Criminal Law and Procedure Flashcards
Knock and announce rule
Absent exigent circumstances, knocking and announcing is required prior to the execution of a search warrant for a home. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) (holding that the Fourth Amendment incorporates the common law “knock and announce” rule).
[NOTE: Although it is not relevant to the facts of this case, when issuing a warrant, a judge might determine that there are exigent circumstances justifying entry without knocking or announcing. Such a warrant is known as a “no knock” warrant
Exclusionary Rule
The century-old exclusionary rule prevents the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained through a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). The exclusionary rule applies to the states. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Mapp stands for the proposition that the prosecutor, in a state or federal action, cannot use evidence obtained by police as a result of a violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment protections. Until recently, a finding of a Fourth Amendment violation always triggered application of the exclusionary rule.
However, in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), the Court clarified that a violation of the “knock and announce” rule is a violation of the Fourth Amendment that does not trigger the exclusion of evidence. In Hudson, the Court held that if police have a valid warrant to search a home, but they enter in a way that violates their constitutional duty to knock and announce, the evidence uncovered during the search can nonetheless be used in a criminal prosecution
Reasonable suspicion
Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a police officer who has reasonable suspicion that a person is armed may perform a pat down of the person’s outer clothing for weapons. In justifying the intrusion, “the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” The sole purpose of a Terry pat down is the protection of the officer and the public. An officer conducting a Terry pat down must limit his or her intrusion to discover only weapons, rather than other evidence of a crime. If the officer feels something that might be a weapon, he may remove it. Otherwise, the officer cannot proceed with any further search unless he feels something in the course of the pat down that he immediately knows is contraband. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508U.S. 366 (1993) (noting that there could be a “plain feel” doctrine for items touched during a lawful pat down that can be tactilely identified as contraband).
Plain View
The “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement allows a police officer who is executing a search warrant to seize any incriminating evidence observed during the course of that lawful search. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987). To seize an item under the “plain view” doctrine, the item must not only be in plain view, but its incriminating character must be readily apparent. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136 (1990). Thus, evidence is found in plain view when the police officer (1) has lawful authority to be in the location where the item is found and (2) has probable cause to believe that the item is evidence related to criminal activity without performing any additional search of the item.
Seizure violated H’s 4th Am rights
All warrants must comply with the Fourth Amendment’s particularity clause, which requires that warrants “particularly describe” the “things to be seized.” The particularity of a warrant is evaluated based on the time it was issued and the information that the police officers who secured the warrant provided (or should have provided) to the issuing judicial officer. The requirement of particularity serves to limit police discretion, giving the warrant-executing police officer authority to search only for those things the magistrate has authorized.
