4th Amendment Seizures

Question 1

Seizure

Mini Framework

1. Was there a seizure of the person?
2. Was there a seizure of a thing?

Answer 1

Seizure

Mini Framework

1. Was there a seizure of the person?—government action that a reasonable person would believe limited his or her freedom of movement?
2. Was there a seizure of a thing—an interference with a person’s possessory interests in property?

Question 2

seizure

Answer 2

1. Seizure of a person occurs when a government actor significantly interferes with a person’s freedom of movement and;
2. seizure of a thing occurs when a government actor interferes with an individual’s possessory interest in that property

Question 3

STANDING

A person alleging an unlawful search must establish standing→Rakas Test

Rakas v. Illinois→ did the person have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place? Or for a seizure, did the person have a possessory interest in the items seized?

Business setting: business nexus test

Answer 3

Rakas v. Illinois→
-F: The police pulled over a car that fit the description of a car used in a robbery. The police ordered the four occupants out of the car, found a sawed-off rifle under the front passenger seat. Rakas (defendant) and the other man in the car were arrested. Neither Rakas nor the other man had been driving the car, neither owned the car, and neither claimed he owned the shells or the rifle. Rakas moved to have the rifle and shells suppressed at trial, but the trial judge ruled the two men lacked standing and denied the motion to suppress.

• Rule: Only people with a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or thing seized may challenge a search or seizure as unconstitutional
• The individual must exercise complete dominion and control over, and have the right to exclude others from, the contested areas

2. Business setting
   a. [not all courts have accepted the following rule as bright line] “business nexus test” - what is the relationship or nexus of the employee to the area searched
   i. Is it part of the employee’s work space? If so, the employee usually has standing.
   ii. If not part of employee’s work area, no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question 4

STANDING

United States v. Bouroff

Answer 4

F: D was driving a car rented by his GF to transport drugs. D tried to contest the search but the court found that he did not have standing b/c the car rental K stipulated that only the GF could drive the car.

R: D must have not been breaking the law in order to have standing.

Question 5

In addition to standing, an individual seeking redress must also meet the government action requirement→the search or seizure must have been accomplished by a government actor, as opposed to a private party

1. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass’n

Answer 5

Private / Government Actor test

A private person can be considered a government agent and therefore satisfy the requirement if:

(1) Whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and;
(2) Whether the private actor’s purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further his own ends.

Skinner v. Railway Administration
I. F: Alcohol and drug use on the American Railroads caused officials to promulgate various regulations.
II. Rule: if a private person can be said to have been an intentional “instrument or agent” of the government at the time of the search or seizure, then the government action requirement will be satisfied.
H: Regulations are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”The Government’s interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety, like its supervision of probationers or regulated industries, or its operation of a government office, school, or prison, ‘likewise presents special needs beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause requirements.’

Question 6

PROBABLE CAUSE

What is “Probable Cause”? (substantial chance of guilt)

Framework

1. Was p/c based on a Tip?
   A. Is the informant credible (likely to tell the truth)?
   i.Has he given previous accurate tips
   ii.Ordinary citizen or a “stoolie,” part of the world of criminality?
   iii.Is his statement against his interest, implicating him in criminal activity?
   iv.Does he have a reputation for truthfulness?
   v.Does the accused have a reputation for engaging in the alleged crime?
   vi.Corroborating evidence? (any facts consistent with innocence, consistent with criminality, facts true at the time of the tip, facts predicted by the tip?)

B. Is the informant reliable (likely to have an adequate basis of knowledge)?

i. Did the informant personally observe, or participate in, the criminal activity?
ii. Did the informant set out such detailed information as to suggest that he must have an adequate basis of knowledge?
iii. Corroborating evidence? (any facts consistent with innocence, consistent with criminality, facts true at the time of the tip, facts predicted by the tip?)
c. Any other reasons to credit the tip?

2. Does the Totality of the circumstances establish p/c→ a substantial chance of guilt?
   a. Substantial chance of guilt?

Answer 6

QUANTIFYING PROBABLE CAUSE

ii. Beyond reasonable doubt (BRD)
iii. Clear and convincing. (C&C)
iv. Preponderance (over 50%) aka more likely than not.
v. Reasonable suspicions
vi. Meter suspicion
vii. A Hunch
viii. Probable cause:probable cause hovers somewhere just over or just under the 50% mark, depending on the court and the situation. (more than a reasonable suspicion).

Question 7

Definition of Probable Cause

a. A substantial chance of guilt
b. The belief that an offence has been committed
c. Illinois v. Gates said that p/c was just under the 50% mark
d. Requires individualized suspicion
ex. “someone has drugs” vs. “Amber has drugs”

ii.Individualized Suspicion cases –> Pringle (33% PC)

Yabara v. Illinois: Mere proximity _________. (bar case)

Answer 7

ii. Pringle: Individualized Suspicion cases
F: officer stopped a car with 3 people in it; glove compartment (money); armrest (5 baggies of cocaine)
There was a 33.3% chance that pringle possessed the drugs. Thus, this was reasonable suspicion, not p/c
H: Ct: This is individualized suspicion here.
i.Contrast with the Ybarra case (where a group of people in a tavern were searched).
ii.A car is different than a tavern b/c usually, car passengers are engaged in a common enterprise.

Ybarra v. Illinois→a person’s mere proximity to others who are suspected of criminal activity does not give rise to probable cause to search a person (Bar case)

Question 8

informant tips can sometimes give rise to probable cause, but there must be some sort of verification of credibility.

1. Aguilar-Spinelli Test
   a. Was the information credible?
   b. was the information reliable?

Illinois v. Gates–> totality of the circumstances Test–? all PC

Answer 8

Anguilar/Spinelli (test used before Gates)

a. two prongs
i. Was the informant credible (truthful)?
ii. Is the informant reliable (tip based on trustworthy evidence)?

Illinois v. Gates

a. Rejected Anguilar/Spinelli’s mechanical approach
b. Used totality of the circumstances test!
c. Can still look at a tip; can always look at a tip
d. F: anonymous tip (letter) about the Gates’; Illinois and Florida; flying and driving down to FL to bring drugs back; specific dates on there (predictive). Under Anguilar/Spinelli,
e. Rational: ct. looked heavily at prediction of future events and the level of detail in the tip. These features outweighed the tip’s anonymity.

Aguilar-Spinelli Test→

1. Was the informant credible?
   i. Was he or she likely to be telling the truth?
   ii. Factors:
2. Whether the tip implicated the informant in the criminal activity
3. Whether the informant had given prior accurate tips
4. Whether the informant had a reputation for truthfulness
5. Was the informant reliable?
   i. Was it likely that he or she had a sound basis of knowledge?
   ii. Factors:
6. Whether the informant personally observed or participated in the activities reported in the tip
7. Whether the tip was so detailed that the informant must have first hand knowledge
8. Whether the nature of the info, or the manner in which it was gathered, indicate it could’ve only come from personal knowledge or a highly reliable source

For anonymous tips→Gates Test

1. Illinois v. Gates→totality of the circumstances approach
   a. Applies to all probable cause inquiries, not just those involving informant’s tips
2. Veracity (credibility)
   i. See below for levels of credibility (lowest to most credible)
   b. Anonymous
   c. Informant with no track record.
   d. Informant (See- eye (someone who has a track record of snitching)
   e. Citizen (middle credibility) (verifiable/ why would the citizen lie)
   f. Police officers (assumed to have the most credibility
3. Basic knowledge
   a. Sometimes you have to surmise the knowledge of the tip itself.
   i. How detailed is the information given?
   ii. Cops can investigate to corroborate enough of the details to “up the basis of knowledge”

Question 9

Warrant Framework

1. Was the warrant application sufficient?
   a. Application accompanied by an _____ made under____?
   b. Affidavit established ____?
2. Was the warrant proper?
   a. Was the warrant issued by a _____ and _____ _____?
   b. Did it describe places to be searched, _____/person to be seized, with______ particularity, based on facts learned after reasonable investigation?
3. Was the warrant execution reasonable?
   a.Executed during _____ hours within___days of issuance? If not, were there reasonable grounds for the manner of execution?
   b.Did the officers___ and ____ their presence?
   If not, r______ _______ for failing to do so?
   c.Did the officers act reasonably in dealing with individuals encountered?

Answer 9

Warrant Framework

1. Was the warrant application sufficient?
   a. Application accompanied by an affidavit made under oath?
   b. Affidavit established p/c?
2. Was the warrant proper?
   a. Was the warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate?
   b. Did it describe places to be searched, items/person to be seized, with reasonable particularity, based on facts learned after reasonable investigation?
3. Was the warrant execution reasonable?
   a. Executed during daytime hours within 10 days of issuance? If not, were there reasonable grounds for the manner of execution?
   b. Did the officers knock and announce their presence? If not, reasonable grounds for failing to do so?
   c. Did the officers act reasonably in dealing with individuals encountered?

Question 10

Warrant Basics

a. Warrants can be sought for:
1. __________________
2. __________________
3. ___________________
4. ___________________

Answer 10

Warrants can be sought for…

1. Evidence of a crime
2. Contraband, fruits, etc.
3. Property used for committing the crime
4. person

Question 11

How do you get a warrant?

i. Police officer _______
1. There is a ______ that the police are ______.
a. ∆ must prove that the
i. _________
ii. Or; acted in _______ disregard for the truth
ii. Needs a ______/detached magistrate to sign
1. Can do this either in person or by phone

Answer 11

How do you get a warrant?

i. Police officer has to submit an affidavit
1. There is a presumption that the police are truthful
a. ∆ must prove that the
i. Affiant lied
ii. Or; acted in reckless disregard for the truth
ii. Needs a neutral/detached mag to sign
1. Can do this either in person or by phone

Question 12

Warrants must contain: what the officers are searching for, the time frame of the search, and how the search is to be conducted

1. Particularity requirement
2. The particularity issue frequently rises with “residual clauses”

Answer 12

Warrant Requirements

Warrants must contain: what the officers are searching for, the time frame of the search, and how the search is to be conducted.

1. There is a particularity requirement, and whether or not that requirement is met is a fact-bound inquiry→whether the warrant contains sufficient particularities so that the officer can be reasonably certain of executing it correctly
2. The particularity issue frequently rises with “residual clauses” which are typically added to a specific list of items and call for the search and seizure of “all other evidence”

Question 13

Warrant Cases:

ii. Maryland v. Garrison→
iii. Andresen v. Maryland→
iv. Messerschmidt v. Millender→

Answer 13

ii. Maryland v. Garrison→a warrant is to be evaluated at the time it was issued and according to the info that the officers disclosed or should’ve disclosed to the judicial officer
iii. Andresen v. Maryland→the residual clause in this case was meant to be read as part of the longer sentence and not in isolation; therefore, the particularity requirement was met
iv. Messerschmidt v. Millender→

Question 14

Particularity and the Way Written

Residual clauses in search warrants

a. Ex: “all other evidence”
b. Ct: this is okay if the clause is limited to the specific crime stated

2. Andresen v. Maryland (1976) (it has to be particular, but not that particular)
3. Manner in which written/Incorporation
   a) Warrant must expressly incorporate the affidavit and append the affidavit (needs the magic words)

i) Groh v. Ramirez

Answer 14

Particularity and the Way Written

1. Residual clauses in search warrants
   a. Ex: “all other evidence”
   b. Ct: this is okay if the clause is limited to the specific crime stated
2. Andresen v. Maryland (1976) (it has to be particular, but not that particular)
   a. F: ∆ is a real estate attorney. Fraud unit investigates him. Investigators applied for a search warrant for ∆’s law office and his other office. Sought documents relating to Lot 13T sale. Searches conducted during daylight. ∆ was present and free to move about and had counsel. POs seized 2% to 3% of files. 5% of files at other office. There was a phrase in the warrant that said “together with other fruits . . . of crime at this time unknown.”
   b. ∆ argued that this phrase permitted search of any evidence of any crime
   c. Ct: That phrase should not be read in isolation. It means all other evidence pertaining specifically to false pretense with respect to Lot 13T b/c that phrase was at the end of a long ass sentence.
3. Manner in which written/Incorporation
   a. Warrant must expressly incorporate the affidavit and append the affidavit (needs the magic words)
   i. Groh v. Ramirez
4. Warrant must use appropriate words of incorporation
5. And; the supporting documents must accompany the warrant

Question 15

Neutral and Detached Magistrate

1. Magistrate
   a. Can be ________
   i. Shadwick

2.Detachment:
Lo-Ji Sales, inc. v. New York

Answer 15

Neutral and Detached Magistrate

1. Magistrate
   a. Can be a lay person
   i. Shadwick – under the Constitution, need no experience to be a magistrate
2. Detachment
   a. Lo-Ji Sales, inc. v. New York
   i. F: “Town Justice” accompanied police to the store searched. Was a part of the search party. Looking at the porn and saying “you may deem anything I deem obscence.”
   ii. Ct: this man was neither neutral nor detached. A judge is not supposed to investigate.

Question 16

Warrant Execution

3 issues:

a. Mistakes in ________ warrants
b. ______/manner of ________
c. Treatment of _______ encountered

Answer 16

Warrant Execution
3 issues
a.	Mistakes in executing warrants
b.	Time/manner of execution
c.	Treatment of individuals encountered

Question 17

Mistakes in executing warrants

1. To enter a premises to make an arrest, police need an ____ warrant and a _____ warrant
   a. Exception: the dwelling where the __ to be _____lives.
2. Serving the Warrant
   a. Must be a ______ present when you serve the warrant
3. “Return” Requirement
   a. Must bring back to the_____ _______:
   i. The______ arrested
   ii. Or; an ______ of the seized items
4. No “general warrants”
   a. Maryland v. Garrison
   i.
   ii. issued have no bearing on whether or not a warrant was validly issued.”
5. Honest Mistakes?
   a. Maryland v. Garrison
   i.
   ii. I: was it executed in a reas manner?
   b. Typos in the ____don’t make the search_____.

Answer 17

Mistakes in executing warrants

1. To enter a premises to make an arrest, police need an arrest warrant and a search warrant
   a. Exception: the dwelling where the person to be arrested lives
2. Serving the Warrant
   a. Must be a witness present when you serve the warrant
3. “Return” Requirement
   a. Must bring back to the judicial officer:
   i. The person arrested
   ii. Or; an inventory of the seized items
4. No “general warrants” like back in the colonial days
   a. Maryland v. Garrison
   i. I: was the warrant valid? H: Yes
   ii. “items of evidence that emerge after the warrant is issued have no bearing on whether or not a warrant was validly issued.”
5. Honest Mistakes?
   a. Maryland v. Garrison
   i. F: Officers in the wrong apartment.
   ii. I: was it executed in a reas manner? H: Yes, because this was an honest mistakes. Reasonably understandable.
   b. Typos in the warrant don’t make the search illegal

Question 18

Time & manner of execution

1. Must be executed within _____
   a. To prevent _____ ______.
2. Must be executed during ______hours
   a. Daytime hours = ____a.m. to ____ p.m.
3. ____ and Announce (and Cases)
   a. Rule: Do not have to knock and announce if:
   i. There is reasonable suspicion that (1) ______ or (2) _______ of evidence will occur if you knock and announce
   ii. This is a totality test; no categorical rules
   b. Timeframe
   i. Ct says you must wait___seconds (United States v. Banks)

c. Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)
d. U.S. v. Ramirez (1998)

Answer 18

Time & manner of execution

1. Must be executed within 10 days
   a. To prevent stale warrants
2. Must be executed during daytime hours
   a. Daytime hours = 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
3. Knock and Announce (and Cases)
   a. Rule: Do not have to knock and announce if:
   i. There is reasonable suspicion that (1) danger or (2) destruction of evidence will occur if you knock and announce
   ii. This is a totality test; no categorical rules
   b. Timeframe
   i. Ct says you must wait 15 seconds (United States v. Banks)
   c. Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)
   i. I: Categorical exceptions? For example, drug investigations don’t require knock and announce b/c you want to make sure the evidence is not destroyed
   ii. H: No, there cannot be categorical exceptions b/c they overgeneralize. Should be an ad hoc inquiry.
   d. U.S. v. Ramirez (1998)
   i. F: POs did not knock and announce b/c dangerous. So they broke garage window.
   ii. 9th Cir Rule: When property is destroyed, more specific inferences of exigency are required!

Question 19

Remedy for Knock and Announce:

i. Hudson v. Michigan – there is no _______ remedy for Knock and Announce violations.
Only civil remedies (not really a remedy because your damages are probably nothing. Plus, in most states, you cannot get emotional damages unless you have an injury.)

Answer 19

Remedy for Knock and Announce:

i. Hudson v. Michigan – there is no exclusionary remedy for Knock and Announce violations. Only civil remedies (not really a remedy because your damages are probably nothing. Plus, in most states, you cannot get emotional damages unless you have an injury.)

Question 20

Other types of warrants
a. Illustrative Form Warrants
Anticipatory Warrants
1. Definition
a. Ex: Evidence will be at the location. It’s not there yet, but there is p/c that it will be there
2. Rule (2 part):
a. Need p/c that the evidence will be there
b. Need p/c that the “triggering event” will occur
3. Cases:
a. Grubbs case
i. Child porn ordered online from an undercover agent. The triggering condition was not in the warrant (it was in the affidavit)
b. Issues of bag swallowers
i. I: can you search; take it out?
1. Prob: dangerous to the person
2. Prob: non-invasive procedures will reveal objects, but not confirm that those objects are drugs
ii. Usually, the triggering conditions are when the person passes the bags.
Computer Warrants/Searches

Answer 20

.

Question 21

Computer Warrants/Searches

1. Definition: We want to take the computer away or want to take certain data away
2. Particularity Standard here
   a. 3 conditions
   i. Objective standard = search warrant has objective standard to differentiate seizable from non-seizable
   ii. Is there p/c to seize all listed items?
   iii. Was the government able to be more specific given information reasonably available?
3. Whole computer or Certain data? Distributor vs. possessor
   a. Ex:
   i. Child porn distributor → Can take the entire computer b/c Computer is an instrumentality of the crime
   ii. Child porn possessor → can only take the pornography files/data
4. DOJ standards for computer searches
   a. Affidavits should identify keywords for the search
   b. Cant seize hardware itself unless
   i. Computer itself is an instrumentality of crime
   ii. There is no less restrictive alternative
   c. Search Strategies (conduct these searches in the following order)
   i. On-site search, then print out
   ii. On-site electronic copies of wanted data
   iii. Mirror image of electronic data for later keyword search
   iv. Seize whole computer for later searches

Answer 21

.

Question 22

Under the 4th Amendment, arrests must be reasonable:

1. the seriousness of the offense
   a. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista→
2. the level of suspicions’ necessary
   a. ______ ________ is always required for an arrest
3. requirement of a warrant
   a. if the arrest is in a ______ space then a warrant isn’t required, but if the arrest takes place in a _____ area then a warrant is required
   b. if the arrest occurs in the _______ home, then only an ______ warrant is need b/c it authorized intrusion into the defendant’s liberty and privacy interests
   c. if the arrest takes place in the home or premises of a ____ party then an _____ and a ____ warrant is necessary so that the rights of the 3rd party are protected.

Answer 22

i. Under the 4th Amendment, arrests must be reasonable:
1. (1) the seriousness of the offense
a. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista→an arrest for a minor traffic violation is not unreasonable
2. (2) the level of suspicions’ necessary
a. probable cause is always required for an arrest
3. (3) requirement of a warrant
a. if the arrest is in a public space then a warrant isn’t required, but if the arrest takes lace in a protected area then a warrant is required
b. if the arrest occurs in the defendant’s home, then only an arrest warrant is need b/c it authorized intrusion into the defendant’s liberty and privacy interests
c. if the arrest takes place in the home or premises of a 3rd party then an arrest and a search warrant is necessary so that the rights of the 3rd party are protected

Question 23

Arrest: Use of Force

a. if an officer must use force in the course of an arrest, then it must be reasonable→when judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene

b. Tennessee v. Garner→
c. Scott v. Harris→
ii. In California v. Hodari D.→

Answer 23

if an officer must use force in the course of an arrest, then it must be reasonable→when judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene

b. Tennessee v. Garner→deadly force to prevent the escape of a felony suspect is unreasonable
F: The officers in question shot an unarmed suspected felon

c. Scott v. Harris→Court held that a law enforcement official may take actions that place a fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death in order to prevent that flight from endangering innocent people
F: After 6 min and 10 miles of a high speed chase, Officer Scott rear-ended the car, it spun and flipped over. Harris was badly injured and now a quadriplegic.
H: Officers actions were reasonable (balancing test of persons interest vs. gov interest.

ii. In California v. Hodari D., the Court held that a fleeing suspect has not been seized until he stops, either because he is physically forced to do so or because he submits to an officer’s show of authority

Question 24

Seizures: Terry Stop and Frisk

i. Terry Stop→constitutes a seizure because it ______restricts the individual’s ____ to leave. A proper stop does not automatically justify a frisk
1. Level of suspicion=__________
ii. Terry Frisk→constitutes a ______ intrusive search
1. Level of suspicion=reasonable suspicion that the suspect is_____ & _________
iii. Terry created a three level description of the interactions btw individuals and law enforcement:
1. A _______ encounter→the individual is (theoretically) free to leave
2. _____and frisk→the individual is not able to terminate the encounter for a brief period
3. _______→invasion of the person is so intrusive there must be probable cause to justify it

Answer 24

Terry Stops and Frisks

i. Terry Stop→constitutes a seizure because it temporarily restricts the individual’s freedom to leave. A proper stop does not automatically justify a frisk
1. Level of suspicion=reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot
ii. Terry Frisk→constitutes a minimally intrusive search
1. Level of suspicion=reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous
iii. Terry created a three level description of the interactions btw individuals and law enforcement:
1. A voluntary encounter→the individual is (theoretically) free to leave
2. Stop and frisk→the individual is not able to terminate the encounter for a brief period
3. Arrest→invasion of the person is so intrusive there must be probable cause to justify it

Question 25

Seizure of the Person

1. United States v. Mendenhall→a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th amendment only if, _____

Mendenhall factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Answer 25

i. United States v. Mendenhall→a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th amendment only if, in the view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
1. Facts→Δ was approached by federal agents while walking through an airport. The agents identified themselves and requester her I.D. and ticket—no seizure
2. Some factors to consider: (1) the threatening presence of officers (2) display of a weapon by an officer (3) physical touching of the person (3) use of tone and language indicating the person must comply

Mendenhall factors to consider:

(1) the threatening presence of officers
(2) display of a weapon by an officer
(3) physical touching of the person
(4) use of tone and language indicating the person must comply

Question 26

Seizure of a Person

ii. Florida v. Botstick→the proper test for seizure is not whether a reasonable person in his situation would have felt free to leave, but whether such a person would “feel free to decline the officers’ request or otherwise terminate the encounter”

Answer 26

ii. Florida v. Botstick→the proper test for seizure is not whether a reasonable person in his situation would have felt free to leave, but whether such a person would “feel free to decline the officers’ request or otherwise terminate the encounter”
1. Facts→officers came aboard a bus on a layover from MIA to ATL with a pistol in a plastic bag and asked to search Δ’s luggage to which he consented.

Question 27

Seizure of a Person

iii. United Stats v. Drayton.
iv. Brendlin v. California→
v. Arizona v. Johnson→
vi. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada→

Vii. Floyd v. City of New York

Answer 27

no 4th amendment violation when officers boarded a bus during a rest stop and searched Δ’s luggage and then frisked him b/c the officers gave Δ no reason to belief that he was required to answer the questions and there was no application of force, etc.

iv. Brendlin v. California→if police conduct a traffic stop for expired registration, passengers are not free to leave

v. Arizona v. Johnson→a traffic stop of a car communicates to a reasonable passenger that he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will
1. Facts→car was stopped for having a suspended registration and bc of his clothing and possession of a scanner was questioned about gang activity and was frisked
2. But there must be reasonable suspicion in order for officers to perform a Terry frisk on a passenger
3. Court also held that (1) an officer’s inquiry into matters unrelated to the stop don’t convert the encounter into something unlawful as long as the stop’s duration isn’t substantially extended (2) no new justification is need for the unrelated inquiries (3) not necessary for the officer to give Δ the opportunity to depart after he exits the vehicle

vi. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada→a suspect stopped under Terry can’t refuse an officer’s request to identify himself by name
1. Facts→officer was responding to a call that a woman had been asserted and approached a man standing near a parked truck and requested his identification
2. Rationale→obtaining a name during a Terry stop serves an important governmental interest
vii. Stop and Frisk and the 14th amendment

1. Floyd v. City of New York

Question 28

Stops Versus Arrests

i. Stops and arrests distinguished on the basis of:
(1) _______ of detention and
(2) ____ of detention

Answer 28

Stops Versus Arrests

i. Stops and arrests distinguished on the basis of:
(1) length of detention and
(2) place of detention

Question 29

Seizure: Length of detention

1. No brightline time limit on Terry stops but in United States v. Sharpe, upheld a ____ minute detention as a stop while the 90 minute detention of suitcase was deemed to have ripened into a full blown seizure in United States v. Place

Answer 29

Seizure: Length of detention
1. No brightline time limit on Terry stops but in United States v. Sharpe, upheld a 20 minute detention as a stop while the 90 minute detention of suitcase was deemed to have ripened into a full blown seizure in United States v. Place

Question 30

seizure: Place of detention
1. Pennsylvania v. Mimms→
2. Maryland v. Wilson→

3. Stops that move beyond the ______ ______ of stop are likely to be considered arrests
   a. Florida v. Royer→
   b. Hayes v. Florida→
   c. Kaupp v. Texas→

Answer 30

Seizure: Place of detention

1. Pennsylvania v. Mimms→brightline rule permitting officers to order drivers out of their vehicles after Terry stops as a matter of officer safety
2. Maryland v. Wilson→officers can order passengers out of vehicles following a Terry stop
3. Stops that move beyond the immediate vicinity of stop are likely to be considered arrests:
   a. Florida v. Royer→it was an arrest b/c Royer was taken from an airport concourse to an office about 40 feet away
   b. Hayes v. Florida→suspect had been arrested when he was picked up on reasonable suspicion of rape and taken to a station for fingerprinting
   c. Kaupp v. Texas→forcible transportation to police headquarters constitutes an arrest (except under rare exceptions) Facts→17 year old awaken and taken to station in his boxers was

Question 31

seizure: Sufficiency of Facts for Stop and Frisk
i. For a Terry stop or frisk, there must be facts that give rise “__________” to a certain level of suspicion that criminal ______may be afoot
ii. Look to the _____ of the ____→
iii. United States v. Arvizu→

iv. There must be reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop or frisk. But how is reasonable suspicion defined?
1. Brown v. Texas→
2. Illinois v. Wardlow→

v. What is the quality of evidence required for reasonable suspicion?
1. Alabama v. White→o
2. Florida v. J.L→anonymous tips that lack all indicia
3. Adams v. Williams→upheld a “man with a gun tip” from a known informant

Answer 31

seizure: Sufficiency of Facts for Stop and Frisk
i. For a Terry stop or frisk, there must be facts that give rise “objectively” to a certain level of suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot
ii. Look to the totality of the circumstances→all facts and circumstances identified by the officer and deference to the officer’s expertise in interpreting the facts
iii. United States v. Arvizu→a border patrol agent Terry stopped a minivan b/c of facts that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion to believe the occupants ere involved in drug trafficking. Court overturned the lower court’s attempt to define the weight due certain facts in the totality analysis.
iv. There must be reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop or frisk. But how is reasonable suspicion defined?
1. Brown v. Texas→Court overturned a finding of reasonable suspicion that was based solely on Δ’s presence in a high crime area

2. Illinois v. Wardlow→police in a an “area of heavy narcotics trafficking” conducted a Terry stop of Δ after he looked in their direction and fled; they then frisked him and found a gun. While a high crime area alone is not enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion it is relevant in a Terry analysis along with evasive behavior and flight.
   v. What is the quality of evidence required for reasonable suspicion?
3. Alabama v. White→officers stopped Δ based on an anonymous tip that she would be leaving a certain address at a particular time in a specific car. Reasonable suspicion can arise from info that is less reliable that that required to show probable cause
4. Florida v. J.L→anonymous tips that lack all indicia of reliability do not satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard.
   a. Facts→police received an anonymous tip tat a person was carrying a gun and conducted a Terry stop on Δ.
5. Adams v. Williams→upheld a “man with a gun tip” from a known informant

Question 32

Drug Courier Profiles

1. Supreme Court position:
   (1) the fact that a person matches a profile does not in and of itself give rise to reasonable suspicion; but
   (2) officers may rely in part on the cumulative law enforcement wisdom embodied in profiles when assessing the inferences that may be drawn from a person’s conduct or attributes; and
   (3) the fact that a person matches a profile does not detract from the inferences that might reasonably be drawn
2. Reid v. Georgia→
3. United States v. Sokolow→

Answer 32

1. Supreme Court position: (1) the fact that a person matches a profile does not in and of itself give rise to reasonable suspicion; but (2) officers may rely in part on the cumulative law enforcement wisdom embodied in profiles when assessing the inferences that may be drawn from a person’s conduct or attributes; and (3) the fact that a person matches a profile does not detract from the inferences that might reasonably be drawn
2. Reid v. Georgia→DEA agents performed a Terry stop of Δ in the Atlanta Airport b/c Δ was preceded by another person and occasionally looked back at him as they made their way through the concourse. Fitting the drug courier profile was not sufficient.
3. United States v. Sokolow→ Court upheld an airport stop b/c Δ was making a quick round trip to a drug source city, paid for the ticket in cash, didn’t check baggage, and appeared nervous. Deferring to officer’s experience.

Question 33

Consent

instead of analyzing consent of a waiver, the Court turned to the voluntariness test

1. Voluntary=state must show that the consent was obtained without.

This requires the court to examine the______of all the surrounding ________, including the characteristic of the accused and the details of the police-citizen interaction.

 Some of the factors to take into account:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Answer 33

Consent

instead of analyzing consent of a waiver, the Court turned to the voluntariness test

1. Voluntary=state must show that the consent was obtained without coercion. This requires the court to examine the totality of all the surrounding circumstances, including the characteristic of the accused and the details of the police-citizen interaction. Some of the factors to take into account:
   a. Youth of the accused
   b. Lack of education or low intelligence
   c. Lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights
   d. Whether the individual was in custody when consent was given
   e. Nature of the requests for consent
   f. Use of physical punishment
   g. Lack of awareness that consent may be refused

Question 34

Consent Cases:

1. United States v. Drayton→
2. Ohio v. Robinette→
3. Florida v. Royer→
4. Kaupp v. Texas→
5. There was no _____ _______ and that, therefore, a reasonable person in Δ’s position would have understood that he was not free to leave, thus rendering the police action a seizure.

Answer 34

United States v. Drayton→Court rejected the suggestion that officers must always inform citizen of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search

iii. Ohio v. Robinette→Court rejected Ohio’s per se rule that required officers to indicate that a traffic stop is over before obtaining consent
1. Facts→officer stopped Δ for speeding, didn’t issue a ticket, ordered Δ out of the car, and obtained consent to search. The officer’s subjective intention to issue a ticket was irrelevant under Whren.

iv. Florida v. Royer→officers took Δ from an airport concourse to an office about 40 feet away for questioning. This constituted an arrest, not a Terry stop and it was illegal since there was no probable cause. b/c statements made during the illegal arrest, his consent to a luggage search was invalid.

v. Kaupp v. Texas→Δ consent to accompany the officers to the police station after being awoken at 3 AM was not consensual b/c of the circumstances. Even it the encounter was initially consensual, it later evolved into being nonconsensual.
1. There was no voluntary consent and that, therefore, a reasonable person in Δ’s position would have understood that he was not free to leave, thus rendering the police action a seizure.

Question 35

consent: police deception:

Police deception
1. Consent is invalid if the police ____ their ability to make the ______

2. But undercover operations generally never ____ consent
3. Hoffa v. United States→

Answer 35

consent: Police deception

1. Consent is invalid if the police misrepresent their ability to make the search (i.e. falsely claiming to have a search warrant or if they have a warrant but it’s invalid)
2. But undercover operations generally never invalidate consent
3. Hoffa v. United States→the 4th amendment did not protect individuals against their misplaced confidence in “false friends”

Question 36

Third part consent

vii. Can a third party consent to a search for another person? ___if that party has _____ or _____ authority to do so
1. ________ Authority →depends on whether the third party shares access to or control over the premises

a. United States v. Matlock→
b. Georgia v. Randolph→

Answer 36

Third party consent

Can a third party consent to a search for another person? Yes, if that party has actual or apparent authority to do so
1. Actual Authority →depends on whether the third party shares access to or control over the premises

a. United States v. Matlock→woman who shared bedroom with Δ consented to a search after his arrest and the consent was valid
b. Georgia v. Randolph→consent is invalid when it is given by one in co-habitant and the other co-habitant is present and refuses

Question 37

Pretext
i. Pretext=using lawful traffic enforcement authority to gain access to the interior of vehicles. Most often targeting blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups.

ii. Whren v. United States→

Answer 37

Pretext

i. Pretext=using lawful traffic enforcement authority to gain access to the interior of vehicles. Most often targeting blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups.
ii. Whren v. United States→Court refused to adopt the reasonable officer requirement—evidence should only be admitted if a reasonably officer would have engaged in the law enforcement activity at issue
1. Facts→plainclothes officers stopped a truck after it remained at an intersection for an unusually long amount time, took of at an unreasonable rate of speed after police approached, and turned w/o a signal light. During the traffic stop, the officers saw cocaine and arrested Δ.
2. Δ’s Argument→The fruits of the search should be suppressed because the stop was a “pretext.” The test should be whether a police officer, acting reasonably, would have made the stop for the reason given.
3. Outcome→Traffic stops are reasonable under the 4th amendment so long as police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Subjective intentions play no role in 4th amendment analysis.

Question 38

Searches and Seizures: Warrant Exceptions

Exceptions:
S- 
P- 
A-
inventory 
C-
E- 
S-

Answer 38

Searches and Seizures: Warrant Exceptions

	Exceptions=(1) Search Incident to Arrest (2) Exigent Circumstances (3) Plain View (4) Automobiles (5) Special Needs (6) Consent 
S- Search Incident to Arrest
P- Plain View
A-Automobiles
inventory 
C-consent
E- Exigent Circumstances
S- Special Needs

Question 39

Warrant Exceptions: Search Incident to Arrest

i. Searches during or immediately after an arrest:
ii. Chimel v. California→limited the scope of the search incident to arrest doctrine to searches of (1) the arrestee’s person and (2) areas within the arrestee’s immediate reach. The reasons given for the doctrine were officer safety and evidence preservation.

iii. Knowles v. Iowa→the search incident to arrest doctrine only applies when an officer actually effectuates a custodial arrest.
iv. United States v. Robinson→Robinson was stopped and arrested for speeding. The officer then searched Robinson and found heroin.
v. United States v. Chadwick→The search and the arrest must be contemporaneous. The Court invalidated the search of a footlocker that had been removed from the place of arrest.
vi. United States v. Robbins→Invalidated the search of a wallet that police had left at the place of the arrest and returned for it after the arrest was completed. Close in time rule.
viii. It’s application to automobiles:

1. New York v. Belton→when an officer lawfully makes a custodial arrest of an automobile occupant, the officer may search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to arrest
   * does not apply to the trunk
2. Thorton v. United States→The Belton rule applies regardless of whether the police interaction was initiated before or after the suspect left the vehicle.
3. The Court clarified modified Belton in Arizona v. Gant→(1) Chimel and Belton authorize a search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within the reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and (2) the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle of a current arrestee may be searched incident to arrest as when it “reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle”
   a. The Effect:

Answer 39

Search Incident to Arrest
i. Searches during or immediately after an arrest

ii. Chimel v. California→limited the scope of the search incident to arrest doctrine to searches of (1) the arrestee’s person and (2) areas within the arrestee’s immediate reach. The reasons given for the doctrine were officer safety and evidence preservation.

iii. Knowles v. Iowa→the search incident to arrest doctrine only applies when an officer actually effectuates a custodial arrest.
1. Facts→Knowles was given a speeding ticket, after which the officer searched the car and found weed.
2. Rationale→Even though state law permitted an officer to arrest for speeding, the search was unconstitutional here because he was not actually arrested.

iv. United States v. Robinson→Robinson was stopped and arrested for speeding. The officer then searched Robinson and found heroin.
1. Δ’s argument→The search was unconstitutional because the nature of the violation for which he was arrested didn’t provide any reason to believe that he was armed or carrying contraband.

v. United States v. Chadwick→The search and the arrest must be contemporaneous. The Court invalidated the search of a footlocker that had been removed from the place of arrest.
1. Rationale→Once officers have removed personal property of the arrestee from their exclusive control and there is no danger that the arrestee might regain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, the search is no longer an incident of arrest.

vi. United States v. Robbins→Invalidated the search of a wallet that police had left at the place of the arrest and returned for it after the arrest was completed. Close in time rule.
vii. An officer may only seize items that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, or a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime.

viii. It’s application to automobiles:

1. New York v. Belton→when an officer lawfully makes a custodial arrest of an automobile occupant, the officer may search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to arrest
   * does not apply to the trunk
2. Thorton v. United States→The Belton rule applies regardless of whether the police interaction was initiated before or after the suspect left the vehicle.
   a. Rationale→The arrest of a suspect who is next to a car presents the same concerns regarding officer safety and destruction of evidence as an arrest of someone in a car.
3. The Court clarified modified Belton in Arizona v. Gant→(1) Chimel and Belton authorize a search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within the reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and (2) the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle of a current arrestee may be searched incident to arrest as when it “reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle”
   a. The Effect: the 1st part of the test narrows Belton by requiring the risk of the recent occupant’s obtaining weapons or destroying evidence be real at the time of the search, not of the arrest. The second part broadens Chimel and Belton by authorizes a search even when there is no danger of the recent occupant’s grabbing weapons or destroying evidence.
   b. Facts→Officers received an anonymous tip that a certain home was being used to sell drugs, so the officers knocked on the door but left when Δ told them the owner would be back later. The officer then ran a check that revealed Δ had a suspended license and a warrant for his arrest. When the officers returned, Δ was arrested about 10 feet away from his car, locked in the back of the cop car, then a search of his car revealed a gun and cocaine.

Question 40

Warrant exceptions: Protective Sweeps

1. Created in Maryland v. Buie→protective sweeps can only extend to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found and should be no longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.

Answer 40

ix. Protective Sweeps
1. Created in Maryland v. Buie→protective sweeps can only extend to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found and should be no longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.
a. Facts→Police entered Buie residence with an arrest warrant. An officer went into the basement to see if there was an accomplice and found a suit that had been described by the witness account of the robbery.

Question 41

Warrant exceptions: Exigent Circumstances

i. Warrantless searches and seizures if:
(1) ______ _______ for the search or seizure exists and
(2) there are ______ exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless activity.

* applied on a case-by-case basis

Answer 41

Exigent Circumstances

i. Warrantless searches and seizures if: (1) probable cause for the search or seizure exists and (2) there are sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless activity.
1. * applied on a case-by-case basis

Question 42

Warrant exceptions: Plain View, Touch, and Smell

i. Officers are permitted to seize contraband, fruits, evidence, and instrumentalities of crime that they find in “plain view”

There are three essential elements:

Caes:

iii. Horton v. California→An officer executing a search warrant for proceeds of an armed robbery viewed weapons that had been used in the robbery and was allowed to seize the weapons even though the warrant did authorize such a seizure.
iv. The doctrine was extended to “plain feel” in Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer 42

Warrant exceptions: Plain View, Touch, and Smell

Officers are permitted to seize contraband, fruits, evidence, and instrumentalities of crime that they find in “plain view”

ii. There are three essential elements:
1. The officer didn’t violate the 4th amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed
2. The incriminating character must be immediately apparent
3. The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself

iii. Horton v. California→An officer executing a search warrant for proceeds of an armed robbery viewed weapons that had been used in the robbery and was allowed to seize the weapons even though the warrant did authorize such a seizure.

iv. The doctrine was extended to “plain feel” in Minnesota v. Dickerson
1. Facts→An officer had subjected Δ to a Terry frisk and felt a bag containing lumps. Δ was then arrested for possession of cocaine.
2. Holding→Plain feel did not apply here because the incriminating nature of the substance was not immediately apparent. The officer had to manipulate the substance.

Question 43

Warrant Exceptions: vehicle/ container searches

i. Automobile Exception
ii. Wyoming v. Houghton→

Answer 43

Warrant Exceptions: vehicle/ container searches

i. Automobile Exception→Warrantless searches of motorized vehicles whenever law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe that fruits, evidence, or instrumentalities of criminal activity will be found therein. The exception extends to containers within the vehicle.

ii. Wyoming v. Houghton→Officers may search containers within the scope of the probable cause they have developed regardless of who owns the containers
1. Facts→During a traffic stop, the officer searched the car and found a passenger’s purse in the backseat, which had drugs in it.

Question 44

Warrant exceptions: Special Needs Searches and Seizures

Special needs searches and seizures=those conducted for a non-criminal investigation-related purpose.

Sometimes called regulatory or administrative searches and seizures.

ii. Has a two step analysis:
1.
2. If the purpose is regulatory, the court must balance that _________ interest against the _______l interest infringed upon

iii. Recognized areas of special needs:
1. Health and safety regulations
2. Pervasively regulated industries
iv. New York v. Burger→
v. New Jersey v. TLO
vi. Safford v. Redding
vii. Florence v. City Burlington
viii. City of Ontario v. Quon
ix. Ferguson v. City of Charleston

Answer 44

Warrant exceptions: Special Needs Searches and Seizures

Special needs searches and seizures=those conducted for a non-criminal investigation-related purpose.
Sometimes called regulatory or administrative searches and seizures.

ii. Has a two step analysis
1. A court must determine whether the governmental purpose truly is regulatory rather than criminal law enforcement
2. If the purpose is regulatory, the court must balance that regulatory interest against the individual interest infringed upon

iii. Recognized areas of special needs:
1. Health and safety regulations
2. Pervasively regulated industries
iv. New York v. Burger→
v. New Jersey v. TLO
vi. Safford v. Redding
vii. Florence v. City Burlington
viii. City of Ontario v. Quon
ix. Ferguson v. City of Charleston