delay in obtaining the warrant would result in significant risk to harm to the police or members of the public. Brigham City v. Stuart (1976) Facts: Police called to home for a loud party and saw teens drinking alcohol in the backyard and a fight taking place inside home (looked through screen door/windows). Officer opened screened door and announced himself, but no one heard so then entered home and yelled and arrested him Holding: an ofﬁcer may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened

Answer 124

Destruction of Evidence: If evidence will be destroyed in the time it takes to obtain a warrant, then the warrant requirement is excused (heavily disputed/very fact dependent inquiry) Doorman v. U.S. (1970): Establishes factors for determining if urgent need - gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged - whether the suspect “is reasonably believed to be armed” - a clear showing of PC to believe that the suspect committed the crime - strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered - a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended - peaceful circumstances of the entry

Answer 125

Kentucky v. King (211) Rule: The fact that the police created the exigency does not mean the exigency circumstance needs to be suppressed unless the offices act unreasonably/unconstitutionally to create the exigency. And officers cannot lie and make threats (like we will come in). Facts: Drug sting operation and officers mistakenly went into wrong apartment to arrest suspect for cocaine, knocked/announced after smelling weed- heard people inside heard moving quickly, (probably destroying evidence because of the knock). Officers kicked down door and found drugs. Holding: Officers may enter home w/o a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence as long as their conduct is reasonable or threatening. - Officers must have PC to believe that dangerous activity is taking place

Answer 126

1. Is there a substantial special need outside of traditional criminal law enforcement? 2. If there is a special need, is what the government doing (the way they are doing their search/seizure) reasonable? (balancing test)

Answer 127

Rule: Require compliance with a reasonable statutory administrative inspection scheme, not a warrant with probable cause.

Answer 128

Camara v. Municipal Court (1967): a warrant is required for administrative safety inspection of a home, but does not have to be based on probable cause - but instead upon a finding that a search is incompliance with a reasonable administrative scheme

Answer 129

See v. City of Seattle (1967): applies Camara to non-residential commercial structures

Answer 130

New York v. Burger (1987) Facts: police entered junkyard owned by D to inspect premises, D did not have license or a record book of his inventory as required in NY law, police then search the premises, D made no objection to the search/inspection, police found stolen vehicles during search Holding: for pervasively regulated businesses, no warrant or probable cause is required if meet 3 requirements. Balance bc pervasively regulated industries have a decreased expectation of privacy.

Answer 131

Three criteria for warrantless inspection to be reasonable: Burger Test: Is the statute informed by a substantial government interest? - Substantial interest in decreasing auto theft Are warrantless inspections necessary to further the regulatory scheme? - Frequent and unannounced inspections necessary to prevent stolen cars Is the statute's inspection program a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant (are there adequate safeguards)? - Statute provides adequate notice and limits discretion (happen regularly during business hours)

Answer 132

City of LA v. Patel (2015): pervasively regulated businesses are those whose regulations address a clear and significant risk to public welfare; narrower standard

Answer 133

What are previously regulated businesses? Businesses with so much regulation that they already have a reduced expectation of privacy for the reasonableness balancing test (determine by looking at rules in place) - Junkyards, liquor sales, firearms dealing, mining, etc. - Evidence: what exactly are the regulations (apply by comparing as more or less than other closely related industries)

Answer 134

The need to ensure a safe, healthy learning environment is a special need --> only reasonable suspicion (not probable cause required for most searches and seizures of school children)

Answer 135

New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985): waiting to get a warrant to search student handbag would undermine state’s interest in regulation – the states need to assure a safe learning environment (need RS, but not PC or warrant) Stafford Unified School District v. Reding (2009): content of suspicion must match the degree of intrusion (cannot search girls underwear for ADVIL)

Answer 136

The need to deter drug use among certain groups is a special need; balance the need against privacy interests look at the invasiveness of the test Drug testing is a search because it reveals private information (Skinner)

Answer 137

Skinner v. Railway Labor Execs Holding: upheld a program mandating drug tests for all railroad personnel involved in certain train accidents  no suspicion, PC, or warrant at all required - There is a special need of government interest in regulating conduct of RR employees - Test is reasonable because documented drug problem and serving as deterrence (gov. int big) vs. limited personal intrusion that is done in medical environment where you are not monitored while urinating National Treasury Employees v. Von Raab Holding: upheld compelled urinalysis of drug interdiction and carrying firearm employees but not handling classified documents (remanded) - Rationale: designed to prevent the promotion of drug users to sensitive positions as much as it is designed to detect those employees who use drugs  minimally intrusive testing

Answer 138

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995): suspicionless drug testing of student athletes is constitutional because student athletes had lesser expectation of privacy (travel together, shower together, etc.) and this was especially true of athletes and there is a special need/gov. int in deterring drug use (and athletes are leaders)

Answer 139

Board of Education of Independent School District v. Earl - Suspicionless drug testing of all students engaged in extracurricular activities as reasonable - Individual privacy interest: Minimal: students volunteer for extra curriculars, and the subject themselves to the same intrusions as athletes (travel, shower)

Answer 140

Chandler v. Miller (1997): State statute requiring candidates be drug tested when running for public office without any suspicion is unC. - (1) No “special need” in drug testing politicians because the special need must be substantial to overrule individual interest and that is not true here. - there is no demonstrated history that people running for elected office have drug problems and this is not an adequate deterrent because they can stop drug use and start again (they know the test is coming lol)

Answer 141

Ferguson v. City of Charleston (1997) Facts: State hospital policy requiring drug testing of pregnant mothers suspected of cocaine use, testing positive- required arrest and prosecution Holding: drugs tests were not special needs searches here because the central feature of policy was fulfillment of state law enforcement goals (there was no special need! Just good old fashioned criminal search) - Difference from other cases: Results were given to police and prosecutors and program developed with input of police and prosecutors

Answer 142

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (1997): a strip search in jail for those who commit minor offenses does not require reasonable suspicion

Answer 143

Maryland v. King (2013): DNA testing of aresetee is constitutional Facts: Man broke into victim’s house and raped her (2003) and police unable to determine man’s ID from woman's description, but police were able to get the man's DNA. King arrested for unrelated assault (2009) and during booking did a buccal DNA swab standard practice for serious offenses in Maryland under a statute Holding: 4th amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested, but not convicted of serious crimes  special need for identiﬁcation is greater than the minimal intrusion of swabbing side of mouth & DNA taken doesn’t reveal anything more than ID

Answer 144

REMEMBER: These ARE SEIZURES but sometimes the court does special needs analysis and other times does reasonableness analysis alone

Answer 145

A good checkpoint is (Delaware v. Prouse): - Limited police discretion - Limited length of stop - Permanent - All drivers alerted - Minimally intrusive

Answer 146

U.S. v. Martinez-Fuertes (1979): approved suspicionless stops at permanent checkpoints removed from the border under Terry (no reasonable suspicion) - Balance: Necessary to implement the state interest in regulating the flow of undocumented individuals and the fixed checkpoint was minimally intrusive because you see other people getting stopped, not at the discretion of the officers

Answer 147

Michigan Department of Police v. Sitz (1967): temporary DUI checkpoints are reasonable to protect the safety of public roads, applying Terry - Heavy state interest of deterring drunk driving and minimally intrusive on individual

Answer 148

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000): violates primary purpose test Facts: in order to interdict illegal drugs city, set up drug vehicle checkpoints where cars were stopped and drug dog would sniff around the car Holding: There is not substantial special need beyond criminal law enforcement = the 4th Amendment applies.

Answer 149

Standard procedure for police to inventory the contents of automobiles and other containers being held in their custody (serve as a “caretaking” function) - No reasonable suspicion or probable cause or warrant Rationale: (1) to protect the owner's property while it is in police custody (2) to protect against claims of lost of stolen property (3) to protect the police and the public from potential danger

Answer 150

Cady v. Dombrowski (1973): ofﬁcer searching car for gun because person injured in accident was a cop; this initial intrusion was part of the caretaking function to protect public from possibility gun would fall into the hands of vandals South Dakota v. Opperman (1976): approved warrantless Suspicionless inventory search of a car impounded for a parking violation if conducted pursuant to standard police procedures

Answer 151

Rationale for border searches: (border is very loosely defined): (1) Serve a special need beyond traditional law enforcement: protecting American borders from entrants who may bring harmful things into this country (2) Entrants also have a diminished expectation of privacy

Answer 152

Routine Searches/Intrusion: no reasonable suspicion, PC, or warrant required - Searching car carefully - Dog-sniffs - Hole-drilled in truck, gas tanks - Going through customs and pat-down and lifting up of shirt Non-routine Searches/Intrusion: reasonable suspicion (but not more) required - Looking into body cavities - X-ray or strip search - Taking off artificial leg - Holding for extended periods of time (not a routine intrusion)

Answer 153

U.S. v. Ramsey (1977): searches made at the border are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border; grounded in the right to control who and what may enter the country (mail context)

Answer 154

U.S. v. Flores-Montano (2004): routine border search Facts: D attempting to cross the border and customs official inspected his vehicle, Took car to secondary inspection station- gas tank sounded solid when tapped so inspector called mechanic to remove the tank and found drugs Holding: where on notice because routine search at border and have diminished expectation of privacy routine procedures don't require suspicion; this is routine

Answer 155

U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985): non-routine border search Facts: Officers believed that D was a balloon swallower bringing drugs into the US (she had like no clothes, not hotel booked, made 8 recent trips from Columbia). They offered her to get a flight to Columbia, get an x-ray, or remain in detention until using the bathroom. She wanted a flight, they couldn’t’ get one, 16 hours later she hadn’t eaten, drank, shit so they got a warrant for x-ray, rectal exam and found a bunch of drugs. Holding: Holding D for 16 hours is NOT a routine border intrusion, so RS governs. Okay because officers had RS she was a balloon swallower and the detention wasn’t unreasonable (even though longer than a Terry stop) because: - Suspect created the delay, there is heavy state interest and diminished expectation of privacy, and nothing else to do about this kind of smuggling

Answer 156

Most common exception: If a search is based on valid consent is reasonable, without PC or warrant! - Not whether person consented subjectively but whether his conduct would have caused reasonable person to believe that he consented

Answer 157

Refusing consent cannot be considered suspicious or evidence of wrongdoing (U.S. v. Prescott)

Answer 158

US v. Gonzalez-Basulto: - Voluntariness of D’s custodial status - Presence of coercive police procedures - Extent and level of D’s cooperation with police - D’s awareness of right to refuse - D’s education and intelligence - D’s belief that no evidence will be obtained

Answer 159

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973): whether a search was voluntary or coerced is a question of fact answered by the totality of the circumstances

Answer 160

U.S. v. Matlock (1977): Facts: D arrested in yard and neighbor told them she shared house with D and they could search Holding: search was reasonable where Mrs. Graff had actual authority to consent to a search of her home & the consent was valid - Rests on mutual use of property by people generally having joint access/ control for most and other person assuming risk

Answer 161

Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990): search was valid where third party had apparent, but not actual authority - Consent governed by same standard of reasonableness – allowance for reasonable mistakes of fact and law  reasonably believe the 3rd party had actual consent

Answer 162

Georgia v. Randolph (2016): even though one occupant consents, a physically present co-occupants’ stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering warrantless search invalid and unreasonable as to him

Answer 163

Exclusionary rule is the remedy for violations of the amendments  any evidence obtained in violation of 4th Amendment must be excluded at trial PURPOSE: DETER POLICE MISCONDUCT FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES & SEIZURES

Answer 164

Weeks v. U.S. (1914): evidence obtained in violation of the 4A must be excluded in federal courts. To sanction this would be to deny the constitution. For 4A to have value, must have rules that uphold it

Answer 165

Two important themes: - The exclusionary rule is the only effective means of protecting 4A rights - Interest in judicial integrity requires that courts not sanction illegal searches by admitting the fruits of illegality into evidence

Answer 166

SILVER PLATTER DOCTRINE: federal officials would often allow state officers to obtain evidence illegally and then serve it to the federal officers on a “silver platter” (abolished in Elkins v. U.S. (1960))

Answer 167

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): 4th amendment is enforceable to states through 14th amendment so the sanction of exclusion must a

Answer 168

GOOD FAITH U.S. v. Leon (1984): purpose is to deter police misconduct & no misconduct here Facts: Police got anon tip that people were selling drugs in apartment and eventually requested a warrant and got one. Later determined that the affidavit to get the warrant did NOT establish PC so the warrant was illegal Holding: evidence obtained in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a facially valid search warrant is not subject to the 4th amendment's exclusionary rule, even if the warrant is later deemed defective

Answer 169

Illinois v. Krull (1987): reasonably relying on legislative acts that are later found as unconstitutional results in no exclusion because the mistake was on legislature and not police (no deterrence effect) Arizona v. Evans (1995): clerical errors due to computer is good faith exception because no deterrent for cops, count clerks are not adjuncts to law enforcement team

Answer 170

Herring v. U.S. (2009): Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible.

Answer 171

STANDING 4th amendment is a personal right, only person whose rights were violated may receive the beneﬁts of exclusion

Answer 172

Rakas v. Illinois (1978) Facts: Cops pulled over car that fit description for robbery and Rakas was passenger, searched the car and found a gun, Rakas claimed no property interest in the car or the gun, and was not driving Holding: a person legitimately on the premises may claim a 4th amendment violation only if he has a legitimate subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched/possessory interest in the thing that is seized

Answer 173

Whether someone has standing depends on: 1. Whether there was a subjective expectation of privacy, and 2. Whether that expectation is reasonable

Answer 174

Causation Requirement and Exception for Attenuation Exclusionary rule doesn't apply unless there's a substantial causal connection between illegal activity and evidence (fruit of poisonous tree) offered at trial

Answer 175

Exception: If evidence is obtained by a legal secondary means after the initial illegal search/seizure and is sufficiently attenuated to purge the taint of the illegal action, it is admissible (Wong Sun) - “Independent act of free will” to purge the taint. (Brown v. Illinois)

Answer 176

Brown v. Illinois (1978 Facts: Police investigating murder and arrested D after breaking into and searching his apartment without warrant or PC, taken to station and given Miranda warning and interrogated where he confessed right after and then again 7 hours later. Govt said causal chain was broken from Miranda warnings. Holding: Miranda warnings by themselves are not per se attenuated Test: the evidence to which objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint

Answer 177

Hudson v. Michigan (2006): Violation of knock and announce does NOT justify exclusion of evidence found in the warranted search - not the fruit of the poisonous tree because there was attenuation Two Factors to Consider: - If the causal connection is too remote, or - If the interest protected by constitutional guarantee would not be served by excluding the evidence

Answer 178

Utah v. Strieff (2016): exclusionary rule and outstanding warrants Facts: Police surveilled house and when D left house he stopped and questioned without reasonable suspicion, found a warrant, arrested him, searched him and found drugs Holding: evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant allowed where warrant discovered in an unconstitutional investigatory stop - (1) Temporal proximity: favors D, evidence seized only minutes after illegal stop - (2) Intervening: Favors govt, warrant predated the stop itself, police had duty to arrest when he discovered warrant so that’s an intervening circumstance - (3) Flagrancy: favors Govt- not flagrant, negligent in not following protocol not misconduct Queen Sotomayor Iconic Dissent Needs No Words

Answer 179

INDEPENDENT SOURCE Evidence will not be excluded if obtained independently from and without reliance on any illegal police activity

Answer 180

Murray v. U.S. (1988) Facts: Officers went into warehouse and saw what they perceived to be marijuana. Left without disturbing anything and got search warrant, not using any information about what they saw; went back in with warrant and seized. Holding: does not require suppression of evidence viewed in plain sight during an illegal entry that was later discovered in the course of a properly warranted search - When challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion would put police in a worse position than absent any error or violation

Answer 181

INEVITABLE DISCOVERY Hypothetical independent source exception: government must show that illegally obtained evidence would have been discovered through legitimate means independent of ofﬁcial misconduct

Answer 182

Nix v. Williams (1984): government must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the challenged evidence would have been discovered via independent legal means Facts: officers discovered the body of a 7year old girl killed by Mr. Williams as a result of his illegal confession; officers had been conducting an extensive search party but stopped when getting the info from William Holding: independent source & inevitable discover limit the exclusionary rule so that the gov. is not denied evidence that it would have even without the officer's illegal activity - Government does not benefit from illegal conduct if the gov can prove that it would have obtained the evidence legally anyways

Answer 183

U.S. v. Andrade: court agrees with government that bag would have been searched at the station due to an inventory search, so it would have been done anyway

Answer 184

(1) preserves judicial integrity, by insulating the courts from tainted evidence (2) prevents the government from profiting from its own wrong (3) it’s not costly, because it only excludes what should never have been obtained in the first place (4) it’s necessary to deter police misconduct

Answer 185

(1) integrity and fairness are also threatened by excluding evidence that will help the justice system to reach a true verdict (2) the people also profit off of criminals getting put away (3) In many situations, it is far from clear that the illegality of a search is indeed a but-for cause of the later introduction of an item found in the search/there are other ways to profit off a seizure! (4) if deterrence is the key, the idea is to make the government pay, in some way, for its past misdeeds, in order to discourage future ones.

Answer 186

1. Civil Damages Recovery 2. Criminal Prosecutions of Offending Officers 3. Police Rulemaking and Other Administrative Solutions 4. Sentence Reductions

Answer 187

Facts: Toy was arrested after illegal search of his business, he was mirandized and made a statement that led the police to Yee who then led the police to Wong Sun who confessed Causation Test established: this is a not a but-for test, but "whether the evidence "has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint"