Criminal Due Process Quiz #4 Lo-Ji - Carney Flashcards
1
Q
4 requirements of search warrants
A
- Supported by probable cause
- Approved by a neutral and detached
magistrate (not in 4th A) - Officer swears under oath and
affirmation that what he has written in
his Affidavit is true - Particularly describe what is to be
searched and seized (particularity
requirement)
2
Q
2 parts of particularity requirement
A
- Place to be searched—must describe
with sufficient clarity - Persons or things to be seized—must
describe with sufficiency so that the
seizure is not left to the discretion of
the officers executing the warrant
3
Q
Lo-Ji v. NY (1979)
A
- NY state police bought and viewed 2
films from Jo-Ji Sales, Inc.’s Adult Store
and brought them to Town Justice to
watch as an “affidavit” and TJ
determined that they violated state
obscenity laws - TJ issued a warrant for the search
of the store and seizure of other copies
of the 2 films and included an open-
ended clause so any items found could
be added later (no particularity) - TJ goes as well to determine on-scene if
items were “obscene” - During the search, store clerk arrested
and TJ viewed several videos, books,
and other materials and determined that
they were obscene—police seized all
these materials, took inventory and filled
out the open-ended warrant
4
Q
Lo-Ji Issue
A
Did the search of the adult bookstore with an open-ended warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?
5
Q
Lo-Ji Holding
A
Yes, the search did violate the 4th A; Lo-Ji wins
6
Q
Lo-Ji Reasoning
A
- The warrant did not particularly describe
the things to be seized and left it entirely
to the discretion of officials conducting
the search - This is exactly what this clause is
supposed to protect against—protects
against general warrants - TJ was anything but neutral and
detached; basically another officer - The 2 initial films were allowed because
they were always in the affidavit
7
Q
IL v. McArthur (2001)
A
- Police had reason to believe McArthur
had drugs in his trailer—went there and
asked permission to search, McArthur
said no - One officer stayed at the trailer and
another went to get the warrant—drugs
are easily disposable, if officers left there
could’ve been an exigency - Officer who stayed told McArthur that he
couldn’t go back into the house without
the officer being present - McArthur went back in a few times with
the officer present and then the warrant
came, they search and drugs were
found
8
Q
McArthur Issue
A
Was the restraint on McArthur from entering his home unaccompanied by an officer while the police obtained a search warrant lawful?
9
Q
McArthur Holding
A
Yes, the restrain was lawful; McArthur loses
10
Q
McArthur Reasoning
A
- Because of the cumulative
circumstances, the police action here
was reasonable - Police had PC to believe there was
contraband there - Police had good reason to fear unless
he was watched, McArthur would
destroy the drugs - Police made reasonable efforts to
reconcile law enforcement needs with
the demands of his personal privacy - NOT a bright line rule
RULE: A temporary seizure supported by PC designed to protect the loss of evidence while police obtain a warrant for a reasonable amount of time is permissible
11
Q
Time of execution of search warrant
A
Search warrant must be executed within 7 days of issuance in MA
12
Q
US v. Banks (2004)
A
- Police went to Banks’ house with a
search warrant, knocked, announced,
and waited 15-20 seconds - No answer—battery rammed his
windows - Banks was in the shower
13
Q
Banks Issue
A
By only waiting 15-20 seconds before breaking open the door of defendant’s apartment, did the police officers violate defendant’s constitutional rights?
14
Q
Banks Holding
A
No, only waiting 15-20 seconds was not a violation; Banks loses
15
Q
Banks Reasoning
A
- Close call, but police could have
believed that had they not entered the
drugs would have been destroyed - Allows for a pretty rapid entry by force
after warning given if police reasonably
suspect that exigent circumstances
require entry—drug cases probably
always do (drugs are easy to be destroyed
quickly)
16
Q
Who can be searched when a search warrant is executed?
A
Search warrant may authorize a named individual as long as probable cause exists to search the person as well as “all persons present”—Ybarra v. IL says all persons present still have individual 4th A protection
17
Q
What do most exceptions to search warrants rely on?
A
Exigent circumstances
18
Q
General rules to exigencies and exceptions allowing for warrantless actions
A
- Police believe evidence will be destroyed or the
suspect will flee - Exigency limits the scope of the search
- The warrantless action ends when the exigency
ends - Warrantless actions still require probable cause
19
Q
Warden v. Hayden (1967)
A
- Hayden is an armed robber that robs a cab
company, takes $363 - Over the radios, drivers give dispatcher a
description of Hayden and where he went (into a
house)—dispatcher gives info to police - Police didn’t know at the time that Hayden’s wife
let him in the house—him being armed and
entering a house creates an exigency - Police enter home and search for Hayden and find
him in a 3rd floor bedroom feigning sleep - Hear running water in an adjoining bathroom so
police keep searching, finding a firearm in the
toilet tank
20
Q
Hayden Issue
A
Was the warrantless search of the home valid?
21
Q
Hayden Holding
A
Yes, the search was valid; Hayden loses
22
Q
Hayden Reasoning
A
- Finding Hayden was not the end of the exigency,
as he was an armed robber and they had not
found the weapon - Hayden would have fled/evidence would have
been destroyed, the scope of the search was
justified, police stopped search once the exigency
ended, and there was probable cause
23
Q
Search incident to lawful arrest (SILA)
A
An exception to search warrants that allows an officer who makes a lawful custodial arrest to conduct a contemporaneous* (at the same time) warrantless search of:
1. The arrestee’s person
2. The area within the arrestee’s immediate control
3. Closets and other spaces immediately adjoining
the place of arrest, if arrest occurred in the home
24
Q
Breakdown of SILA rationale
A
Officer safety and preservation of evidence
25
Chimel v. CA (1969)
- Police enter Chimel’s home with an arrest warrant
for the alleged burglary of a coin store
- Chimel returns from work, police arrest him
- Police then ask permission to “look around”—
Chimel objects, police search anyways they say
based on their warrant
- Police search entire house and have Chimel’s wife
open drawers and physically remove contents so
they could view the items
- Police seized coins and medals, among other
things, that were later used to convict Chimel of
burglary
26
Chimel Issue
Was this a valid search incident to lawful arrest by police lawful?
27
Chimel Holding
No, it was not a valid SILA; Chimel wins
28
Chimel Reasoning
- The search was not just of his person, area within
his immediate control, or area adjoining. (exceeded the scope of a lawful SILA)
- USSC says this is similar to a general warrant—
the reason the 4th A came about in the first place
29
Riley v. CA (2014) & Wurie v. Comm of MA (2014)
Riley:
- Riley stopped for traffic violation, police find he’s
driving with an expired license
- Car impounded and searched where firearms are
found in a hidden compartment—Riley arrested
- Officer searching Riley incident to arrest seized a
smart phone from Riley’s pants pocket
- Officer accessed info on phone and noticed
repeated use of a term associated with a street
gang
- At station 2 hours later, detective specializing in
gangs examined phone’s contents—based on
photographs and videos found Riley was charged
in connection to a shooting that had occurred a
few weeks earlier
Wurie:
- Wurie arrested after police observed him
participate in an apparent drug sale
- Officers seized a flip phone from Wurie at the
station—noticed phone was receiving multiple
calls from “my house”
- Officers opened phone, accessed call log,
determined number associated with “my house,”
and traced number to Wurie’s suspected
apartment
- Secured SW for apartment and found drugs,
firearms and ammunition, and cash
30
Riley/Wurie Issue
Were the warrantless searches of cell phones conducted incident to a lawful arrest considered “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment?
31
Riley/Wurie Holding
No, the searches of the cell phones were not reasonable; Riley and Wurie win
32
Riley/Wurie Reasoning
- The searches of the cell phones neither protected
officer safety or preserved evidence
- Absent exigent circumstances, police have to get
a warrant to search your cell phone
- Police could have preserved the evidence while
awaiting the warrant
- Now, police may not, without a warrant, search
digital information on a cell phone incident to a
lawful arrest
33
Does SILA apply to cell phones based on Chimel?
No—it does not ensure officer safety or help to preserve evidence
- Officer safety—can seize phones and run hands
around it, take out of case to see if there’s
something dangerous in case
- Preserving evidence—govt argues that evidence
could be encrypted or erased by 3rd party; USSC
says maybe, but actions of 3rd party don’t apply to
SILA
34
NY v. Belton (1981)
- Belton was a passenger in an automobile that
sped by a police officer
- Officer stopped the car, smelled marijuana, and
saw an envelope on the car floor marked with a
name for marijuana
- Officer required occupants out of the vehicle and
proceeded to search them
- Opened the envelope and found marijuana
- Searched Belton’s jacket and found cocaine
35
Belton Issue
Were the warrantless searches of the jacket pocket and the containers in the car lawful after the occupants had exited the car and been placed under arrest based on SILA?
36
Belton Holding
Yes, the searches of the jacket and the car containers were lawful; Belton loses
37
Belton Reasoning
- Although it wasn’t within their physical immediate
control after being arrested, USSC says it is within
their immediate control because they were
occupants in the car
- Belton becomes a bright line rule—applicable to
all SILA in a vehicle
- MA adopts a wingspan test of determining what
is/isn't within an arrestee's immediate control (not
literal reaching, but whether a suspect could
reach/grab)
38
AZ v. Gant (2009)
- Police looking for someone at a home and Gant
answers the door, people they want to arrest
aren’t home
- Police leave, run his name, and see he has a
suspended license
- Go back to same house to arrest original people—
see Gant driving into the driveway and know he
has a suspended license
- After Gant was handcuffed and put in a squad car,
his vehicle was searched—a handgun and a
plastic bag of cocaine were discovered in the
pocket of a jacket on the backseat
39
Gant Issue
Was the search of Gant’s jacket incident to a lawful arrest?
40
Gant Holding
No, the search was not SILA; Gant wins
41
Gant Reasoning
- There was no issue of officer safety
- The evidence they were looking for was the
suspended license which was probably on Gant’s
person—no need to search the car
- The car was no longer in Gant’s immediate
control, and he could not destroy evidence—he
was handcuffed in the back of the cruiser
- Gant rejects Belton for being too broad and
returns to the traditional reasoning of Chimel—
officer safety and preservation of evidence
- Limits SILA created in Belton, as now the arrestee
must be unsecured, must be in reaching distance
of the passenger compartment, and the officer
must have evidentiary reason to search
42
Motor vehicle exception to search warrants
- An officer may conduct a warrantless search of a
car at the scene that he has probable cause to
believe contains evidence of a crime
- Police may also seize a car even if they have time
to get a warrant when they have probable cause
to believe that the vehicle itself constituted
evidence (i.e., was used in the commission of a
crime)
- Officer may also conduct a warrantless search of
a motor vehicle away from the scene of the crime
BUT there is a time restriction—what is deemed
reasonable is a case-by-case basis
- The general rules of exigencies still apply
- Police are limited to areas in which the item can
reasonably be found
- Cannot search OG trunk
43
Chambers v. Maroney (1970)
- Gulf service station was robbed by 2 men who
each displayed a gun and told the attendant to put
change in a glove
- 2 teens had noticed their blue station wagon and
saw it speed away around the same time they
heard of the robbery—reported to police: 4 men in
the station wagon, 1 wearing a green sweater
- Gulf cashier said the 1 was wearing a green
sweater and the other a trench coat
- Description broadcast over police radio and within
1hr, a light blue station wagon matching
description and carrying 4 men was stopped by
police ~2 miles from a service station
- Chambers (petitioner) is in the car wearing a
green sweater, and trench coat also in the car
- Occupants were arrested and the car is driven to
the police station
- The car was searched at the station—found
concealed compartment under the dashboard with
2 .38-caliber revolvers, a right-hand glove
containing change, and cards IDing an attendant
at another service station who had recently been
robbed at gunpoint
44
Chambers Issue
Did the warrantless search of the car away from the scene of the arrest but shortly after the arrest violate the 4th Amendment?
45
Chambers Holding
No, the search did not violate the 4th A; Chambers loses
46
Chambers Reasoning
- Police had PC to stop the car and search it
immediately at the time and place of arrest in the
first place
- The car was readily movable at any time even
though the people who could move it have been
arrested
- Like SILA (not an actual could you reach out and
grab it), mobility is inherent—the car still has
mobility even if the people in the car have been
arrested and can’t go drive the car away
47
Consequence of Chambers
The exigency that justifies a warrantless car search does not end simply because the car is unoccupied, the people are in custody, and they are unable to take the car
48
Coolidge v. NH (1971)
- Police investigation of the murder of a 14 y/o girl
focused in on Edward Coolidge
- Police questioned Coolidge who was cooperative
at all times
- Police felt they had sufficient evidence to arrest
Coolidge, which they did in his home
- 2 cars were in Coolidge’s driveway at the time of
the arrest
- > 2 hrs after the arrest, police came back and
seized the 2 cars without a warrant
- 1 car was searched and vacuumed for
microscopic evidence 2 days later, a year later,
and again 5 months after that
- Had PC for all searches, but not a warrant—try to
justify under MV exception
49
Coolidge Issue
Did the warrantless searches of Coolidge’s car violate the 4th Amendment?
Did the MV exception apply?
50
Coolidge Holding
The search was unconstitutional, MV exception did not apply; Coolidge wins
51
Coolidge Reasoning
- Police had ample time to get a warrant and always
knew
that at least 1 of the cars was involved in the crime
- Coolidge was cooperative, he had ample time to
get rid of the cars and flee, but he didn’t
- Illustrates what USSC deems reasonable time to
conduct a search of MV away from the scene
with PC but no warrant
- Coolidge is NOT a bright line rule
52
CA v. Carney (1985)
- Officers received uncorroborated information that
Carney’s motorhome was being used to
exchange sex for marijuana
- An officer observed Carney approach a youth and
they went into the motorhome and closed doors
and shades
- Officers surveilled the motorhome while they were
in there
- Youth later stated he received marijuana in
exchange for sexual contact with Carney
- Agents asked youth to knock on the door, Carney
came out and agents identified themselves and
law enforcement officers and asked if they could
search—Carney says no, they search anyways
without a warrant or consent
- Observed marijuana and other things
- Carney was taken into custody and took
possession of the motor home—subsequent
search at the police station revealed more
marijuana
53
Carney Issue
Was the search of a motor home an exception to the warrant requirement?
54
Carney Holding
Yes, the search was an exception; Carney loses
55
Carney Reasoning
Although the motor home possessed some of the features of a home, it is clear it was a vehicle and therefore, falls within the MV exception
2 main reasons:
- A motor home is readily moveable—still has
inherent mobility
- Motor vehicles and mobile homes have a reduced
expectation of privacy than a traditional home;
they’re pervasively regulated by the government
(stickers, insurance, license, etc.)
56
Does an RV qualify under the motor vehicle exception?
Yes, because they are regulated by the government (Carney)
57
Why is the particularity requirement is necessary in a search warrant?
So the discretion of where to search is not left to officer's discretion, so the suspect is aware of the scope of the search, and so the magistrate can review and assure the scope when reviewing a search warrant
