4th Amendment- Search Flashcards
4th Amendment Language
- The right of the people to be secure in their__, ___, ___, and_____,
- against unreasonable________,________, shall not be violated.
- And no _____shall be issued but upon ____ _____
- Supported by _________ and _______, and particularly ________the place to be searched, and the __________.
4th Amendment protects
1. “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
- against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
- And no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause
- supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
Search (Katz 2-part test)
A search occurs when there is an invasion of a persons reasonable expectation of privacy.
REP 2- part test
- a person must exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy:and
- the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Search (Factors to determine a REP)
- Location
- Assumption of the Risk
- Property interest
- social custom
- past practices and expectations
- Legality and intimacy of activities
- Vantage Point
Each of the following cards describes 1-7
ii. Factors to help determine REP-1. Location
1. Location→the setting in which the government action takes place is the most important factor in determining the existence of a search
See Oliver v. US–> Open fields
See United States v. Dunn–> Curtilage test
ii. factors to help determine REP-1. Location
1. Location: Oliver v. United States→ “OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE”
i. Per se rule = not protected
1. E.g. poppies field from the Wizard of Oz
Oliver v. United States→ an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted outside. Creates a brightline rule.
F: P was arrested and indicted after police officers, without a warrant and without probable cause, investigated and discovered a marijuana field a mile from petitioner’s home that was surrounded by “no trespass” signs.
ii. factors to help determine REP– 1.Location
- Curtilage definition .
2.United States v. Dunn (curtilage factors)
P
E
N
S - Florida v. Jardines (2013) - trespass on curtilage w/dog
-Curtilage is the area immediately surrounding a residence that “harbors the `intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.’’ and is protected under the 4th from “unreasonable searches and seizures.’’
F. Barn was not curtilage. This was an open field (50ft)
United States v. Dunn→ 4 part test to determine curtilage which is protected by the 4th amendment:
i. P-roximity to the house
ii. E-nclosure by a fence
iii. N-ature of use
iv. S-teps taken to protect the area
- Florida v. Jardines
F: Police acted on an un verified tip by going to Jardines house w/o a warrant but w/ a drug dog who signaled drugs. Dog tip used to secure a warrant.
H: The dog was an illegal search on protected curtilage under the 4th because the dog revealed what the police could not otherwise see.
Rationale: A pathway to porch is a license w/ a purpose to enter property (on to curtilage) but the use of the dog
ii. factors to help determine REP— 2Assumption of the Risk:
- agents and informants
- Institutional third parties
- electronic tracking/ surveillance
- aerial surveillance
- Thermal imaging Devices
- Containers Searches
Assumption of the Risk→whether the individual “assumed the risk” that certain information will not be kept private
ii. factors to help determine REP— Assumption of the Risk:
a. AGENTS AND INFORMANTS
i. Third party doctrine:
United States v. White
b. agents and informants
Third Party Doctrine: generally, one assumes the risk that who he speaks to may reveal information/be an informant
United States v. White→While individuals like White may subjectively expect privacy when they talk to informants, the expectation is not legitimate/reasonable
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
a. AGENTS AND INFORMANTS
- informants–Hoffa
- Wire tap–Lopez
- Home as a commercial center –Lewis
- Criminals and their co-cons/family member –White
- Informants– Hoffa (1966) (informant)
F: informant was invited to a hotel suite to hear a convo
H: Ct: ∆ was not relying on the security of the hotel room. ∆ relied on misplaced confidence in the informant.
2.Wire tap– Lopez (1963) (wire)
F: Informant had on a wire.
H: Ct: since he was capturing conversations he already had access to, this was not eavesdropping.
- Emails
- The Court has said you have no privacy in your email address
- No privacy in the content of the email if you are using your work email
- Otherwise, the content of the email is private
4.Home as a commercial center– Lewis (1966)
F: undercover drug purchase in ∆’s home.
H: Ct: ∆’s home was technically a “commercial center.” No longer had any sanctity (like the home).
- Criminals and their co-cons/family members–White (1971)
H:Ct: if you are a criminal, you should suspect that you co-conspirators are informants
*Even still, we shouldn’t expect them to suspect their family members
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
Institutional third parties
- Bank records
- Utility bills
- Email
a. No privacy in your address, or content of work emails
b. Content of personal emails is private
contd.
1. pen registers
2. email subject line; voice, finger prints
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
Electronic Tracking Devices
Knotts: A person driving on a public thoroughfare has no reasonable expectation of privacy because his movements are open to the public.
Karo: The beeper helped the police know what they otherwise could not know without physical invasion
Beeper
- Knotts (1983) upheld
Facts: police installed a radio “beeper” inside a chlorophorum bottle, used it to follow Armstrong to petitioner’s house and car. Chased him and lost him, but the beeper led them to his cabin.
Rule: A person driving on a public thoroughfare has no reasonable expectation of privacy because his movements are open to the public.
Held: Ct: this was not a violation of ∆’s reasonable expectation of privacy. - Karo (1984) struck down
F: DEA knew that ∆ purchased 50 gallons of ether, which was for extracting cocaine from cloth. Gov’t got ct. authorization to put a beeper in one of the ether cans. Used the beeper to track the ether to a house for which they got a warrant, searched, and found cocaine and drug materials.
H: Ct: The beeper use was a search…
Rat: the beeper helped the police know what they otherwise could not know without physical invasion
iii. However, there was no 4th Am. Violation b/c ∆s had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the can.
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
Aerial Surveillance
Rule: The Reasonable expectation of privacy decreases when property is commercial, not residential.
- Ciraolo (1986)–> no REOP if _________.
- Dow Chemical Co. (1986)–> had a REOP in_________.
- Ciraolo (1986)
F: private plane was flying 1000 feet over a person’s property. The property was surrounded by a 6 foot fence and a 10 foot fence and within the fences was marijuana.
H: Ct: no reasonable expectation against aerial observations. This was public navigable airspace; physically non-intrusive.
Dow Chemical Co. (1986)
F: 2,000 acre manufacturing facility. EPA plane flew 1,200 to 12,00 feet above in in lawful navigable airspace. Took aerial photography.
Held: Ct: Dow had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior of the covered buildings. However, the fields are more like open fields so no reasonable expectation of privacy.
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
Reduced Expectations of Privacy and other scenarios
1. the car
2. abandonment: garbage
California v. Greenwood→no REP in _______.
Reduced Expectations of Privacy and other scenarios
- Car:
Ct: There is low REP in your car.
2.Abandonment
Ct: you have no privacy interests in abandoned info
California v. Greenwood→no REP in bagged garbage once outside the home and the curtilage
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
Social Custom: guest vs. overnight guest
b. Minnesota v. Olson→Δ had
c. Minnesota v. Carter→Δ did not
In determining REP, Courts look to social customs regarding guests and hosts. Court has recognized that overnight guests have REP while more temporary ones do not.
b. Minnesota v. Olson→Δ had a privacy interest in the home of the women he was staying with b/c of his status as an overnight guest.
c. Minnesota v. Carter→Δ did not have REP in the apartment of an acquaintance where he only spent about 2 hours
ii. factors to help determine REP– Assumption of the Risk
6. Legality and Intimacy of Activities
a. privacy interest depend on_______.
b. Ct. suggest a person has no privacy interest when they engage in__________.
c. Illinois v. Caballes–>
Legality and Intimacy of Activities
a. Privacy interest depend on whether the person claiming the expectation was engaged in illegal or legal activities and whether they were intimate or completely commercial
b. Court has suggested that individuals have no privacy interests when they engage in purely illegal activities
c. Illinois v. Caballes→a drug dog sniff of a lawfully seized car didn’t violate the 4th amendment b/c the sniff didn’t significantly prolong the stop.
