Crim Pro Flashcards
Reasonable expectation of privacy
Subjective expectation of privacy that society was prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Fourth Amendment – Three factor test
- Government actor
- Search
A. Subjective expectation of privacy
B. That society recognizes as reasonable - Standing
Aerial surveillance from 1,000 feet
No search
Garbage left for collection outside curtilage of home
No search
Installation and use of pen register
No search
Government agent listening to conversation with radio
No search
Financial records
No search
Open field
No search
Dog sniff around the car during a routine traffic stop
No search
Dog sniff on closed luggage at airport
No search
New technology that is not in public use
Search
Physical trespass and intent to gather incriminating information
Search
Dog sniff on someone’s property
Yes
Police extend duration of stop beyond what is needed to carry out traffic stop
Search
Rental car owners
Search
Cell phone records
Search
Curtilage
Search
Home
Search
Person
Search
Papers
Search
Effects
Search
Curtilage test
- Proximity of the area
- Enclosed surrounding
- Nature of its uses
- Steps taken to protect area
Probable cause
Fair probability that criminal activity is afoot
Probable cause for informant information
- Basis of knowledge
- Veracity of information
- Reliability
Fourth Amendment – Searches and seizures
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
Fourth Amendment – Warrant requirement
No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons to be seized.
Arrest in public
Warrant or orobable cause or exception
Arrest in private
Warrant or exception
Search in private
Warrant or exception
Arrest for misdemeanor
No warrant requirement
Knock and announce
Exceptions
1. Dangerous or futile
2. Inhibit investigation
3. Hot pursuit
Exigent circumstances
The Fourth Amendment permits officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon to enter a home, into which the suspect had fled, and search the home for them.
Whether a fleeing misdemeanor suspect qualifies as an exigent circumstance turns on the particular facts of the case.
The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury may justify an exigent circumstance.
Exigent circumstances justifies a warrantless search when the conduct of the police is reasonable and the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amend.
In drunk driving cases, whether there is exigent circumstances reasonably justifying a warrantless blood sample must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. Only reasonable to do so if the impracticality of obtaining a warrant outweighs the DEF’s privacy right.
The Supreme Court upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual arrested for DUI b/c the officer reasonably believed the delay required to get a warrant threatened the destruction of blood evidence (Schmerber had been in a car accident and taken to the hospital).
When drunk drivers are unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent circumstances rule almost always permits a blood test without a warrant.
Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) appeared to establish a “community caretaking” exception to the 4th Amendment. The “community caretaking” exception to the 4th AM does not create a standalone doctrine justifying warrantless searches and seizures in the home.
Search incident to arrest
Search incident to arrest exception is automatic if the arrest is valid; it does not need to be justified. Police need probable cause and/or a warrant to arrest, but if those conditions are met, they do not need probable cause to search incident to the valid arrest.
Police cannot invoke the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement if they issue a citation instead of an arrest.
It is reasonable for the state to require a person to submit a breath test incident to an arrest, but not to a blood test (for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol arrest).
If in house, they need an arrest warrant (Payton) barring exigent circumstances or consent to search any area in house beyond the suspect’s wingspan (Chimel).
Automobile searches
If police have Probable Cause to search car generally OR they have Probable Cause to search only a container in a car, they can search container without warrant.
Only need probable cause to search a vehicle (auto exception).
Mobile home on public property can be searched without a warrant, even though it is being used a home.
For Const. purposes, no warrant required to search car, even if it is completely immobile.
Police do not violate the 4th Amendment when they search a passenger’s personal belonging inside an automobile that they have probable cause to believe contains contraband.
Police may not enter the curtilage of a house to search a parked car without a warrant or consent of the homeowner.
Search incident to a lawful arrest (cars)
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment (open area in the main part of the car where passenger or driver can sit; does not include trunk, console, or glove compartment unless console or glove compartment are open) at the time of the search. Police may also search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
Plain view and plain touch
The warrant for the search and seizure of petitioner’s automobile did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, because it was not issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate.”
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view, even though the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. Although inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition.
Under the plain view doctrine, the police must have probable cause to believe that an item in question is evidence of a crime or is contraband in order to search and seize it without a warrant.
Consent searches
When the subject of a search is not in custody and the State would justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact, voluntary; voluntariness is to be determined from the totality of the surrounding circumstances.
While knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the State need not prove that the one giving permission to search knew that he had a right to withhold his consent.
The Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant be advised that he is “free to go” before his consent to search.
The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.
If any occupant of a home objects to a search, the consent of another occupant is not sufficient to waive the warrant requirement for the search.
Police officers may lawfully conduct a search of a home without a warrant if a physically present occupant consents to the search and no physically present occupant refuses the search, even if a physically absent occupant refuses the search.
Inventory searches
The expectation of privacy in one’s automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office. When vehicles are impounded, police routinely follow caretaking procedures by securing and inventorying the cars’ contents. These procedures have been widely sustained as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for police to search the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine administrative procedure at a police station incident to booking and jailing the suspect.
Stop and frisk
Officer must be able to articulate the specific facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may have been afoot. Additional step of patting down or frisking constitutes a further intrusion. It therefore requires additional justification: reasonable suspicion that the suspect may be armed and dangerous.
Three detectives go to the defendant’s neighbor’s house to get the defendant. Then drive him to the police station in a police car. Then place in in an interrogation room. He is not told he was under arrest but police testify that he would have been physically restrained if he had attempted to leave. He is interrogated. Court rules this is an arrest, not a Terry seizure.
We adhere to the view that a person is seized only when, by means of a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained… We conclude that a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.
Two Types of seizures: Physical force seizure occurs when officer terminates movement by physical force. Show of authority seizure occurs when suspect submits to officer’s authority.
Beyond the scope of Terry and cannot invoke the plain touch exception.
Seizure only lasts as long as the application of physical force.
Totality of the circumstances doctrine implies that bar for reasonable suspicion is very low.
Officer can reasonably rely on knowledge and experience to make commonsense inferences that lead to reasonable suspicion.
Basis for reasonable suspicion can be a series of activities leading to criminal activity (as opposed to the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, itself).
Not enough predictive details. Knowledge was not detailed or predictive enough. Another application of reasonable suspicion. Investigative stop based on informant tip.
Court finds reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (such as drunk driving) as opposed to isolated episode of recklessness based on: 911 call was anonymous, contemporaneous report, eyewitness knowledge, truck stopped near where incident occurred, detailed description with license plate, and running off road.
Reasonable suspicion for police flight is satisfied by unprovoked flight in “high crime” area.
Police can search anywhere on the premises during protective sweep. This is separate from search incident to arrest.
