4th Amendment

Question 1

Georgia v. Ranolph (2006; Souter)

Answer 1

Consent exception. Consent exception doesn’t work when one physically present resident consents and the other physically present resident objects. Here, even though wife consented, the husband/D objected and there were no other applicable exceptions to the warrant req

Question 2

Arizona v. Gant (2009; Stevens)

Answer 2

SITA w/r/t cars. Police may search a car incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if (1) the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or (2) when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant TO THE CRIME OF ARREST might be found in the car

Question 3

Florida v. Riley (1989; White)

Answer 3

Search def. Aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home from a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet is NOT a search requiring a warrant under the terms of the 4th A.

Question 4

Minnesota v. Carter (1998; Rehnquist)

Answer 4

Someone temporarily in another’s home for commercial purposes has not reasonable expectation of privacy in that home.

Question 5

Terry Stop

Answer 5

A brief seizure by law enforcement that falls short of a traditional arrest. A Terry stop is lawful if officers have an articulable suspicion (not necessarily belief) that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. The investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop

Question 6

SITA

Answer 6

Once police have lawfully arrested a suspect, they may search to find weapons or prevent the destruction of evidence. If in a car, also justified to find evidence of the crime of arrest - wingspan

Question 7

twin rationales of SITA

Answer 7

officer’s safety and preventing destruction of evidence

Question 8

Chimel v. California (1969; Stewart)

Answer 8

SITA w/r/t homes: This case involved a search of an ENTIRE home after D was arrested in home…“When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence of the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary item, of course, be governed by a like rule.” … There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely search any room other than that in which an arrest occurs

Question 9

Maryland v. Buie (1990; White)

Answer 9

SITA w/t/r homes: search of nearby attack points AKA “protective sweep”: If law enforcement effects a lawful arrest inside a home or other structure, officer may broaden their search to closets and other similar spaces adjacent to the place of arrest, from which someone in hiding might launch an attack

Question 10

Vale v. Louisiana (1970; Stewart)

Answer 10

“If a search of a house is to be upheld as a search incident to arrest, that arrest must take place inside the house, not somewhere outside – whether two blocks away, 20 feet away, or on the sidewalk near the front steps. Belief, however well founded, that an article sought is concealed in a dwelling house furnishes no justification for a search of that place w/o a warrant”

Question 11

United States v. Robinson (1973; Rehnquist)

Answer 11

SITA. during a lawful arrest, police may search the person arrested w/o need for court to examine justification for search of person on a case-by-case basis; = officer doesn’t actually have to fear for safety or potential destruction of evidence

Question 12

Automobile Exception (Caroll/Chambers doctrine)

Answer 12

Police can search a car if they have probable cause to believe the car contains evidence, weapons, contraband, fruits/instrumentalities of a crime - no contemporaneous requirement

Question 13

California v. Carney (1985; Burger)

Answer 13

Automobile exception. The search of a mobile home here fell under the automobile exception.

Question 14

California v. Acevedo (1991; Blackmun)

Answer 14

Automobile exception. police are not required to obtain a warrant to open a container found in a car, even if their PC to search is limited to just than container and not the car itself. Here, the police had PC to believe a brown paper bag in the trunk of a car contained narcotics, but lacked PC to search the rest of the car. The warrantless search of the brown paper bag in the trunk was constitutional

Question 15

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999; Scalia)

Answer 15

Automobile exception. officers with PC to search a car may search passengers’ belongings if they are capable of containing the object of the search - it does not matter that the container in question is known to the officer to be the property of a passenger not suspected of criminal activity

Question 16

consent exception

Answer 16

Gov’t may conduct a search w/o a warrant or probable cause based on the subject’s consent, provided that the consent was voluntary and given by someone authorized to consent.

Question 17

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973; Stewart)

Answer 17

“when the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject’s knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent.”

Question 18

Exigent Circumstances Exception

Answer 18

● it is a catch-all/ residual exception to cover emergency situations and is the underlying rationale for all other exceptions (the idea of furthering law enforcement efforts)
● while the exigent circumstances exception dispenses with the warrant requirement, it does not eliminate the PC requirement

Question 19

Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984; Brennan)

Answer 19

exigent circumstances. gravity of the underlying offense is a relevant factor. D is observed driving erratically. Police warrantless entry into home did NOT fall under EC exception b/c D had already arrived at home, and abandoned his car at the scene of the accident, there was little remaining threat to public safety

Question 20

Missouri v. McNeely (2013)

Answer 20

Exig C. warrantless blood sample…The Court refused to adopt such a per se rule, explaining that case-by-case assessment of exigency was more appropriate than a categorical rule. The Court concluded that “in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.

Question 21

Kentucky v. King (2011; Alito)

Answer 21

Exig C. Warrantees entry of apt after smelling marijuana and after knocking on the door, heard people inside moving. The conduct of the police prior to their entry into the apartment was entirely lawful. They did not violate the 4th A or threaten to do so. In such a situation, the exigent circumstances rules applies. … the test: whether the police conduct that created the exigency was reasonable

Question 22

Terry Frisk

Answer 22

need reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous - if an officer reaches or gropes for things other than weapons, the officer has exceeded the limits of the Terry frisk

Question 23

IL v. Wardlow (2000; Rehnquist)

Answer 23

Terry. the flight of a suspect in a high crime area CAN (not does) amount to reasonable suspicion and justify a lawful stop and frisk

Question 24

MI v. Long (1983; O’Connor)

Answer 24

Terry. The search of a car’s passenger compartment, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if an officer reasonably believes, based on specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons” ; If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the car, the officer should discover contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the 4th A does not require its suppression in such circumstances.

Question 25

U.S. v. Brigoni-Ponce (1975; Powell)

Answer 25

Terry. The Fourth Amendment prohibits border patrol agents from stopping a vehicle and questioning its occupants based solely on their appearance. - Except at the border and its functional equivalents, border patrol officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific, articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain illegal immigrants.

Question 26

factors for special need searches

Answer 26

significant of the government’s need; efficiency of the search in meeting the need; intrusiveness of the search; privacy interest of individuals being searched

Question 27

Safford Unified School Dist #1 v. Redding (2009; Souter)

Answer 27

Admin/Special Needs Strip Search. Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search violated the 4th A . . . both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings - here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion

Question 28

White v. United States (1971)

Answer 28

search, eavesdropping, third-party doctrine. Recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the 4th A protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant

Question 29

Payton v. New York (1980)

Answer 29

Arrests…An arrest warrant naming a particular person and authorizing the person’s arrest is sufficient, by itself, to give police authority to enter into that arrestee’s home to search for the arrestee in any place within the home where the arrestee might logically be found, provided that the police reasonably believe that the arrestee is home at the time

Question 30

Steagald v. United States (1981)

Answer 30

Arrests… If the police seek to enter the home of a third party, who does not live with the arrestee, in order to apprehend the arrestee, police need a search warrant to enter the non-cohabiting third party’s home to search for the arrestee.