4th Amendment Flashcards
What is a search?
When there has been a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy or a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected space
What main cases cover search?
Katz, Jones, Jardines
What clause predominates of the 4th Amendment?
Warrant Clause
What is reasonableness clause?
fair possibility that criminal activity is afoot
What is probable cause?
minimum necessary showing to obtain a warrant, not whether searches/seizures are necessarily reasonable
Who are “the people” under the 4th amendment?
What case covers “the people”?
The People: The 4th Amendment applies to members of the national community or those with sufficient connection with the country to be part of this community, not just citizens
U.S. v. Verdugo-Uquidez (1990): Mexican citizens in Mexico are not party of “the people” because the 4th amendment was intended to protect the people form the tyranny of their own government
What is standard for search?
Standard for a search: Katz (reasonable expectation) of privacy and Jones (trespass)
What case governed before Katz? (facts and holding)
Olmstead v. U.S. (1933): wiretapping phones from street –> the 4th amendment guards only against physical intrusions into constitutionally protected areas (person, house, paper or effect)
What are the facts/holding of Katz?
Facts: outside of public booth used by Katz acting on suspicion Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states
Holding: 4th amendment requires a search warrant to wiretap/listen to a public phone, the 4th amendment protects people, not places
What is the test Katz establishes?
The reasonable expectation of privacy test
1. The person has exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy (purely factual) AND
2. That expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable or legitimate (objective)
What are the two ways the Court views the second prong of the Katz analysis?
Empirical (“reasonable”): is it possible for someone to have access to this information?
Normative (“legitimate”): does the public ordinarily have access to this information?
What is Harlan’s critique of the prongs of Katz?
1st prong problem: our expectations and the risks we assume are reflections of the laws that translate into rules/customs/values of the past and present
2nd prong problem: what is “reasonably expected” may be determined by the government to favor its own conduct rather than society’s
What is the Jones facts/holding?
Facts: GPS jeep tracker and drugs
Holding: warrantless use of a tracking device on his vehicle was a physical trespass, so was a search
- There is no expectation of privacy in public movements, so this is not a search under Katz. but this is a trespass.
- Trespass Test: A search occurs when there is a physical trespass into a constitutionally protected area (persons, houses, papers, and effects)
What is Alito and Sotomayor concurrence in Jones?
Bonus Holding (Alito Concurrence): police surveillance of a citizen’s activity can constitute a search if it is pervasive and prolonged, even though the activity is in public (28 days) most people would think long-term GPS surveillance impinges on reasonable expectations of privacy (except in the most extraordinary offenses)
Sotomayor Concurrence: Agrees with Scalia that there are two tests (Katz and Trespass). Agrees with Alito that this would be a search under Katz; previews issues with tech + gov intrusion
What is Jardines facts/holding?
Facts: dog sniff of porch for smell of marijuana
Holding: Bringing a drug-sniffing dog onto D’s porch was a search because it was a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area: the home/curtilage.
What does Yassky hold?
plaintiff must establish a property interest in the protected area at the time of intrusion to claim government physically intruded on one’s constitutionally protected area
What is subjective manifestation under Katz?
What case exemplifies this?
Individuals must take affirmative steps to protect their privacy interests otherwise a police inspection will not constitute a search
Bellina: Officer used step ladder to peer in window, but defendant made no attempt to cover window therefore did not sufficiently manifest a subjective privacy
Can police search an abandoned property?
Police detention and investigation of abandoned property does not trigger 4th amendment protection
What is the open fields doctrine?
What case governs this?
Open fields are not protected by the 4th amendment
- Oliver: “open fields” doctrine was still valid after Katz because a person does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in an open field (trespass signs don’t change analysis)
How do you determine what curtilage is?
Four factors to determine if an area is curtilage and thus protected by 4th amendment:
1) Proximity of area to the house
2) Whether the area is included w/in an enclosure surrounding the house
3) Nature of the uses of the area
4) Steps taken by resident to protect are from observation
Even if property is within a curtilage, a visual inspection of the property from an open field or public space does not (no reasonable expectation of privacy, Katz #2)
What is Third Party Doctrine?
Third Party Doctrine: If information is disclosed to a third party, it is not reasonable to expect it to be private (prong 2) (An extension of open fields)
Is consensual electronic surveillance under TPD protected? (what case)
U.S. v. White (1971): Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversation discussing illegal avidity with another person
Are financial records under TPD protected?
U.S. v. Miller (1976): Because the bank has the records, defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records
Are pen registers under TPD protected?
Smith v. Maryland (1979): Use of a pen register is not a search because third party telephone company knows what numbers you call. No reasonable expectation of privacy
Are public areas under TPD protected?
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
Are beepers under TPD protected? (what cases (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
Are cell-phone location under TPD protected? What case covers this?
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”
Is aerial surveillance under TPD protected?
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
Is trash covered under TPD?
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
Can you manipulate bags under TPD?
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
Are canine sniffs searches?
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
Is chemical testing a search?
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!)
Is using a thermal imaging device a search?
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
Is a prison cell a search?
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
What is a seizure? (persons and things)
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.
What are the two forms of a seizure?
(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
What is Torres? (facts/holding)
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
What is Mendenhall?
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
What are relevant factors in finding seizure?
- 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
What case governs that individual is free to leave when officers ask questions?
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
What case covers factory sweeps?
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
What is the Bostick free to terminate test? (facts and holding)
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
What case establishes that police officers need not inform an individual they do not need to cooperate? (Facts/holding)
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
What case modifies to the free to leave to submission of authority?
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
What case modifies to the free to leave to submission of authority?
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
What are the requirements for a warrant?
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
What is the function of the warrant?
Guards against ARBITRARY searches/seizures- specific person place/thing they are looking for
What case establishes the purpose of the warrant?
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’)
What is standard for probable cause to search and arrest?
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
For probable cause, what need to happen for information to be quality?
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
What is facts holding of Spinelli?
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
What is the aquilar/spinelli test?
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
What happens if there is a defect in a Spinelli/Aguilar prong?
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)
What test overrules Spinelli? (facts/holding)
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
What is the test established in Illinois v. Gates?
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.
Do courts apply Aguilar/Spinelli still despite it being overruled?
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
What is corroboration after Gates?
Corroboration is sufficient as long as it gives the magistrate a reasonable basis to believe the informant knows what she’s talking about
What is Prandy-Binnett stand for? (facts/holding)
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
What case is probable case for mistaken arrests? (facts/holding)
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
What case is probable case for multiple suspects? (facts/holding)
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
What case is probable case for multiple dog sniffs? (facts/holding)
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
What is specificity requirement for warrant for a search?
Requires “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.
What case abolishes mere instrumentalities evidence rule? (facts/holding)
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
Can police search non-suspect 3rd party premises? (facts/holding)
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)
What is the function of Particularity Requirements for warrants?
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
What case establishes describing something to be seized? (catchall phrases)
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.
What are the four requirements for a magistrate?
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
Are people arrested entitled to prompt hearing by magistrate? (facts/holding)
What case establishes what prompt is? (facts/holding)
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
What is purpose of knock and announce?
Purpose: (1) Protects citizens and law enforcement officials from violence, (2) protects individual privacy rights, and (3) Protects against needless destruction of property
What case establishes knock and announce? (facts/holding)
Wilson v. Arkansas (1995): Announcement requirement is not a rigid constitutional requirement, rather a component of 4th Amendment reasonableness inquiry
What if entry is refused after knock and announce?
What cases establish the time period?
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
What are the two exceptions knock and announce?
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
What are the exceptions to the warrant clause?
- Arrests
- Stop and Frisk
- Search Incident to Arrest
- Plain View and Plain Touch
- Automobiles
- Exigent Circumstances
- Special Needs
- Consent
What is the standard for a warrantless arrest?
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
What is the purpose of an arrest?
- 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
Are arrests in public an exception? (facts/holding/concurrence)
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?)
Can you arrest for minor crimes? (Case)
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)
Can deadly force be used to prevent escape of felon? (facts/holding)
What is the rule!!!
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
Does 4th amendment or 14th amendment govern excessive force? (holding)
What are the factors?
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
What case is an example of the Garner deadly force exceptions?
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)
What case is an example of reasonable force? (facts/holding)
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
What does Ayers & Markovits say on force & police?
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
Are arrests in the home a warrant exception? (facts/holding)
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
Does the Payton rule applies to hotels?
Payton rule applies equally to PROPERLY rented hotel/motel room during rental period and campsites as long as people are not overstaying
