Final Flashcards
Brown v. Mississippi
States cannot violate fundamental rights (defendant’s tortured into a false confession). Cannot deny fundamental principles of fairness and ordered liberty
Powell v. Alabama
Scottsboro case…9 black men convicted on perjured testimony. Counsel was appointed on the day of the trial. 6th Amendment demands the right to effective counsel (both at trial and in the time leading up to trial when consultation and preparation take place).
14th Amendment
Incorporates parts of the Bill or Rights to the states…Total Incorporation [full BoR applied to states but nothing else additional] v. Selective Incorporation [certain parts of BoR applied to states…what is essential to a fair trial should be incorporated]
Fundamental Fairness
Absolute Rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
Freedom from self-compelled testimony (5th)
Speedy and public trial with effective counsel (6th)
*4th, 5th & 6th only protect against government actions, not private ones
Adams v. NY
bookie illegally searched and court said illegal search and seizure of evidence doesn’t affect admissibility…no exclusion of the evidence
Weeks v. US
D mailed lottery tickets so it was federal trial. Local PD entered his home w/o warrant and they turned over evidence to Federal gov. Evidence excluded, but only applying exclusionary rule to federal gov not state. If state gov acted as agents of the feds then exclusion would still apply
Wolf v. Colorado
state police unreasonably searched the defendant. Court said that police can’t search unreasonably by applying the 4th to the states but didn’t force the exclusionary rule on states.
Mapp v. Ohio
Local PD search D’s house for bomber, she says no…they come back w/o warrant force entry cuff her and find lewd material and arrest her. COURT FINALLY ADOPTS EXCLUSIONARY RULE FOR STATES. Evidence was therefore inadmissible.
Katz v. US
D suspected of gambling crimes, cops set up listening device on public phone booth with clear doors…D makes call closes door police listen and arrest based off of the evidence. 4th protects people, not places…so physical trespass is irrelevant.
TEST:
1) Is there a subjective expectation of privacy?
2)Is the expectation reasonable? [Objective Standard]
If passes the test, search is unreasonable without warrant
What you hold out in public view is not private, even in your home
Hoffa
D talks to his friend about his crimes, and his friend turns and rights him out. NOT A SEARCH…
On Lee
false friend with a wire…no search
US v. White
P works with informant who talks to D…someone hiding in closet transmitting convo to the P over radio. Not a search…here, unlike Katz, one party consented.
4th amendment doesnt protect against misplaced confidence in who you confide in [No reasonable expectation of privacy with another person…assumed risk]
What you willingly tell a third person is not protected
*NY is a one party consent state
Smith v. Maryland
gov installs pen register (tracks who you call) D robs victim and calls the robbery victim and says he robbed her. Not a search b/c people voluntarily give info to the phone company so no reasonable expectation of privacy because he gave info to phone company voluntarily
*also differs from Katz because P got not content form the convos, which was private
US v. Place & Illinois v. Caballes
Dog Sniffs ARE NOT searches.
Low level of intrusion (no physical entry)
Consider the length of these searches
What Constitutes a search?
Reasonable subjective expectation of privacy?
Balance with:
1) level of intrusion
2) public interest
*must look at totality of circumstances when balancing
Open Field Doctrine (Oliver)
police entry of an open field is not a search…open field is any unoccupied area outside a crutilage
Oliver: Police ignored no trespass sign and went into D’s field and found weed…no search…isn’t a person, house, paper or effect under the 4th
Dunn
Curtilage v. Open Field
1) Proximity of area to the home
2) Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
3) Nature of uses to which area is put
4) Steps taken to protect from observation by passerby
CA v. Ciraolo
D had 10 foot fence…grew weed in backyard…cops get tip and fly over
Not a search…NO subjective expectation of privacy but it wasn’t a reasonable one
Private person could fly over in public airspace and see
Cops were lawfully present…don’t have to avert their eyes
*Subjective intent NOT relevant
CA v. Greenwood
leaves trash outside in bag on sidewalk (outside curtilage). No search…no legitimate expectation of privacy if public has access
Kyllo v. US
thermal imaging case…is a search.
With technology, govt couldnt have gotten this info without an intrusion. Ruled search so homeowners are not at mercy of advancing techonology
*what transpires in a home are intimate details and are protected by the 4th unless freely observable to the public
*Technology wasnt available for general public use…
US v. Knotts
D involved in drug trade…they attach a beeper to a barrell…track on public roads but stopped when went inside D’s house
*Not a search because only got info they could have gathered through visual surveillance
US v. Karo
govnt added beeper to ether and tracked even when inside the D’s house..was as search
US v. Jones
cops attach GPS to D’s car…differs from Knotts and Karo because they gave beeper on item that D took…here they put a beeper on car which D already had possession over.
- was a search…trespass doctrine still applies and gov interfered with a possessory interest
- trespass made it so there was an objective expectation of privacy
Probable Cause
- PC to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the cop’s knowledge and based on reasonably trustworthy information would make a reasonable person believe that an offense has been or is being committed
- PC to search and seize exists when the facts and circumstances based on reasonably trustworthy information would allow a reasonable person to believe that evidence will be found
Draper
informant described what D would be wearing, his train he’d be on and what crime he would commit (heroine)…police get warrants based on that…cops corroborated much of the info based on investigation.
Valid warrant
Aguilar v. Texas
Test to Have sufficient PC, affidavit needs:
- How the informant was credible and reliable
- What the basis of his knowledge was
Hearsay is allowed for PC
Can explain how informant was reliable in the past…judge can meet the informant
Spinelli v. US
D travels interstate gambling illegally…Warrant relies on confidential informant which says d would go to apartment and make gambling calls….P watched D and saw him go to that apartment and made calls from those phones
- There was corroboration here, but court says warrant isn’t valid
- Information wasn’t precise enough
- add to Aguilar test…corroboration by law enforcement that is meaningful can supplement lack of info on reliability
*this and Aguilar are the NY standard
Illinois v. Gates
Anonymous tip that D’s wife would drive to Florida, leave car, come home and husband would fly there to drive car home with drugs. Cops surveil, see both D’s leave Fl hotel after one day and drive a car back together…got warrant on this
Under Aguilar-Spinelli no basis for credibility of informant so no good
- New Test (Federal Courts)…sliding scale…very fact sensitive
- Look at everything magistrate had available to see if there is probable cause
- You still need basis of knowledge and reliability but applied through the totality of the circumstances
Payton & Riddick
could police enter residence to effect an arrest without warrant? [Payton D suspected of murder, police break and find shell casings linking him to killing …Riddick D suspected of robbery, P knocks, kid answers P see D on couch enter and arrest
- Even with PC, these are not reasonable w/o warrant absent exigent circumstances
- Arrest warrant required before you go into a suspects home for the purposes of arresting them and you must have reasonable cause to believe that the target is home at the time that they execute the warrant
Gerstein v. Pugh
4th requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint following an arrest
Exigent Circumstances (Exceptions to Payton Rule)
*when you can enter the home to arrest without a warrant [circumstances occur in which the law enforcement officers couldnt reasonably stop what they were doing to get a warrant from a magistrate):
-Exigent Circumstances
1) Hot pursuit
2) Safety
3) Imminent destruction of Potential Evidence
4) Risk to Police/Public
5) Preventing Escape
-Consent exception
Must be voluntary and cannot be coerced
Minnesota v. Olson
D suspected of robbing and killing…P entered house w/o warrant to arrest. No exigent circumstances found because the D was the getaway driver, and the murder weapon had already been found
*Not hot pursuit because it was the next day, D was unarmed, and he was the getaway driver
Steagald v. US
Police to arrest suspect in the D’s house with a warrant…find cocaine in D’s house and arrest him.
- Arrest warrant was insufficient in regards to searching D’s house…it was a warrantless search
- When police get a warrant they are only allowed to search for what is in the warrant
- can seize/search items that are in plain view if they are lawfully present
Lo-Ji Sales v. NY
Judge looking over warrant must be neutral and detached (porn store case)
Richards v. Wisconsin
Cannot have a blanket rule for the knock and announce rule…knock rule used to protect life, privacy and property
(No-knocks okay if necessary for safety or to preserve evidence…need reasonable suspicion)
Scope of Search Warrants
need to state with particularity where and what you want to search:
1) police may only search containers large enough to hold what they’re looking for
2) police may seize an object not in a warrant if there is PC to believe it is seizable
3) Information police get immediately before/during search may require them to cease/narrow search
Ybarra v. Illinois
Have warrant to search a bar and bartenders for selling narcotics…search D who was a patron and find heroine. Does PC to search a location give you authority to search everybody in that location?
- no…need to develop PC at the scene as exception to the warrant requirement
- police can detain people at scene while the search is being conducted (for safety and preservation of evidence)
- can use reasonable force to detain
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement
- Exigency
- Searches incident to lawful arrest
- Plain view doctrine
- Consent
- Inventory searches
- Automobile searches (and containers w/in automobile
*Exceptions do not usually dispense of the probable cause requirement
Warden v. Hayden
D robbed store and saw him enter house…cops pursue (D is armed)…go to door, lady answers (D’s wife but they dont know that)…she lets them in they search house and find weapons and other evidence…then find D sleeping in bed…arrest him
*Exigency: hot pursuit
Kentucky v. King
cops chase suspect and dont see which apartment he goes into…went to the left one because they smell weed…knock and announce…hear shuffling, break in and find drugs (wasnt right apartment)…cops thought evidence was being destroyed
- Exigency exception was still applied…as long as police conduct is lawful, subjective intent is irrelevant
- D’s could have refused entry rather than trying to hide evidence….not enough to claim that the police engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe entry was imminent and inevitable
Welsh v. Wisconsin
D suspected of DUI…police enter his house to preserve BAC…violates 4th amendment because it was a minor offense
*Minor offenses do not allow for warrantless intrusion under 4th (even with exigent circumstances)
Brigham City v. Stuart
police see fight inside a house through screen door knock and announce to no response… go in and break it up and make arrests (no warrant)
-Was ok because they were protecting public safety so it is exigent
Chimel v. California
cops arrive to D’s house with arrest warrant for burglary of coin shop…ask to search house and D says no. They do it anyway…search entire house with D’s wife
- violates 4th amendment…police could search D’s entire person if arrested on street or within his immediate reach
- *Rule: cops can search arrestee’s person and area within his immediate possession/control only after lawful arrest
- Concerns are police safety and stopping evidence destruction
US v. Robinson
cops arrest D for driving with a suspended license…pat down D and find cigarette box with heroine inside…
- this is a lawful arrest and the search was constitutional as long as it is a reasonable intrusion (PC to arrest)
- Searches incident to a lawful arrest require no additional justification…can do a full search of the person
Gustafson
D arrested for driving without license. Cops search car and find weed…police werent required to take D in custody
- Once they arrested D, it didnt matter, they could search him
- If officer doesn’t arrest him in this case, cant search
NY v. Belton
cops pull over D for speeding…4 men in car. Smell weed and sees envelope with weed res on it…cop arrests all 4 gets them out of the car, searches the passenger compartment of the car finds a jacket with coke inside
- constitutional search because after lawful arrest of the occupant of a car, the officer may search the entire passenger compartment (area within immediate control)
- Extends Chimel to cars
Knowles v. Iowa
cops issue citation then search for contraband
- violates 4th…cop could have arrested D, but once he decided not to he lost right to search
- officer safety no longer an issue because of the citation
Thornton v. US
D parked and exited vehicle…arrested, P search car and find gun
*court says it was ok because the Belton rule is extended to recent occupants of vehicles
Arizona v. Gant
D arrested for driving with suspended license…put in squad car…cop then search car and find coke in jacket
- Violates 4th
- can’t use immediate control doctrine while D is in squad car
- **You can only search a car if incident to lawful arrest and :
1) you search within the grabbable area or
2) you search for relevant evidence
**Burden: must be relevant suspicion that there is evidence of the crime arrested for
[narrows Belton and Chimel]
Whren v. US
police think D, the driver, looks suspicious…follow him, he fails to signal. Pull over and approach and see crack arrest him and search car. Can police stop on pretext?
- Yes…subjective intent of the cop is irrelevant
- *only see if the officer’s behavior was objectively justifiable
- As long as legitimate probable cause to pull you over, subjective intent irrelevant
Carroll v. US
Ready mobility of the automobile justifies a lesser degree of protection…less expectation of privacy than a home
Chambers v. Maroney
2 men rob store at gun point…police gain PC from description of men and their car…arrest men and search car find evidence at station
Court says ok…
*Car is mobile so you need to seize and search to preserve evidence
*can search on scene or at station
*because PC that evidence would be found in car, search valid
Coolidge v. NH
police search car 2 days, 11 months and 14 months after they seize. Seized form D’s driveway when they arrested him at his house
- Violates 4th because any chance of escape or destruction of evidence had passed
- Cops had exclusive control over vehicle and could have gotten a warrant with no worries
Cal v. Carney
Mobile home (trades sex for drugs). Cops find drugs after talking to kid w/o warrant
- mobile home is a car here
- had PC to arrest lower expectation of privacy because it was a vehicle
- objective viewer would think vehicle not home (Where we would apply Payton)…look at all circumstances
US v. Chadwick
Chest on train…leaking powder…dogs smell weed @ station…D loads into trunk and police arrest right then…seize trunk and search trunk at station
- Invalid…they needed a warrant…cant use auto exception
- luggage has high expectation of privacy compared to car
- PC here was to search the chest, which has a high expectation of privacy
- proper to arrest and seize but not search…no exigency
