4th Amendment--The Warrant Clause

Question 1

The Warrant Requirement

Answer 1

1. Lawful & unlawful searches w/out a warrant.

2. Lawful: W/a warrant.

Question 2

Probable cause

Answer 2

4th amend doesn’t explicitly require probable cause prior to a warrant, the case law has interpreted that probable cause be present.

Question 3

Johnson v. US

Answer 3

P received tip that D was smoking pot, so followed the odor to the hotel room. D let them in, which resulted in a search of the room. Exception to warrant.
Rule: A D must give explicit consent, which is an affirmative showing allowing P to enter under the consent exception.
Rule: When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of a search, this must be decided by a judge & not the cops.

Question 4

How to get a warrant?

Answer 4

1. Probable cause to believe they will find:
   a. Particular items,
   b. Linked to a crime,
   c. Likely to found on the premises to be searched
2. Oath or affirmation
3. Facts & evidence presented to neutral magistrate (Particularity)

Question 5

Functions of Search Warrant

Answer 5

1. Prevents gov from working backward from search
2. Neutral observer makes decision
3. Ensures magistrate can deny warrants if unreasonable (even if prob cause)
4. Reduces perception of unlawful gov conduct

Question 6

Aguilar/Spinelli TEST:

Material from informal must meet this before establishing PC:

Answer 6

1. Evidence that informant was a Reliable Source
   a. b/c was reliable in the past or special reason he was reliable
   b. Can be established by corroborating evidence.
2. Credible Info or Basis of knowledge
   a. Facts showing the basis of knowledge of the informant: means by which he came upon the info
   b. Can be established by detailed tip
   c. Probable Cause

Question 7

Spinelli v. US

Answer 7

D convicted of traveling across states to conduct gambling activities. P had a report from informant & corroborating FBI report. No probable cause for warrant.
Rule: An affidavit that lacks sufficient detail to explain why an informant is reliable & how he came to his conclusions does not provide the necessary pc to obtain a search warrant.
a. Corroborating evidence must corroborate some type of crime activity.

Question 8

If an officer is relying on someone else:

Answer 8

1. Determine if source is reliable:
   a. Relationship b/w parties; type of person informant is
   b. Can be stablished by corroborating evidence
   c. May be anon source
2. Determine if info is credible:
   a. How do they know? Physical observation?
   b. Can be established by detailed tip, the more likely person has inside info

Question 9

Illinois v. Gates: Overrules Aguilar/Spinelli: Changes test:

Answer 9

P received detailed letter about activities of a drug selling couple. P investigated tip & got a search warrant, which resulted in finding drugs & weapons. Yes pc for search warrant.
Rule: 2 prong test should be treated as relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided PC determinations.
a. Strong showing in one can make up for an inadequate showing in another.
b. Magistrate only needs a substantial basis to conclude a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.
c. Do not look at prongs in a rigid way. Overall, is there a sense of crime activity.
d. Do not need to corroborate crim activity.
e. Police may be deterred from seeking warrant if subject to strict scrutiny.

Question 10

Search warrant application

Answer 10

1. Police presumed to be honest
2. Source of info can be questioned
3. If cop has 1st hand knowledge of the facts needed for PC, then magistrate just assesses whether facts are sufficient
4. If policy rely on someone else then go to Agulair/Spinelli/Gates test