4th amendment Flashcards
Katz v. US
facts: federal officers conducted warrantless surveillance of Katz’s conversations by bugging phone booth.
issue: was this bugging a search?
holding: yes
contributions:
-moves away from trespass doctrine requiring a physical trespass in order to constitute a search
-Katz test for telling use when there was a search
what is the Katz test?
- Did the person exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy?
- Is it an interest that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable?
what does the Katz test do?
tells us if there has been a search
US v. Dunn
- Facts: POs suspect D is producing drugs on his land so they place a beeper in chemicals; follow beepers to farm where they see a chem lab in a barn (no warrant, on the curtilage trying to get PC to get a warrant); altering seeing lab, they get warrant and search barn
- Issue: does D have a privacy interest in his curtilage, thus requiring officers to get a warrant?
- Holding: the barns were not in the curtilage, so the police officer had the right to be on the property b/c that property was in the open field
- Contributions:
- for the officer to be on the curtilage, have to have probable cause (minimum) b/c a person has a high expectation of privacy
- no privacy expectation in open field (no PC, no warrant)
- Dunn factors (to figure out where curtilage ends the open field begins)
definition of curtilage
area immediately surrounding the home
what level of privacy does the curtilage have?
high b/c people perform intimate or domestic activities in this are a that are associated with home life
what expectation of privacy does the open field have?
none-the police officer can be there at any time for any reason and can search
definition of open field
- the area beyond the curtilage
- doesn’t have to be a field
- term of art
example of an open field
someone else’s back yard (b/c it is an area beyond your curtilage)
as soon as the open field ends and turns into the curtilage, what does the officer need to search?
probable cause
what do the Dunn factors tell us and what are they?
- tell us when the curtilage ends and where the open field begins
- is TOC test: one factor not conclusive
- proximity of the land to the home (how close)
- whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home (ex. fence)
- the nature of the use to which the area is put (how is it used? what are they doing there?)
- the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation from people passing by
acronym: PENS (proximity, enclosure, nature, steps)
remember: pens draw lines
California v. Greenwood - 1988
issue: whether the 4th amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the home, outside the curtilage?
holding: a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage in an enclosed bag and left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. No search occurs, therefore, when a PO opens a trash bag left at the curb and sifts through it’s contents without a warrant
- fails on the second prong of Katz
- when you put it out there for public consumption, you have to expect all sort of people and animals might come by and one of them might be a police officer
Florida v. Riley - 1989
- katz goes on a plane
- facts: POs receive anonymous tip that D is growing MJ; fence around the building with a no trespass sign; POs flew a plane, saw MJ through missing patch of roof
- rule: no expectation of privacy in the curtilage from the air b/c anyone could be flying in that public airspace and look down on the curtilage
- so long as the PO is anywhere the public can be, he’s good
is there a privacy interest in the airspace above the curtilage of a house?
no, so long as PO is in a place where the public can be, he’s good. No PC or warrant required
(see Florida v. Riley)
exception: if the PO is in a place where he is likely to cause danger to people or property (ex. flying helicopter at 50 feet above curtilage) then this is a search and PC or warrant is required
(see Oakley case)
Dow Chemical
issue: does a business have the same protection of curtilage as the curtilage of a home?
holding: the curtilage of a business is not the same as curtilage surrounding theme.
- lesser expectation of privacy b/c home/domestic activities do not take place there and areas are often open to the public
is there the same expectation of privacy in the curtilage surrounding a business like there is in the curtilage of a home?
no, it is a lesser expectation of privacy b/c domestic/family activities do not take place there and these places are often open to the public
what is required to search a home?
a warrant
what is required to search the curtilage?
probable cause
Kyllo v. US - 2001
- facts: thermo imaging device pointed at house from sidewalk to figure out if D was growing MJ. Info used to gain PC to get a warrant
- issue: whether this pointing of the thermal imaging device at the home without a warrant was a lawful search?
holding: no b/c the technology used was not within the general public’s use - narrow holding
- Scalia is a Katz hater, does not use it here
- instead, equates this search to a physical trespass
- not overruled, ticking time bomb
what classification do bags fall into?
effects
US v. Place
- Katz at an airport
- Dog sniff is not a search b/c there is not intrusion into D’s bag
- POs are just detecting a scent coming from the bag, and there is no expectation of privacy in contraband
- so long as the sniff only detects contraband, the sniff is okay
- the sniff is also okay b/c it doesn’t disclose any other information about the contents of the bag
Illinois v. Caballes - 2005
facts: individual stopped for speeding, drug dogs brought w/i a reasonable amount of time, alerted to trunk, searched trunk
issue: whether the 4th amendment requires RAPS to justify using a drug detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop?
holding/rule - no so long as the dog is brought w/i a reasonable time, within the context of the stop, and the character of the stop does not change
what type of things is the trunk of a car for the purposes of the 4th amendment?
effect
Florida v. Jardines
facts: PO believed person had drugs in home, brought drug dog up to door
POs cannot bring drug dogs up to your door to search b/c people only have licenses to come to your front door to do certain things (ex. mailman, visit friends)
Scalia opinion, once again uses the trespass doctrine
US v. Jones
- Evidence gained after a warrant has expired by leaving a GPS device on a car can be suppressed b/c it is a physical intrusion and violates the trespass doctrine.
- Scalia again using the trespass doctrine.
does customs have the right to open a container for any reason w/o a warrant at the international border?
yes
Illinois v. Andreas
- The standard for opening and resealing of a container only restores the individual’s privacy interest if there is a substantial likelihood that the contents could have changed between the gap in surveillance.
- so if contents could have changed during gap = privacy interest is restored
US v. White
b/c a person takes a risk in telling another about their illegal activity, although you may have a subjective expectation of privacy, it is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (false friends doctrine)
what is the false friends doctrine?
talking to a friend that is wearing a wire or is an undercover officer does not constitute a search b/c there is no expectation of privacy in what is said to this person in terms of what society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
what must all searches and seizures be?
reasonable
what supports a warrant?
probable cause
what is the process of getting a warrant?
police officers go out, conduct information and look for PC to put in their PC bag. When they have conducted independent police corroboration and they think they have enough in their PC bag they take the bag to the magistrate, who opens it and makes the final decision on whether there is enough PC to issue the warrant.
what is the idea behind a warrant?
that a neutral person (magistrate) is involved between the PO and the government that looks at the evidence objectively to protect the rights of the individual as well as the PO
what are the 3 methods in which a PO can get a warrant?
- physical write up and stand before magistrate
- telephone warrant
- e-warrant
definition of an arrest warrant
we have PC to believe this person committed a crime - gives the PO authority to seize the person
what type of authority does an arrest warrant grant?
the limited authority to enter a dwelling where the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside (emphasis: police officers have to believe the suspect is inside)
if police officers have an arrest warrant, go to a home where they believe the suspect is and they can’t find him, can they search the home?
can only search places in the home where the suspect might be (ex. can search inside a jewelry box)
Payton v. NY
facts: NY statute authorized the entry into a home to make a routine felony arrest; POs had PC to believe Payton had committed a murder, shell cases were found in plain view
-arrest warrant, founded on PC, implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within (have to believe the suspect is there at that particular time).
-standard: a warrant is necessary to go into a home and search regardless of whether it is a person or things
if suspect not present in home, POs can search anywhere in the home the suspect might be
what is the difference b/t a search warrant and an arrest warrant?
arrest = says to the person being arrested that POs have gotten PC, gone to a magistrate, who decides there is PC for the person being arrested (protects the individual and let’s them know they have not been unjustly arrested)
search=says that the magistrate has determine there are objects of contraband in your home or in this place and we have the right to search it (more broad than the arrest warrant)
can an arrest warrant be used to search the home of a third party?
No, that requires a separate warrant. See Stegald
Stegald v. US
facts: POs have an arrest warrant for Lyons and they believe he is in Stegald’s home; POs entered Stegald’s home and find cocaine; no Lyons but they get a search warrant to search the house
-Searching the home of a 3P with just an arrest warrant is an unlawful search of the 3P’s home b/c 3P has highest expectation of privacy in home and a magistrate did not consider such search when issuing the arrest warrant. -There are also less intrusive alternatives.
So can’t search the home of another with only an arrest warrant for a different person
when does the clock start ticking for a suspect to open the door when police have a warrant and they knock and announce?
when they knock
what is the standard regarding knock and announce?
- is not whether the person has time to come to the door
- is how long it would take the person to destroy the evidence in question
do police have to knock and announce under the 4th amendment?
no
when the police choose to knock and announce, how must they do so?
with a reasonable fashion
what opportunity does the knock and announce allow for the suspect?
the opportunity to save their door
do police have to knock if they have a warrant to search a home and there is a threat to their health, safety or welfare
no
-can also get a no knock warrant
US v. Banks
facts: POs believed Banks was selling cocaine from his home; POs knocked and announced their presence; after waiting 15-20 second they broke down door. Was that 15-20 a reasonable time to wait? (yes, however case not provide a hard and fast reasonable time)
When police choose to knock and announce, the clock starts ticking when they knock and the door and they must wait a reasonable amount of time (subject to reasonableness) before breaking down the door. A reasonable amount of time is determined in relationship to how long it would take the suspect to destroy the evidence in question. (standard)
what are the two types of information that will go into the probable cause bag?
(1) direct information = information from the police officer’s personal observation
(2) hearsay information = information coming from another person outside the PO
what two questions does a magistrate have to ask about hearsay information when it comes to determining the trustworthiness of the information? (Aguilar Spinelli 2 prong test)
(1) what is the basis of the 3P’s knowledge?
2) what is the 3P’s veracity (truthfulness
what 2 things measure veractiy
- veracity is used by a magistrate to determine the trustworthiness of 3P information in terms of probable cause
- measured by the 3P’s (1) credibility (how close they were to what happened and (2) reliability how many times has this person given info that turned out to be true
what is the test for probable cause
- TOC approach
- ask: is there a fair probability that evidence of a particular crime will be found at a particular place or particular person committed the crime (Illinois v. Gates)
which case establishes the test for probable cause?
Illinois v. Gates
when police officers are doing the wrong thing, which 2 things help protect D?
- the fact that the magistrate serves as intermediary b/t law enforcement and the individual
- and that a second judge will look at the evidence in a motion to suppress the evidence
a warrant is issued as part of what type of proceeding?
ex parte
what must the issuer of a warrant do
independently evaluate the application for the warrant
what is the standard by which a person can be arrested
probable cause
Maryland v. Pringle
-facts: individuals were stopped for speeding, guy consented to the search and POs found cocaine and money. Pringle arrested and confessed at sation
-issue: whether the PO had PC to arrest Pringle
holding: yes, and the arrest was valid
-rule: probable cause must be particularized to a specific person and it must be reasonable
an examination of the facts for a probability that the 3 people in the car were involved in selling drugs provided enough PC for all three of them to be arrested
category = exception to warrant requirement: warrantless arrest
Atwater v. City of Lao Vista
- if the police offer has probable cause (reason to believe) they can arrest for a minor offense
- police officers can arrest a person for a misdemeanor offense regardless of whether the offense is big or minor, so long as it’s an arrestable offense
- arrestable = police officer has the discretion to arrest (can but doesn’t have to)
category = exception to warrant requirement: warrantless arrest
Whren v. US
-facts: stop sign violation; D stopped at the stop sign longer than normal time and then sped away fast
traffic offense was a pretext for drugs (police really stopped these people b/c they thought they had drugs)
-takeaway: court is never going to into the subjective intent of the police officers
-the standard is always probable cause
-court will look at whether there was probable cause or the police officer was acting in a reasonably objective manner
category = exception to warrant requirement: warrantless arrest
definition of the plain view doctrine
if an object of an incriminating nature is discovered by an officer in a place where that officer has the right to be, he has the right to the item, and can seize it without a warrant
what are the requirements of the plain view doctrine?
- police officer has to be in a place where he has the right to be (lawful vantage point)
- police officer has to have a right of freedom of physical access to the item (physical access)
- ex. warrant to search home for TV, can’t exceed scope and look in jewelry box - the item has to be immediately apparent as contraband without the need for any further searching for that item (immediately apparent)
acronym: LPI (loving puppies ignore)
L = lawful vantage point
P=physical access to the item
I= immediately apparent as contraband
what happens if all three requirements are met under the plain view doctrine?
the PO can seize the item and take it with him
what are some ways an officer can gain a lawful vantage point?
- search warrant to enter home
- arrest warrant and reason to believe the arrestee is there and it’s the arrestee’s home
- hot pursuit of fleeing felon
- consent to search
- open field
AZ v. Hicks
- facts: PO moved stereo to see the serial numbers to see if stolen
- issue: whether moving the stereo system was a search?
holding: yes - rule:PO could not touch or move the stereo equipment b/c he only had reasonable suspicion
- the lawful vantage point was gained by exigent circumstance, so the police did not need a warrant to enter the house, but they are limited in what they can do and they are looking for the shooter, other victims, and other weapons
category = warrant requirement exception: plain view doctrine
Horton v. CA
-facts: POs went to get a warrant for proceeds from robbery and weapons; Magistrate issued the warrant only for proceeds (general rule is that POs are bound to the 4 corners of the warrant); POs found only weapons and no proceeds and the only way to take the weapons would be to use the plain view doctrine
-issue: does the PO have to sumble upon the item for it to fit within the PVD?
-holding: no
-takeaways:
-the requirements of the plain view doctrine apply to objective standards of conduct
-do not need a warrant to take contraband
-if the weapons are in plain view, they can be seized
-ex. if the warrant says only proceeds, POs walk in and find the proceeds right inside the door, then they are done and can’t go on searching the rest of the house
so long as they are within the 4 corners of the warrant, they can seize anything in plain view
why do guilty people consent to searches?
they take “can I search” as a command
does a person have the right to refuse consent
yes
when a police officer asks if you consent to a search, what are they really asking?
whether you waive your right to be free from unreasonable searches
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
-facts: PO on routine patrol; stops a car w/ one headlight and burned out license plate and finds stolen checks
-issue: what does the state have to prove to show that consent was voluntary?
-holding: only when the subject is not in custody, the consent must be voluntarily given and not the result of express or implied duress
-takeaways:
-voluntariness is a question of fact based on the totality of the circumstances
-take into account:
-what the PO said (directives/asking questions)
-what the PO did
-what did the individual do? character of the individual?
low intelligence, previous experience with police, youth, lack of education
-did the PO tell the person they had the right to refuse consent?
what is the standard regarding consent to a search?
consent must be voluntarily given
whether consent was voluntary is a TOC approach
when determining voluntariness with regards to consenting to a search, which facts must be considered?
-TOC approach
- what the PO said (directives/asking questions)
- what the PO did
- what the individual did
- character of the individual
- did the PO tell the person they had the right to refuse consent?
Florida v. Jimeno
-facts: PO overheard a conversation over a public phone arranging a drug deal; PC to stop the guy = incomplete stop; guy gave consent thinking the PO would only search the vehicle, not the contents of a bag
-takeaways:
-you have the right to define the scope of your search
the scope is also define by the object of the search
-here, POs said they were looking for drugs, so the scope of the search is limited to anywhere drugs might be located in the vehicle
-ask: is it reasonable for the PO to look in a particular place
category = exception to warrant requirement: consent
in terms of consenting to a search, what 2 things limit the scope of the search?
- you consenting to only certain areas to be searched
- the object of the search
(ex. if searching for drugs, can only search in places where drugs might be)
Illinois v. Rodriguez
- facts: woman consent to search of ex-boyfriend (D’s) apartment
- issue: under what circumstances can a 3P waive the 4th amendment rights of someone else?
- holding: PO had reasonable belief the ex girlfriend’s authority was reasonable b/c she seemed like a person who would have authority
- distinction b/t common authority and apparent authority
- common authority = a common right to be in a location
- if you have this, you have the right to let people in, including police (gf did not have it in this case)
- apparent authority = when someone has presented themselves to a PO in a manner in which they can be perceived to have authority (then it becomes subject to reasonableness)
would a reasonable PO believe the person has common authority?
category = exception to warrant requirement: consent
under the general rule, can a 3P waive someone else’s 4th amendment rights?
yes - if it can be established they have apparent authority ( a reasonable PO would have believed the person had authority to consent to a search of the place)
if two people are co tenants, and one says “yes search” and the other says “no search” what is the standard?
for the person objecting to win, they must be (1) physically present at the door AND (2) objecting
can a child consent to a search of the parent’s home
yes, so long as they understand the consequences of waiving the rights of the parents (age is a factor)
when someone (not a child) is waiving the 4th amendment rights of someone else, what do you go to?
actual authority and apparent authority analyis
Ex. maid is cleaning a hotel room and finds drugs. Calls police and invites them to look at the drugs. Can the maid waive the rights of the hotel guest?
- maid does not have actual authority b/c hotel room is your home away from home (unless sign agreement to contrary)
- doesn’t have apparent authority - no reasonable officer would believe the maid had the authority
- this is likely to be unreasonable
- as soon as check out time comes, they can be in that room whether your stuff is in it or not
can your landlord waive your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches in your apartment?
no
- no actual authority
- no apparent authority
what is a search incident to arrest?
- an exception to the warrant requirement
- PO can permissibly search the lunge area/immediate surroundings to make sure there are no weapons and look for evidence
- once your beyond the lunge area, PO has to get a warrant
- POs can also do a protect sweep of a home if there are exigent circumstances
(see Chimmel standard)
what do we get from NY v. Belton?
- takes the Chimmel standard on the road
- standard = the area that can be searched includes the person and the passenger compartment of the vehicle
what makes up the passenger compartment of the vehicle?
the front and the back of the vehicle where passengers can sit
can police open containers during a search incident to arrest?
yes
can police open glove compartments and trunks during a search incident to arrest?
can open glove compartments but not trunks
if a person is arrested outside their car, can the passenger compartment of the care be searched (incident to arrest) even though the person is outside the actual lunge area?
yes
what was the problem with Belton’s interpretation of the Chimmel standard?
- Chimmel = search incident to arrest standard
- sometimes police were searching cars incident to arrest when the person was way outside the lunge area
Under the most recent interpretation of AZ v. Gant, when can a PO search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as a search incident to arrest?
When there is a reason to believe there is evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested or the person could lunge to destroy such evidence or lunge to get a weapon
is a warrant required to search a cellphone?
yes
what is the difference b/t search incident to arrest outside an auto and the automobile exception?
- both are exceptions to the warrant requirement
- however, they have different standards
- search incident to arrest outside and auto = search is limited to the passenger compartment
- automobile exception = probable cause, the officer can search anywhere evidence might be located
what is the standard for the automobile exception?
probable cause and the police officer can search anywhere evidence could be located
what case establishes the automobile exception?
chambers v. US
what does the inventory exception apply to?
any container
what t does the chimmel case do?
establish the search incident to arrest standard
what are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?
- warrantless arrests
- the plain view doctrine
- consent
- searches incident to arrest
- automobile exception
- inventory search
- exigent circumstances
what is the hierarchy of standards?
warrant>probable cause>reasonable articulable particularized suspicion>hunch
what is the different b/t the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
the exclusionary rule makes direct evidence inadmissible while the poisonous tree doctrine makes secondary (fruit) evidence inadmissible
what are the 3 exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
- independent source
- inevitable discovery
- sufficient attenuation
what is the big difference b/t the independent source exception to the FOTPD and the inevitable discovery exception?
independent source ACTUALLY discovers the same evidence while the inevitable discovery is all based on hypotheticals - by a preponderance of the evidence, would have found the same evidence
what is the question you ask for incorporation?
whether X right is a fundamental principle of justice and liberty?
what are the 3 sources of criminal law?
constitution, courts, congress
what is the warrant preference model?
- a model for interpreting the 4th amendment
- presumption that if you don’t have a warrant, the search/seizure is unreasonable
what is the reasonableness model?
- a model for interpreting the 4th amendment
- presumption that searches/seizures have to be reasonable and if you get a warrant, it has to be based on oath, probable cause, and has to be particular
when is an individual’s privacy interest restored in a container?
if there is a likelihood the contents could have changed during the gap in surveillance
what are the 3 ways to get a warrant?
physical write up, e-warrant, telephone
for consent exception to warrant requirement, what must consent be?
- consent must be voluntary and free from express and implied duress
- voluntariness = TOC = what PO said/did, what individual did/individual’s characteristics, and whether PO told them about refusal
what can a PO search incident to arrest?
the person and their immediate area for weapons and to prevent the destruction of evidence
does the search itself, as a search incident to arrest, require probable cause?
no, it takes the probable cause from the arrest
what is the standard for the automobile exception?
probable cause and officer can search anywhere evidence might found w/o a warrant
what is the standard for the inventory search exception?
police can perform and inventory search incident to booking so long as the search is part of the admin process and there is a standardized process for it; cannot be used to look for evidence
during a terry stop, when can a suspect be frisked?
when the officer believes the person is armed and dangerous
when someone is terry stopped, are they always frisked?
no, only frisked if PO believes they are armed and dangerous
how is the reaonsableness of a Terry stop determined?
(1) justified at its inception - RAPS
(2) justified in scope
what is the standard for RAPS?
TOC
is a consensual encounter w/ a police officer governed by the 4th amendment?
no
are you free to leave in a consensual stop with a police officer?
yes
are you free to leave in a Terry stop
no
what is the overall standard for a Terry stop?
RAPS
what is the overall standard for custody/arrest?
probable cause
what is the goal of a Terry stop?
turns RAPS into probable cause and make it a stage 3 - arrest/custody
what 2 factors do you consider when examining whether a Terry stop has turned into custody/arrest?
- how long the person has been detained
2. whether the person has been moved
what is the difference b/t consensual police encounter and terry stop?
felt like you had freedom to leave or terminate the encounter
when can anonymous tips form the basis of RAPS?
when they have some indica of reliability
what must be obvious to justify a police officer in seizing a non dangerous item during a frisk?
immediately apparent as contraband
how is a frisk of a vehicle different from a search incident to arrest?
frisk = PO believes suspect armed and dangerous and searches passenger compartment for weapons
SIA=search related to arrest, search for the purpose of finding weapons and preventing the destruction of evidence
when do you use special needs standard?
use special needs when state actor is not a police officer, primary purpose is not to detect criminal law violations and primary purpose = beyond law enforcement
definition of the exclusionary rule
the evidence secured in violation of the 4th amendment is not admissible in the criminal trial of the person whose rights were violated
what are the 2 rationales for the exclusionary rule?
- judicial = don’t want illegal evidence
2. deterrance = want cops to follow the rules
what is the exception to the exclusionary rule?
if officers relied on a warrant with good faith and the warrant was bad, the evidence obtained is still going to come in
under the Leon exception to the exclusionary rule, when would evidence still not get in if good faith and bad warrant?
- officer lied or went to rubber stamper
- knew warrant lacked probable cause
- warrant was facial deficient
when will someone have standing in an area that is not their own?
when they have a legitimate privacy expectation in the area
when evaluating the legit expectation of privacy to determine standing, what must be taken into account?
- how long had access
- how well know actual owner
- whether had access rights for themselves or others
definition of FOTPTD
if 4th amendment violation, both direct and secondary evidence is inadmissible
what are the exceptions to FOTPD?
- independent source
- inevitable discovery
- sufficient attenuation
what factors should be taken into account in determining sufficient attenuation?
- time b/t unconstitutional behavior and evidence
- flagrancy of police conduct
- nature of evidence (voluntary?)
