Fourth Amendment

Question 1

Fourth Amendment (a)

Answer 1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Question 2

Fourth Amendment (b)

Answer 2

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Question 3

remedies when there is a 4th amendment violation

Answer 3

• application of the Exclusionary rule (where this does not apply then the civil remedies below do)
• Equal Protection violation of the 14th Amendment
  
  • Ds can get relief from racially motivated prosecutions if they can demonstrate 1) that they were inentionally singled out for prosecution on the basis of race; and 2) that similarly situated person of a different race were not prosecuted
• section 1983 Civil Rights Act

*Civil suit if not arrested

Question 4

application of the 4th amendment

Answer 4

applies only to searches and seizures conducted by government actors

Question 5

Katz v. United States

(Katz test)

Answer 5

• the reasonable expectation of privacy test
• a person in a closed telephone booth does have an actual (subjective) and reasonable expectation of privacy such that the attachment of electronic eavesdropping devices on the exterior of the phone booth constitutes an impermissible search.
• Test:
  
  • a person having exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and
  • that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

Question 6

Purpose of 4th amendment

Answer 6

Limits discretion by government officials by requiring a signifcant degree of justification before police can intrude on the right of libery, privacy, and possessory rights

Question 7

Where a defendant has no expectation of privacy

Answer 7

1. a defendant has no expectation of privacy in things held out in public
2. a defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the following items, even if they are not held out in public
   
   1. Informants
   2. garbage
   3. bank records
   4. pen registers, which record telephone numbers dialed
   5. private conversations, including eavesdropping
   6. fields
   7. driveways for visitors and one might be a police officer

Question 8

the setting in which the government action takes place is the most important factor in determining the existence of a “search”

Answer 8

• Open fields - unoccupied and undeveloped oopen areas have no 4th amendment protection
• curtilage- an area adjacent to and intimately connected with the home are protected

Question 9

Oliver v. U. S.

Answer 9

Facts: 2 narcotic agents acting on reports, arrived on Oliver’s farm to investigate the growing of marijuana. There was a trespassing sign. A mile from Oliver’s house, the officers came across a crop of marijuana.

ROL: The framers did not intend the 4th Amend to extend to open fields when it stated a person shall be free on their persons, houses, papers, and effects. An individual may not legitimaely demand privacy for activities conducted outdoors, except in the area immediately surrounding the home

Question 10

United States v. Dunn

Answer 10

Facts: Dunn owned a ranch which was completely encircled by a perimeter fence and which contained several interior fences. Outside of the resident fence were 2 barns which were encircled by fencing. Without a warrant, DEA agents crossed over the ranch’s perimeter fence and one interior fence. From direction of the barns, one of the agents smelled phenylacetic acid. The officer’s crossed over fence and looked into one of the barns and saw what he thought was a phenyl acetone laboratory. The officers left and returned with a search warrant. Search revealed chemicals, equipment, and amphetamines.

ROL: The barn was in an open field. 1st, the barn was not proximate to the house, 2nd, the bar was outside the fenced-in area surrounding the house, 3rd, the use to which the barn was put could not fairly be characterized as so associated with the activities and privacies of domestic life that the officers should have deemed the barn as part of respondents home and 4th, the steps taken by Dunn to protect the barn from observation by those standing in the open fields were minimal.

Question 11

Dunn test (curtilate test)

Answer 11

1. proximity
2. enclosure
3. uses
4. steps taken to protect
5. Note: only use these if not sure what the search fits into

*police officers do not engage in a search when they approach the front door of a residence and seek to engage in what is termed a “knock and talk”

Question 12

Assumption of the risk

(search analysis)

Answer 12

engagement in conduct despite conscious awareness of the risk that certain informatino will not be kept private

Secret agent cases:

• there was no reasonable expectation of privacy when an informant reported his conversation with a Defendant to govt agents, or when govt agents overheard such a conversation transmitted by a radio device worn by informant

Question 13

United States v. White

Answer 13

Facts: the govt wired an informant with a radio transmitter, as White and the informant convered, the govt listened in.

Held: One contemplating illegal activites must realize that his companions may be reporting to the police

Question 14

United States v. Knotts

(electronic tracking devices)

Answer 14

Facts: officers installed a battery-opperated radio transmitter - a beeper- inside a 5-gallon container of chloroform. After receiving a tip, that a former employee had been stealing chemicals to make to make illegal drugs and was buying them from Hawkins Chemical Co. The officers Hawkins consent to install the beeper. When the former employee purchased the beeper planted container, the officers used video surveilance and monitored the beeper from a car then to a cabin. Relying on the beeper and additional information, the officers contained a search warrant, finding inside the cabin a drug laboratory.

Held: A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements, because those movements are open to the public

Question 15

United States v. Karo

Answer 15

Beeper use had gone too far. The beeper had been used to reveal activities inside a private residence, a location not open to visual surveillance. That use invaded reasonable expectations of privacy, because even though visual surveillance was possible up t entry into the house, the beeper enabled the police to determine what they otherwise could not have known

Question 16

United States v. Jones

(Global Positioning System (GPS))- trespass as search test

Answer 16

Facts: A task force attached a GPS to Jone’s vehicle in the course of a criminal narcotics investigation. The task force monitored the location of the vehicle for one month around the clock and eventually charged Jones for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Held: Attachment of a GPS device to the car was a 4th amendment search. Because the conduct of the task force would have been a common law trespass and such government trespass would have constituted a “search” at the time of the 4th amendment; and the court relied on reasonable expectation of privacy from long term monitoring

Question 17

Kyllo v. United States

(Thermal Imaging Devices)

Answer 17

Facts: agents employed a thermal imager without a warrant to scan D’s home for infrared radiation emanating from the roof after receiving a tip that D was growing marijuana inside his home.

Held: a 4th amend. search takes place when govt agents employ a device that is not in general public use in order to explore details of a home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion

Question 18

container searches

(California v. Greenwood)

Answer 18

Facts: Police suspected D of narcotics trafficking, and they asked the neighborhood trash collector to pick up the plastic garbage bags that D left on the curb in front of his house and hand them over. An officer searched the bags, found items indicative of drug use, and then obtained a warrant.

Held: Plastic garbage bags on a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, and snoops. This is assumption of the risk. The police could cannot reasonably be expected to turn their eyes from criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public

Question 19

trunk search

Answer 19

requires probable cause to believe that fruits, contraband, or evidence of a crime will be found in the trunk

Question 20

search at common law

Answer 20

trespass of a constitutionally protected area

• there is no search where police examine previously protected property in which an owner has voluntarily relinquished his or her proprietary interest

Question 21

Social custom

(Minnesota v. Olsen)

Answer 21

facts: D was arrested in the home of two women with whom he was staying and claimed that the police violated his expectations of privacy when they entered and searched that home.

Held: D had a privacy interest in the premises because of his status as an “overnight guest.” Social custom- we seek temporary shelter. Officers are able to go to the guest house with the same arrest warrant as the original place.

Question 22

Minnesota v. Carter

Answer 22

Facts: A cocaine transaction was observed by a police officer who peered through an apt’s window blinds. D had no connection to the apartment and had only been there just over 2 hours.

Held: a cocaine dealer who spent approximately two hours inteh apt of an acquaintance did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy

Question 23

Illinois v. Caballes

Answer 23

Facts: 10 min traffic stop, 2nd officer walked dog around D’s car and searched the car after the dog alerted and found marijuana

Held: A drug dog sniff of a lawfully-seized car did not violate the 4th amendment. The drug dog sniff did not prolong the length of the lawful stop beyond what was justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop

*the use of a drug-sniffing do at the entrance to a home is a “search” because it is engaging in a trespass, violating property rights and thus implicating the 4th amendment

Question 24

Vantage Point

Answer 24

Permits police to stand in a certain public areas using enhancement devices, so long as those devices simply enable police to see more clearly something that they could otherwise see without the devices

*no reasonable expectation or privacy inheres in physical characteristics ordinarily observable by the public, such as the sound of a voice, physical appearance, and the characteristics of handwriting and fingerprints

Question 25

Plain View Test

Answer 25

The police may seize property that is clearly visible in plain view without a warrant if the police are

1. lawfully positioned and
2. it is immediately apparent that the evidence is incriminating

Question 26

Plain feel doctrine

Answer 26

Similar to plain view, but with feeling

Question 27

Florida v. Jardines

Question 28

Seizure

Answer 28

1. Being told to do something and obeying
2. touching

*need reasonable suspicion

Question 29

Kinds of seizure

Answer 29

• arrest
• stop- you need “reasonable suspicion” to believe a person is committing a crime
  
  • reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause
  • suspicion that criminal activity is or will be afoot; its an objecttive test based on specific and articulable facts

Question 30

Seizure

Answer 30

a seizure requires the deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest

1. a seizure of a person occurs when a government actor significantly interferes with a person’s freedom of movement (arrest, or when the car is pulled over)
2. a seizure of a thing occurs when the government significantly interferes with an individual’s possessory interests in that property

Question 31

The Rakas Test

Rakas v. Illinois

Answer 31

A defendant whose rights are violated must establish standing to assert a 4th amend claim

• An ownership or possessory interest in the premises is sufficient (reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched)

Facts: Passengers in a car, who did not claim to own the car and did not even claim to own the property seized did not have standing to object to the legality of the search simply because they were present at the time of the search.

Held: A passenger in an automobile lacks standing to challenge the validity of a search of the vehicle. The court considered whether the passengers had complete dominion and control over and the right to exclude others from those areas.

Question 32

Standing

Answer 32

1. Whether D was legally authorized to occupy the premises searched
2. D has burden of proof

*no possessory interest in contraband

Question 33

Government action requirement

Answer 33

• the search or seizure must have been accomplished by a government actor as opposed to a private party, in order to be considered illegal under the 4th Amend
• if a private individual conducts a search or seizure and subsequently reveals to law enforcement officials, evidence obtained during such a search or seizure, that evidence is admissible if offered by the govt
• degree of govt knowledge of participation in, the private person’s action, as well as the purpose of the private person are taken into consideration in deciding govt action

Question 34

Skinnver v. Railway Labor Executives Ass’n

Answer 34

Facts: FRA promulgated regulations that authorized private railroads to take breath and urine samples from their employees for alcohol and drug testing purposes.

Held: When a private party acting on his own acquires evidence that the govt later seeks to introduce in a criminal prosecution, the 4th and the exclusionary rule are not triggered BUT when a private party acts at the direction of the govt agent or pursuant to an official policy, any search conducted and evidence seized is subject to 4th amend.

*even where a private individual has acted without the encouragement, endorsement, and participation” of the government, the 4th Amendment might be implicated if the later govt conduct intrudes further on the aggrieved aprty’s 4th amendment interests than the private party’s conduct

Question 35

Probable Cause (required for search, seizure, and arrest)

Answer 35

quantity of facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge that would warrant a reasonble person to conclude that the individual in question has committed a crime (for an arrest) or that specific items related to criminal activity can be found at a particular location (for a search)

Question 36

Maryland v. Pringle

Answer 36

Facts: Officer stopped speeding car at 3am. The officer saw money in the glove compartment when the driver went to retrieve his license and registration. The driver, denied having weapons or narcotics and consented to a search. There were 5 bags of cocaine found inteh back-seat armrest. None of the men admitted ownership of the drugs or money and were then arrested and taken in. D waived his miranda rights and gave confessions.

Held: Probable cause is evaluated in terms of what was known at the moment of the government intrusion. Police may establish Probable cause by considering events leading up to the moment of arrest to decide whether, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer they amount to probable cause.

Question 37

How much suspicion do you need?

Answer 37

Probable cause (less than 50%)

1. if police don’t know a crime has been committed then it would be mroe than 50 %
2. if the police know there has been a crime committed but they just don’t know who then it would be a little less

Question 38

Ybarra v. Illinois

Answer 38

Facts: Police executing a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender evidence of possesion of a controlled substance conducted pat down searches of all the customers present, and seized six packes containing heroin from a cigarette pack retrieved from Ybarra.

Held: The search was invalid. It was based on insufficiently individualized suspicion as to Ybarra and mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.

Question 39

An arresting officer acts appropriately if he makes an arrest

Answer 39

1. based on a valid warrant obtained by another officer who had probable cause for the warrant or
2. based on orders from an officer who had probable cause

Question 40

requirement of probable cuase

Answer 40

requires individual suspicion-suspicion that this suspect is guilty of a crime or that this place harbors contraband, fruits, evidence, or instrumentalities of crime

Question 41

Aguilar-Spinelli Two Pronged test

Answer 41

1. Was the informant credible (was he likely telling the truth?)
2. was the informant reliable (was it likely that he had a sound basis of knowledge?)

*if police testimony failed to establish either prong, the tip could not be used in the probable cause determination

*evidence hearsay rule protects credibility and reliablity

Question 42

Credibility/Veracity prong

Answer 42

• whether the tip was against interest, whether it implicated the informant in criminal activity ( Fed. Evi. Rule 803(b)(3) excepts from the hear say rule, a statement which at the time of its making so far tended to subject the declarant to criminal liability that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true)
• Whether the informant had given prior accurate tips
• whether the informant had a reputation for truthfulness

*ex. Police officer, citizen with nothing to lose and no reason to lie, informant who has given info on previous occasions

Question 43

Basis of knowlege Prong

Answer 43

• whether the informant personally observed or participated in the activities reported in teh tip
• whether the tip was so detailed that the informant must have first-hand knowledge
• whether the nature of the information contained in the tip, or the manner in which it was gathered, indicate that it could have come only from personal knowledge or a highly reliable source

*if weak in this prong, officer can use corroborating evidence

Question 44

The Gates Test (Illinois v. Gates)

Answer 44

Facts: Respondents were indicted for violation of state drug laws after police officers, executing a search warrant, discovered marijuana and other contraband in their automobile andhome. The Police Dept received an anonymous handwritten letter.

Held: Relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances analysis traditionally has guided probable cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability. The totality of circumstances analysis, permits a balanced assessment of the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability attending an informant’s tip.

*officer found future corroboration with the letter, future corroboration is more important because it shows that the basis of knowledge is stronger, not everyone will be able to find out

*no warrant to search if there is consent

Question 45

Arrest

Answer 45

• Must be reasonable (the authority of arrest is given by statute)
• probable cause is always required

Question 46

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

Answer 46

Facts: Police officer arrested Atwater for violating a TX law mandating the use of seatbelts for children and passengers in the front seat.

Held: When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the 4th Amend permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard the evidence and ensure their own safety. 4th amend permits warrant/warrantless arrests for traffic misdemeanors committed in police officers presence.

Question 47

The requirement of an arrest warrant

Answer 47

1. governed by the location on the action
2. if the arrest is in a public place, the police can arrest without a warrant, so long as they have probable cause
3. if the arrest or seizure takes place in a place protected by the 4th amend, a warrant is required
   
   1. if D’s home, only arrest warrant necessary
   2. if 3rd part home or premises, the police must have a search warrant as well as arrest warrant to protect the privacy expectation of 3rd party
4. the warrant requirement is excused in exigent circumstances; the 4th amend does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others

Question 48

Use of force

Answer 48

• if making any arrest, with or without a warrant, the arresting officer may be required to use force if the suspect resists
• the force used must be reasonable since its a seizure
• requies careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight

Question 49

Tennesee v. Garner

Answer 49

Facts: The officers were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside” call. The officer asked the yourth to halt, but when Garner tried to climb over a fense, the officer shot Garner, who later died. The officer was sure that Garner was unarmed but feared Garner’s escape.

Held: Where the suspect poses no immediae threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.

Question 50

California v. Hodari

Answer 50

Held: a fleeing suspect has not been seized unless he stops, either because he is physically forced to do so or because he submits to an officer’s show of authority; if an officer shoots at an individual and misses, the 4th amend does not apply becasue the person was not seized

Question 51

Scott v. Harris

Answer 51

Facts: Speeder did not slow down when Scott flashed his lights. Scott applied his push bumper to the rear of respondent’s vehicle causing it to veer off the road and crash at the bottom of an embankment. As a result Harris was rendered quadriplegic from the injuries suffered.

Held: Law enforcement may, consistent with the 4th amend reasonableness, take actions that place a fleeing motorists at risk of serious injury or death in order to prvent that flight from endangering the lives of innocent bystanders

Question 52

Escalating force

Answer 52

• officers should use no more force than is necessary or reasonable, or that force should be used only as a last resort
• police use force to affect civilian’s conduct, they do so most often by employing the least degree of force available to them, their mere presence
• when officers’ mere presence fails to produce desire conduct police resort to verbalization
  
  • when officers do speak they are asked to do so persuasively
  • the next step up is command voice
• next step is the firm grip in which the officer grips parts of the body that let their subject know that an officer is present and that he/she wants the subject to remain still or to move in a certain direction but that does not cause pain
• pain compliance consists of grips designed to gain subjects submission by inflicting pain without causing lasting physical injury
• impact techniques involve actual physical contact or the use of chemical sprays or stunning electronic weapons designed to overcome resistance that is forcible, but less than imminently life-threatening

Question 53

Stop and Frisk

(Terry v. Ohio)

Answer 53

Facts: While an officer was patrolling in plain clothes his attention was attracted by two men.

Held: If a police officer reasonably believes, based upon the officer’s own observations or those of an informant, that criminal activity may be afoot, then the officer may stop and briefly question a criminal suspect. In order to frisk a stopped individual, the police must articulate reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. If the stop and frisk give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal arrest, and a full incident search of the person.

Question 54

Stop

Answer 54

Need “reasonable suspicion” to believe a person is committing a crime

• a brief on the scene detention that is strictly limited in time (ex. temporary detention of a pulled over car)

Question 55

Frisk

Answer 55

a form of search

• need reasonable suspicion in the circumstances to believe that the person is armed and dangerous; poses a threat to the officer or some other person in the area
• a pat-down for weapons on the outer clothing, limited in scope and intensity to its justification
• once inside the clothing it is a search
• can also frisk an area if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person within the area is armed and dangerous
• can have consent

*cannot frisk without stopping but can stop without frisking

Question 56

Interaction levels between individual and law enforcement

Answer 56

• voluntary “encounter” the individual is free to leave without answering any questions and in whcih no 4th amend search or seizure occurs
• “stop and frisk” the individual, for a brief period, is not free to terminate the encounter
• “arrest” where the invasion of an individual’s freedom is so intrusive that probable cause is required as justification; and it evolves into a full search where the invasion of privacy is so great that probable casue is demanded

Question 57

United States v. Mendenhall

Answer 57

Facts: Mendenhall had been approached by federal agents as she walked through an airport concourse. The agents identified themselves, requested her identification and airline ticket, and asked her some questions about herself.

Held: A person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th Amend only if, in view of all of the circumstances surround the incident, a reasonable person would have believed tht he was not free to leave. Mendenhall was not seized because the event took place in a public place, the officers did not wear uniforms and displayed no weapons. The requested but not demanded her identification

Question 58

Circumstances giving rise to a reasonable belief that one is not free to leave: (Mendenhall factors)

Answer 58

• The threatening presence of several officers
• the display of a weapon by an officer
• some physical touching of the person of the citizen or
• the use of language or tone of voice indicating that complaince with the officer’s request might be compelled

Question 59

Florida v. Bostick

Answer 59

Facts: Florida Cnty had a practice of routinely boarding buses at scheduled stops and asking passengers for permission to search their luggage. Passengers on buses are not ordinarily free to leave. Two officers, with badges, holding a recognizable zipper pouch, containg a pistol boarded a bus. The officers picked out D and asked to inspect his ticet and identification. The 2 officers persisted and explained their presence as narcotic agents. They then requested the Ds consent to search his luggage. The police advised that D had the right to refuse consent though he disputes that knowledge. At no time did the officers threaten D with a gun. After the consent cocaine was found.

Held: The appropriate test of seizure is whether sucha person would feel free to decline the officer’s requests or terminate the encounter. The presence of inquisitive officers ona bus does not necessarily create 4th amend seizure.

Question 60

United States v. Drayton

Answer 60

Facts: 3 officers questioned passengers on a bus. Their weapons were concealed. The officers asked Ds if they had any bags and they pointed to a green bag which revealed nothing. The officer noticed Ds clothing being big for the warm weather. The officer asked Ds to check their person, they both consented. The officer detected hard objects between their thigh, which turned out to be packages of drugs.

Held: The “free to terminate” test necessitates a consideration of all of the circumstances surround thei encounter. There was no application of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking exits, no threat, no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice. Not suppressed because Ds consented.

Question 61

Arizona v. Johnson

Answer 61

Facts: Police ordered Johnson, a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle, out of the car and conducted a Terry frisk upon his person.

Held: . For the “frisk” test, the police had to have reasonable suspicion that the person frisked was herself armed and dangerous. 1) an officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the reason for the stop do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as such inquiries do not appreciably extend the stop’s duration.; 2) no new justification was needed for such inquiries, at least on the facts before the Court.

Question 62

Hiibel v. Nevada

Answer 62

Facts: A deputy sheriff had been dispatched to investigate a telephone call by someone who reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver truck. The man asked the officer why he wanted to see his identification. After 11 requests for identification and the passage of several mins, and after warning the man that he would be arrested if he continued to refuse to comply, the officer did arrest him.

Held: A police officer is justified in requesting a suspect’s name as identification during a Terry stop as long as the request has an immediate relation to the purpose of the stop. Terry may permit an officer to determine a suspect’s identity by compelling the suspect to submit to fingerprinting only if there is “a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will establish or negate the suspect’s connection to that crime.

Question 63

Brendlin v. California

Question 64

Stop v. Arrest

Answer 64

• Terry stops must be brief, and they must be conducted at the scene of the stopo
• once the individual is detained for a considerable length of time or removed to another location, a reviewing court is likely to hold that the encounter escalated to an arrest
• 20 min detention is a terry stop but if 90 minutes its deemed to long and the detention is deemed to have ripened into a full blown seizue and no longer amenable to a terry justification

Question 65

Place of detention

Answer 65

• Pennsylvania v. Mimms
  
  • Officers are permitted to order drivers out of their vehicles after Terry traffic stops, as a matter of public safety
• Maryland v. Wilson
  
  • Passengers may be ordere out as well but detentions that move beyond the immediate vicinity of the stop are likely to be considered arrests
• Florida v. Royer
  
  • Royer was taken from an airport concourse to about 40 ft away. Suspects forcibly taken to police headquarters will undoubtly be viewed as having been arrested
• Kaupp v. Texas
  
  • Forcible transportation to police headquarters constitutes an arrest and requires probable cause or judicial authorization to be legal. 17 you awaken at 3 in the moring by 3 officers that stated “we need to go and talk”

Question 66

United States v. Arvizu

Answer 66

Facts: The agent justified the terry stop of a minivan on the basis of a number of facts that he claimed gave rise to reasonable suspicion to beliee that the occupants of the van were trafficking in drugs.

Held: Reviewing courts must look to the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. An agent is entiteld to make an assessment of the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area’s inhabitants

Question 67

Illinois v. Wardlow (exception to Terry’s free to leave standard=High crime area)

Answer 67

Facts: Police on narcotics patrol had conducted a Terry stop of Wardlow after he looked in their direction and fled. The officers frisked Wardlow and found a gun and Wardlow later was prosecuted and convicted for unlawful use of the weapon.

Held: Nervous or evasive behavior is a relevant consideration, and flight is the consummate act of evasion. Sudden flight from a high-crime area may be an adequate reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop

Question 68

Anonymous tip under Terry standard

Answer 68

• anonymous tip may be sufficient to support a finding of reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress or was about to be committed
• reliability will be enhanced by the tipster’s obvious eyewitness perspective
• an anonymous tip that lacks all indicia of reliability does not satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard and would warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcile stop of a suspect would be authorized

Question 69

Florida v. J. L.

Answer 69

Facts: Police had conducted the Terry stop of J.L., a juvenile after an anonymous caller informed them that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Police arrived at the bus stop and observed 3 black males. The police notice nothing suspicious about the individuals, but based on the tip stopped and frisked J.L, finding a gun.

Held: The anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to give rise to reasonable suspicion. The holding would not preclude a stop and frisk if police receive a man with a gun tip from a known informant.

Question 70

Drug Carrier Profiles

(Reid v. Georgia)

Answer 70

Facts: The petitioner arrived at the airport on a commercial airline flight from FL. The Petitioner was observed by an agent of the DEA, who was in the airport for the pourpose of uncovering illicit commerce in narcotics. Separated from the petitioner by several people was another man, who carried a shoulder bag like the one petitioner carried. The men left the terminal together. DEA agent asked them to show their tickets and identification.

Held: the agent could not as a matter of law, have reasonably suspected the petitioner of criminal activity on the basis of these observed circumstances. Nor could the manner in which the petitioner and his companion walked through the airport reasonably could have led the agent to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Question 71

United States v. Sokolow

Answer 71

Held: The stop was justified because Sokolow was making a quick round trip to a drug source city, had paid for his tickets in cash, had checked no baggage, and appeared nervous.

*Courts reviewing Terry stops cannot rely exclusively on the fact that an individual matched a profile, but they may defer to accumulated law enforcement experience, embodied in profiles when they evaluate for themselves the suspiciousness of certain behaviors and characteristics that form the asserted basis for the stop

Question 72

Consent

Answer 72

Promotes cooperative relations between individuals and their governments

Question 73

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Answer 73

Held: Waiver must meet the strict standard of an intentional relinquishment of a “known” right. To prove that the consent was given voluntarily, the state must show that teh consent was obtained without coercion.

Question 74

Voluntariness test

Answer 74

Factors:

• Subjective- youth of the accused, lack of education or his low income intelligence, and the lack of any advice tot he accused of his constitutional rights; whether the individual was in custody when consent was given, the nature of the requests for consent, and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep
• Objective Consent must be “knowingly and intelligently made”- the number of officers on the scene, their physical presence measured against the severity of the situtaion, the use or brandishing of weapons, and the tone of voice used by the officer during the encounter

*police actions that would cause a reasonable person to become frightened or upset may invalidate the consent

Question 75

Ohio v. Robinette

Answer 75

Facts: involved a traffic stop for speeding, after which the officer decided not to ticket the driver. The officer continued the stop, ordering the driver out of his car and obtaining consent to search

Held: Robinette was lawfully contaned when he gave his consent in light of the admitted probable cause to stop Robinette for speeding, the officer was objectively justified in asking Robinette to get out of the car.

Question 76

Florida v. Royer (4th amendment suppressed statement)

Answer 76

Held: Royer’s cosent to a luggage search was ineffective, because statements given during a period of illegal detention are inadmissible even though voluntarily given if they are the product of the illegal detention and not the result of an independent act of free will

Question 77

Suppressed Statement (4th Amend)

Answer 77

The courts are likely to find the consent invalid if police misrepresent their ability to make the search. If the officers actually have a warrant, but use that warrant to obtain consent, any fruits of the search will be suppressed if the warrant turns out invalid.

Question 78

Hoffra v. United States

Answer 78

Held: 4th amend does not protect individuals against their own misplaced confidence in false friends

Question 79

Actual authority (3rd party)

Answer 79

• depends on whether the third party shares access to ro control over the premises at issue
• common authority- mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the coinhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their members might permit the common area to be searched

Question 80

Georgia v. Randolph

Answer 80

Facts: Police responded to a domestice violence dispute complaint filed by Randolph’s wife, who reported that her husband, a cocaine user had taken the couple’s son. While police were on the scene Scott returned and disputed his wife’s accusations. Police asked Scott for permission to search the marital home; he unequivocally refused. The officer then asked Janet for permission. She gave permission, and escorted police to a location identified as Scott’s bedroom where a straw with a white powdery substance suspected of being cocaine was discovered.

Held: Voluntary consent of an individual possessing authority or a fellow occupant who shares common authority over property when the suspect is absent and the exception for consent extends even to entries and searches with the permission fo a co-occupant whom the police reasonably but erroneously, believe to possess shared authority as an occupant. Where a co-tenant is present, vocal, and refusing to consent, police may still decide to enter, search, and seize incriminating evidence as against the consenting co-tenant but not against the demurring one, over and above that individual’s refusal to consent.

Question 81

Apparent Authority

Answer 81

• if a reasonable officer would have realized that the 3rd party lacked authority to consent, then a search based on that consent will be held invalid; if a reasonable officer would not have realized that the 3rd party lacked authority to consent, then a search based on that consent will be held invalid
• if one person is not home but the other person is home at the time the officers arrive, they have apparent legal authority over the other one
• even if officers obtain a valid consent to search, they must conduct their search within the scope of the consent

Question 82

withdrawing consent

Answer 82

An individual may withdraw consent to search at anytime

*if an officer finds incriminating items before consent is withdrawn, the plain view doctrine permits its seizure, and any subsequent withdrawal of consent would be to no avail

Question 83

United States v. Carter

Answer 83

Facts: a suspect consented to a search of his duffel

Held: The court upheld the search concluding that Carter’s offer to show the detective the contents of his bag and his peculiar way of retracting that offer, apart from his earlier withdrawal of consent, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was concealing drugs in his bag

*he withdrew consent and then gave consent

Question 84

Pretext

Answer 84

Police officers using racial profilign as the sole basis for their decisions to stop

Question 85

Whren v. United States

Answer 85

Facts: Involved the traffic stop of a truck occupied by two balck men in a high drug area. Plainclothes officer in unmarked car stopped the truck after it remained at an intersection for an “unusually long time” –more than 20 secs– and then took off at an “unreasonable” rate of speed after a police car approached it. During the traffic stop, an officer observed crack cocaine in the car. The occupants were arrested. The Ds moved to suppress the fruits of the search arguing pretext. Whren argued that automobiles are heavily regulated and that complaince w/ traffic and safety rules is nearly impossible, a Police officer will be able to catch any given motorist in a technichal violation.

Held: Traffic stops are reasonable under the 4th amendment so long as police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Under the federal const. pretext is not a viable objection to searches and seizures, except those effectuated under the administrative and inventory search doctrines.

Question 86

U. S. v. Armstrong

Answer 86

Held: When Defendants use equal protection theory to claim that police used improper racial considerations in determining probable cause or reasonable suspicion, they cannot obtain discovery to support their claim without first showing the two essential elements such as establishing a colorable basis for the proposition that similarly suspicious whites were not stopped or searched

Question 87

Warrant Exceptions

Answer 87

Circumstances in which warrants cannot practicably be obtained

Question 88

Types of warrant exceptions

Answer 88

1. searches incident to a lawful arrest
2. automobile exception
3. plain view
4. consent
5. searches (frisk) pursuant to a stop
6. hot pursuit
7. exigent circumstances (emergency)
8. special needs

Question 89

Search incident to arrest

Answer 89

searches incident to–during or immediately after–an arrest

Question 90

Chimel v. California

Answer 90

• The court limited the scope of the search incident to arrest doctrine, constraining it to searches of 1) the arrestee’s person and 2) areas within the arrestee’s immediate reach.
• When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the later might seek to use in order to resist arrest or affect his escape. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction
• officer safty and evidence preservation are the basis for the doctrine

Question 91

custodial arrests

Answer 91

a seizure of the person with the intention of thereafter having him transported to the police state or other place to be dealt with according to law

Question 92

United States v. Robinson

Answer 92

Facts: Robinson stopped and arrested for driving with a revoked license. After the arrest, the officer searched Robinson and found heroin concealed in a crumpled packet in his pocket.

Held: The risk of officer safety and in preventing evidence destruction are present in all custodial arrests even where there is no specific concern about the loss of evidence or the threat to officers in a particular case

Question 93

area into which an arrestee might reach

Answer 93

• Wingspan of the arrestee; the area from within which the arrestee might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence
• where it applies the doctrine trumps any reasonable expectation of privacy that the arrestee might have in closed containers

Question 94

the arrest and search must be contemporaneous–they cannot be too remote in time from each other

United States v. Chadwick

United States v. Edwards

Answer 94

• Chadwick-Once law enforcement officers have reduced luggage or other personal property not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee to their exclusive control, and there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, a search of that property is no long an incident of the arrest (searched locker that had been moved to govt building)
• Edwards- upheld the seizure fo an arrestee’s clothing under the search incident to arrest doctrine, even though it occurred in the jail some ten hours after the arrest
  
  • There appeared to be extenuating circumstances justifying the delay: the arrest had happened at night, the officers had no immediate way to provide the arrestee with other clothing, and the arrestee might have destroyed his clothing at any time once he realized their incriminating nature. In order to justify seizure an item found during a search incident to arrest, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband, or a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime.

Question 95

Automobiles warrant exception (search incident to arrest)

Thornton v. United States

Answer 95

Facts: Thornton had pulled into a parking lot and gotten out of his car before police officer initiated contact with him, although the officer suspected that Thornton had been aware of him and had parked in an effort to evade contact with him.

Held: Belton rule applies whether the police interaction was initiated before or after the suspect left the vehicle. So long as an arrestee is the sort of recent occupant of a vehicle as petitioner was, officers may search that vehicle incident to arrest.

*

Question 96

Arizona v. Gant

Answer 96

Two part test: 1) authorizes a search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupants arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or 2) the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle of a current arrestee may be searched when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

Question 97

Michigan v. Long

Answer 97

Permits an officer search of a passenger compartment for weapons whenever there is reasonable suspicion to believe that anyone arrestee or not, is dangerous and might gain immediate access to weapons in the car

Question 98

Riley v. California

Answer 98

Facts: P was stopped for a traffic violation that led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searched P incident to arrest and seized a cell phone from P’s pants pocket. The officer accessed information from the phone and noticed a repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. At the police station, a detective specialized in gangs, examined the phone’s contents. Based on photographs and videos, Riley was charged in connection with a shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier.

Held:The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested. The court assesses whether to exempt a type of search from the warrant requirement by assessing the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Digital data stored on a cellphone does not present a risk to be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape.

*can seize a phone but cannot go through it they are not like containers

Question 99

Protective Sweeps

Answer 99

when making an arrest at a private residence, various factors may combine to create a more dangerous situation for the arresting officers

-a warrantless search of the entire house after a lawful arrest is unconstitutional (Chimel v. California)

Question 100

Maryland v. Buie

Answer 100

Facts: Police entered Buie’s residence armed with a warrant for his arrest and apprehended him as he was leaving his basement. An officer went into the basement to see if an accomplice was hiding there. Although, the officer found no one inside, he spotted and seized a red runnign suith that had been described by an eyewitness to the robbery.

Held: A protective sweep, aimed at protecting the arresting officers, if justified by the circumstance, may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.

Question 101

Warrants

Answer 101

The information conveyed to the judicial officer must demonstrate probable cause, and must be supported by an affidavit, a statment under oath

• police must articulate justifications for a search
• the affidavit must establish probable cause to believe that the items sought will be found in the place specified
  *

Question 102

Franks v. Delaware

Answer 102

If the defendant can establish an intentional falsity in the warrant application, and if the falsity was necessary to the finding of probable cause, then evidence discovered during execution of the warrant must be suppressed.

Question 103

Particularity

Answer 103

The standard applied in each case whether the warrant contains sufficient particularities so that the officer can be reasonably certain of executing it correctly

Question 104

Maryland v. Garrison

Answer 104

The warrant is to be evaluated at the time it was issued and according to the information that the officers disclosed, or should have disclosed, to the issuing judicial official

• When the police applied for the warrant and when they conducted the search pursuant to the warrant, they reasonably believed that there was only one apartment on the premises described in the warrant. Before the officers executing the warrant became aware that they were in a separate apartment occupied by respondent, they had discovered the contraband that provided the basis for respondent’s conviction for violating MD’s controlled substances act. (warrant was valid and supported by probable cause)

Question 105

Illinois v. McArthur (execution of warrant)

Answer 105

The court upheld a police decision to prevent a man from entering his home for two hours while they obtained a search warrant

Question 106

Time and manner of execution of a search warrant

Answer 106

The 10 day limit prevnts officers from executing a “stal” warrant, which is a warrant that may no longer be supported by accurate facts.

Question 107

Knock and Announce

Answer 107

absent exigent circumstances, a police oficer msut knock and announce his presence before attempting a forcible entry

Question 108

Richards v. Wisconsin

Answer 108

to justify a no-knock entry, police must have reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime

Question 109

United States v. Ramirez

Answer 109

Facts: Officers obtained a “no-knock warrant” after establishing reasonable suspicion to believe that knocking and announcing their presence might be dangerous to themselves or to others. While executing the warrant, the officers broke through a garage window.

Held: The general touchstone of reasonableness which governs 4th amendment analysis governs the method of execution of the warrant. Their conduct was reasonable given the possibility that occupants might rush to the weapons that informants advised the officers that were there.

Question 110

Hudson v. Michigan

Answer 110

The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock and announce rule, or at least not where the violation is a failure to wait a sufficient amount of time after announcing their presence but before entering

Question 111

treatment of individuals during warrant executions

Answer 111

It is reasonable to detain the occupants, who might pose a danger of harm or of fleeing, and who might be able to assist the officers by opening locked containers and doors

Question 112

Bailey v. United States

Answer 112

Held: Rule of permiting detention of persons found on the premises during the lawful execution of immediate search warrant, does not extend beyond the premises immediate vicinity. There is little risk to officer safety from persons no longer on the premises.

• Factors to consider whether an occupant was detained within the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, including the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of his dwelling, the ease of reentry from the occupant’s location and other relevant factors

Question 113

Muehler v. Mena

Answer 113

Held: upheld the handcuffing of a woman during a 2-3 hour search of her residence. Law enforcement interests in not only detaining but using handcuffs, are at their maximum when, a warrant authorizes a search for weapons and a wanted gang member resides on the premises.

Question 114

Los Angeles v. Rettele

Answer 114

Facts: Police investigating a fraud and identity-theft crime ring obtained a valid search warrant to search 2 houses for the suspects. The warrant also authorized the officers to search the suspects themselves for these items. When the officers executed the warrant, they found a white couple not the black suspects and ordered the couple out of the bed. The couple was naked.

Held: The warrant excecution was reasonable because 1) the police believed that an armed suspect might be present, giving them authority to secure the scene, 2) despite that they did not meet the description of the suspects, officers had no way of knowing whether the suspects might be elsewhere in the house; and 3) the police did not unduly prolong their treatment of the Retteles, allowing the couple to dress as soon as it was clear there was no threat

Question 115

Exigent Circumstances

Answer 115

Permits warrantless searches and seizures if: 1) probable cause for the search or seizure exists and 2) there are sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the “warrantless,” or “emergency”

The doctrine applies to those situations in which law enforcement agents will be unable or unlikely to effectuate an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists, unless they act swiftly

Question 116

Cupp v. Murphy

Answer 116

Facts: Suspect had volunarily submitted to questioning regading the recent strangulation of his wife. Shortly after his arrival at the police station, police noticed a dark stain on one of his fingers and began to ask him about it. He put his hands in his pockets and a metallic sound such as keys were heard. Fearing that the evidence on his hands might be destroyed, the police took incriminating samples of blood, tissue, and fiber from under his fingernails without his consent.

Held: The search did not violate the 4th amen because of the very limited intrusion and the readily destructibility of the evidence. The severity of the crime involved and the minimum intrusion occasioned by the search and seizure influenced the court’s decision.

Question 117

Schmerber v. California

Answer 117

Facts: D was in the hospital.

Held. The blood alcohol level begins to diminish shortly after the drinkng stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system. Officer effectuated blood sampling. The officer reasonably believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence.

Question 118

Missouri v. McNeely

Answer 118

Facts: McNeely was pulled over for speeding and erratic driving. On the scene, he was subjected to a few incapacity test and was arrested for drunk driving. The officer took McNeely to a hospital after he refused a BAC test. The officer informed McNeely of M.O.’s implied consent statute and McNeely’s legal obligation to take the BAC test. McNeely held fast to his refusal. Over McNeely’s objection, the officer directed a hospital technician to draw McNeely’s blood.

Held: Drawing blood is a search within the meaning of the 4th amend. Therefore, Police must get a warrant in the absence of consent or exigency. Reviewing courts must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether searching without a warrant was reasonable in which in this case, it was not.

Question 119

hot pursuit

Answer 119

Permits officers to enter premises without a warrant if 1) they are in pursuit of a fleeing felon and 2) that pursuit begain in a public place, in which officers coudl have made a warrantless arrest

*a suspect may not defeat arrest which has been set in motion in a public place, and is therefore proper

Question 120

United States v. Santana

Answer 120

Facts: Officers had probable cause, although not a warrant to arrest Santana for narcotics felony. The officers saw her standing in the doorway of her house–she was standing directly in the doorway so that one step forward would have put her in the vestible of her residence. They approached within 15 ft of her, got out of their vehicle and identified themselves as police. Santana retreated into the vestibule of her house and the officers followed, arresting her in the vestibule and seizing heroin pursuant to a search incident to arrest.

Held: It was clear that Santana was in a public place. She was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy. Retreatign into her hous did not thwart an otherwise proper arrest.

Question 121

United States v. Rubin

Answer 121

Facts: Agents received information that a shippign crate contained hashish. When the suspect was arrested, he yelled “call my brother.” According to the agents, the statement indicated a strong possiblity that the evidence at the house would be destroyed by the brother absent intervention. The agents immediately entered the house, found other men preparing the hashish for sale, and arrested them.

Held: When the govt agents, have probable cause to believe contraband is present and in addtion, based on surrounding circumstances or the information at hand, they reasonably conclude that the evidence will be destroyed or removed before they can secure a search warrnt, a warrantless search is justified. Emergency circumstances included 1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; 2) reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; 3) possiblity of danger to police officers guarding the contraband while a search warrant is sought; 4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail; and 5) the readily destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in the narcotics traffic.

Question 122

Brigham City v. Charles Stuart

Answer 122

Objectively reasonable basis for police to believe an occupant was serioulsy injured or imminently threatened with serious injury, thus justifying a warrantless entry into the home, regardless of an individual officer’s state of mind

Question 123

Kentucky v. King

Answer 123

Facts: Undercover officers entered the wrong apartment. The Police knocked and annouced but that does not invade privacy interests implicating the 4th amend.

Held: Where the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that itself violates the 4th amend, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable.

Question 124

Plain View, Touch, and Smell

Answer 124

Police officers are permitted to seize contraband, fruits, evidence, and instrumentalities of crime that they find in plain view.

• It’s incriminating character must be immediately apparent
• The officer must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself
• officer must be at a lawful vantage point (ex. open field)

Question 125

Arizona v. Hicks

Answer 125

Facts: Officers lawfully inside an apartment pursuant to a warrant observed stereo equipment that they believed to be stolen. Their belief was nothing more than a hunch, however, because they lacked specific facts about the equipment that would give rise to probable cause, one of the officers moved a piece of equipment to see its serial numbers, which he radioed headquarters. When the officer received confirmation that the serial numbers matched those of stolen equipment he seized he equipment.

Held: the seizure was invalid because the equipment’s incriminating natue was not immediately apparent

Question 126

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer 126

Facts: An officer had lawfully subjected D to a terry pat-down for weapons. The officer felt no weapons, but he did feel, in the pocket of D’s thin jacket, a bag containing lumps of crack cocaine. He examined with his fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine. The officer seized the drugs and arrested D.

Held: Plain view doctrine, is that if contraband is let in open view and is observed by a officer from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no “search” within the meaning of the 4th amend. The officer determined that the item was contraband only after conducting a “further search,” one not authorized by Terry or by any other exception to the warrant requirement.

Question 127

A warrantless entry into a private place cannot be justified without exigent circumstances, even when it is accompanied by probable cause

Answer 127

if probable cause, should get a warrant

Question 128

Automobile Exception

(vehicle and container searches)

Answer 128

The exception permits a warrantless search of motorized vehicles whenever law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe that fruits, evidence, or instrumentalities of criminal activity will be found therein

*the exception extends to containers within vehicles as well

Question 129

Carroll v. United States

Answer 129

Held: if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is upon the belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to search and seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid

Question 130

California v. Carney

Answer 130

In distinguishing mobile homes from residences, courts consider location, where the vehicle is licensed, whether it it connected to utilities, and whether it has convenient access to a public road

Question 131

Chambers v. Maroney

Answer 131

Facts: Police officers stopped a vehicle which they had probable cause to believe contained fruits, evidence, and instrumentalities of an armed robbery, took it to the police station, and searched it thoroughly without a warrant.

Held: Movable vehicles ae subject to the exception even where they have been taken into police control and no longer pose a threat of mobility

Question 132

California v. Acevedo

(container within vehicle search)

Answer 132

Facts: Involved a sting operation in which officers observed a package of marijuana taken into an apartment, they later saw D enter the apartment and emerge carrying a brown paper bag that looked full. D placed the bag into the trunk of a car and began to drive away, but officers stopped him and recovered marijuna from the bag.

Held: Containers in cars may be searched under the automobile exception whether probable cause relates to the entire car or only to the container. Officers may search containers in vehicles so long as they have probable cause to believe that the objects of those searches may be found therein.

Question 133

Wyoming v. Houghton

Answer 133

Facts: stopped a car and noticed a syringe in the driver’s pocket. The officer then searched the car. Then searched the purse of the passenger and found drugs.

Held: Police may search containers witin the stop of the probable cause they have developed, regardless of who owns those containers. Where there is probable cause to search contraband in a car, it is reasonable for police officers to examine packages and container without showing an individualized probable cuase for each one.

Question 134

Special Needs Searches and Seizures (regulatory or administrative searches of state and federal govts)

Answer 134

Those conducted for a non-criminal investigation-related purpose

Question 135

Test for Special Needs Search or Seizure

Answer 135

1. a court must determine whether the governmental purpose truly is regulatory rather than criminal law enforcement
2. if the purpose is regulatory, the court must balance that regulatory interest agaisnt the individual interest infringed upon

Question 136

Balancing the interest

Answer 136

• The weight of the state’s purported non-criminal investigation interest must be determined
  
  • the effectiveness of the chosen means in attaining the states goals; and the availability of other, less restrictive alternative means for pursuing those goals
• the degree of the individual’s interest must be guaged
• Limitations must be placed on the discretion of the government actors
  
  • clear rules in statutes, regulations, or internal administrative policies telling their government actors when and how to conduct their searches

Question 137

Areas of special needs

Answer 137

• Health and safety inspections
  
  • Camara v. Municipal Ct.
    
    • Facts: a homeowner claimed 4th amend protection against a warrantless inspection of his home by a health inspector acting pursuant to the San Francisco Housing Code.
    • Held: A warrant was needed because otherwise the occupant has no way of knowing whether enforcement of the municipal code involved requires inspection of his premises, no way of knowing the lawful limits of the inspector’s power to search, and no way of knowing whether the inspector himself is acting under proper authorization. There can be no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entail. *Probable cause was met if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection, such as passage of tie, nature of the building, and condition of the overall area, were met
  • New York v. Burger
    
    • Facts: Respondent, owner of a junkyard. Officers in plain clothes entered respondent’s junkyard to conduct an inspection pursuant to a statute. Upon entering the junkyard the officers asked to see his license and police book in which he replied that he had neither. The officers then announced their intention to conduct an inspection pursuant to the statute and he did not object. The officers copied vehicle identification numbers and then checked them against police computers, the officers determined that respondent was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts.
    • Held: It was administrative in character to be upheld. The administrative scheme was designed simply to give the police an expedient means of enforcing penal sanctions for possession of stolen property.–> served a dual purpose, heavy regulation doesnt need a warrant

Question 138

Areas of special needs (Drug testing)

Answer 138

Special needs searches for children(public schools), those involving adults working in safety-sensitive contexts, and those involving adults in non-sensitive contexts

Question 139

New Jersey v. TLO

Answer 139

Fact: Principal opened kid’s purse and removed cigarettes after teacher repored the kid for smoking in the lavatory.

Held: The warrantless search was valid. The court emphasized the need for discipline in schools; the warrrant woudl interfere with the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in schools; and the importance of achieving a balance that did not ignore the legitimate privacy expectations of school children –all was needed was reasonable suspicion

Question 140

Veronia School District v. Acton

Answer 140

Upheld the constitutionality of a suspicionless random drug testing program required for students participating in high school or grade school interscholastic sports.

There is additional respect in which school athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy, by choosing to go out for the team, they voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students generally.

• Bd of Edu. v. Earls
  
  • upheld suspicious drug testing of students involved in any competitive extracurricular activity. The testing policy reasonably serves the school district’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students.

Question 141

Safford v. Redding

Answer 141

Strip search of a 13 yo’s bra and panties for the forbidden over the counter drugs by school administrator’s violated the 4th amend.

analysis: Nondangerous contrabnad does not raise the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Stafford Middle School Students of hiding that sort of thing in underwear. Reasonableness of the 13yo’s expectation of privacy is indicated by the consistent experience of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure on their dignity.

Question 142

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives

Answer 142

Upheld the validity of Fed. R.R. administration regulations that mandate bloood and urine testing of employees involved in certain train accidents to uncover drug usage and authorize breath and urine tests for employees violating certain safety rules.

analysis: The govt had a great interest in ensuring the safety of the traveling public. The standardized nature of the tests there was minimal discretion given those charged with enforcing the regulation. The evidence might dissipate during the delay needed to get a warrant, thus impeding the govt’s ahievements of its objectives. The privacy expectations of the employees were reduced by their participation in an industry that is regulated pervasively to ensure safety. The means chosen was sufficiently effective to deter employees engaged in safety-sensitive tasks from using controlled substances.

Question 143

National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab

Answer 143

Upheld a customs service program requiring mandatory urinalysis for applicants for three types of jobs or promotions: those involving drug interdiction, those requiring the carrying of firearms, and those in which the employee would handle classified documents.

The state had an interest in ensuring the physical fitness and integrity of those involved in drug interdiction and preventing drug users from carrying firearms.

Question 144

Chandler v. Miller

Answer 144

• Ct. struck down a GA statute that required drug testing for designated state employees.
• Special govt need must be substantial. GA failed to demonstrate a substantial need for suspicionless drug testing. (no prior problem, no showing that other methods would not suffice, the candidates were subject to scrutiny likely to reveal any drug activity, and the states’ desire to show commitment agasint drug abuse was not enough.

Question 145

City of Ontario v. Quan

Answer 145

Held: Even if a governmental employee has a reasonable expectation fo privacy in his text messaes, the government employer’s search of those messages was reasonable and did not violate 4th amend. When an employer search is conducted for a non-investigatory, work-related purpose or to investigate work-related misconduct, a warrantless search is reasonable as long as its purpose is legitimate and its scope narrowly tailored to meet that purpose.

The search was reasonable because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and not excessive in scope. The purpose of review of messages was to determine if the limit was too low for employees work-related texts.

Question 146

Ferguson v. City of Charleston

Answer 146

Facts: The state purpose of the policy was to identify/assist pregnant patients suspected of drug use. The hospital would obtain samples and without clarifying the uses to which the samples would be put, would test the urine of those patients suspected using cocaine. If a patient tested positive twice, police were notified and the patient was arrested or threatened with arrest unlees she consented to substance abuse treatment

Ct. struck down drug screening of maternity patients suspected of using cocaine.

Held: it was unconstitutional, the urine testing constituted a search, the policy was indistinguishable from the general public interest in crime control. While the purpose was to get women into treatment, the immediate objective of the searches was to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes in order to reach that goal.

Question 147

Griffin v. Wisconsin

Answer 147

Upheld a Wisconsin regulation permitting warrantless searches of probationers’ homes, so long as the searching officer had “reasonable grounds: to suspect the presence of contraband—a violation of probationary terms

Question 148

United States v. Knights

Answer 148

• approved the warrantless search of a probationer’s home for purposes other than ensuring compliance with probationary terms. The officre must have reasonable suspicion of a sufficiently high probability that criminal conduct is occurring to make the intrusion on the individual’s privacy interest reasonable.
• the condition of probation reduces the expectations of privacy and libert. The probationary status heightens the state’s interest in his activities.

Question 149

Searches and Seizures by Customs and Border Patrol Officers

Question 150

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte

Answer 150

The court approved a suspicionless border checkpoint because the boarder checkpoints advance the govt’s interest in controlling the influx of illegal aliens.

Question 151

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez

Answer 151

• Ct. upheld a 19-hour detention of a person suspected of snuggling drugs in her alimentary canal. Reasonable suspicion justified the stop.
• The detention fo a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect tha tthe traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary.

Question 152

Roadblocks

Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz

Answer 152

Court upheld a sobriety checkpoint that permitted suspicionless stops to check for drunk driving. Officers in the field were to choose sites based on specified guidelines, including the safety of the location and minimizing inconvenience to the drivers.

Three test prong:

1. the gravity of the public concers served by the seizure
2. the degree to which teh seizure advanced the public interest
3. the severity of the interference with individual liberty

The gravity of the public concern favored the procedure because of the state’s heavy interest in eradicating drunk driving.

Question 153

Inventory search

Answer 153

One conducted by the police to protect the owner’s property from loss or theft, and the police from unjustified lawsuits arising from such loss and theft while the property is in police custody.

• protects the safety fo the police and the public by locating things in seized property that might pose danger to police or the public
• an inventory seach may be justified, only if the initial seizure of the property being inventoried was permissible.
• If the seizure is justified, an inventory search of a car may be justified by noninvestigative state interests: 1) ensuring protection of the police dept from false claims, 2) protecting inventoried items from theft or vandalism, 3) protecting the police and public from potential danger, and, for abandoned cars, permitting the police for investigate who own the car or whether it has been abandoned

Question 154

Arkansas v. Sullivan

Answer 154

Facts: Police had stopped Sullivan for speeding and having an improperly tinted windshield. Upon reviewing the driver license, the officer recognized him as someone with a reputation for narcotics dealing.

Held: Results of an inventory search could not be suppressed on the basis of an allegedy pretextual arrest. Unless the policy itself was pretextual.

Question 155

DNA Identification

Answer 155

is important for identification in situations in which Ds are exonerated of criminal wrongdoing

Question 156

Maryland v. King

Answer 156

Facts: King menaced a group of people with a shot gun. MD had a law that authorized DNA collection from arrestees accuse of violent crimes or violent criminal attempts in order to solve cold long unsolved cases. King’s DNA was placed in the database and matched DNA that was collected at the site of a rape case.

Held: There was a legitimately government interest of arrestee identification as a constitutionally sufficient basis upon which to uphold MD’s law. A DNA profile is useful to the police because it gives them a form of identification to search the records already in their valid possession.

Question 157

Exclusionary rule

Answer 157

Mapp v. Ohio established that evidenced seized in violation of a person’s 4th amendment rights cannot be used against that person in a criminal trial

• The exclusionary rule has been extended to require suppression of evidenced obtained through violations of 5th and 6th rights as well
• It has been limited to situations in which its application would significantly further its purposes
  
  • “Significantly further” requirement stems from the balancing test that the court employs to determine whether the rule should apply: weighing the constitutional interest at stake against the public’s interest in effective law enforcement

Question 158

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Answer 158

Doctrine under which courts exclude evidnce indirectly discovered by means of constitutional violation.

Question 159

Exceptions to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Answer 159

1. Attenuation
2. inevitable discovery
3. independent source

Question 160

Inevitable discovery exception (Nix v. Williams)

Answer 160

Facts: D kidnapped a girl. D turned himself in and while in the car with official agents, D was asked a question by the agent who stated that since they were going by the are where the body is, they should stop and locate the parents because“the parents of the little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas eve and murdered.” A search team was in pursuit on locating the body and the search was called off when they were 2 miles away because D agreed to show where the body was.

Held: If the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police, there is no rational basis to keep that evidence from the jury in order to ensure the fairness of the trial proceedings.

Question 161

Independent Source Doctrine (Fruit on the unpoisonous tree)

Answer 161

allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation

Question 162

Segura v. United States

Answer 162

Held: Evidence found for the first time during the execution of the warrant was admissible because it was discovered pursuant to an independent source unconnected with the invalid entry

Question 163

Murray v. United States

Answer 163

Facts: The police officers’ illegal entry into a warehouse did not require suppression of evidence (marijuana) later discovered as a result of a search warrant obtained using information even where those officers seeking the warrant did not inform the issuing magistrate of the 1st entry.

Held: Independent source is evidence obtained from a source indpendent of the original illegality.

Question 164

Balancing Approach on the Exclusionary rule

Answer 164

• The court sees that the only benefit of the exclusionary rule is to prevent future violations by law enforcement officers and therefore consider the benefit of the deterrence with the benefit of the remedy
  
  • the exclusionary rule precludes only the use of suppressed evidence int the prosecution’s case-in-chief and does not apply to the use of evidence for impeachment

Question 165

1. the exclusionary rule is constitutionally required
2. the exclusionary rule preserves judicial integrity
3. the exclusionary rule deters police misconduct

Question 166

The 4th amendment constitutionalized four precepts of English Common law:

Answer 166

1. the judicial nature of the “warrant issuing” process
2. the “probable cuase” requirement
3. the “oath or affirmation” requirement
4. the “particularity” requirement

Question 167

Weeks v. United States

Answer 167

Facts: Weeks was suspected of illegal gambling activity, was taken into custody at his place of employment, while a separate group of police officers went to his home and entered it without his permission and without a search warrant.

Held: The search was unlawful.

Question 168

The exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States (evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment will be excluded from federal criminal prosecutions) and Mapp v. Ohio (state criminal prosecutions) is not a personal constitutional right

Question 169

Civil Administrative Processes

Answer 169

Individuals injured by police misconduct would have access to a civil administrative process, which would include the availability of monetary recoveries for victims from police officers and their employers

Question 170

Good Faith Exception for warrants-Prosecution burden.

(United States v. Leon)

Answer 170

* exception has been applied only to searches based on statutes specifically authorizing a warrantless search or on actual or apparent warrants

Facts: The police had not caused the illegality and had acted reasonably in relying on what appeared to be valid warrants. Leon involved a residential search warrant, the execution of which resulted in evidence of drug trafficking. The defendants claimed the evidence was the product of an illegal search, contending that the search warrant was invalid because it was based on stale and insufficient information

Held: balance is different where evidence was obtained in the reasonable good-faith belief that a search or seizure was in accord with the 4th amendment. Trial courts are to determine objective reasonableness on a case by case basis by 1) considering all of the facts and circumstances known to the individual officers involved in the case, and then 2) asking whether a reasonable officer, who possesses these facts and reasonable knowledge of what the law provides, would have relied on the warrant

Question 171

No good faith exception

Answer 171

1. Where the a judge or magistrate wholly abandons his or her role as a neutral and detached actor
2. where the warrant application is completely lacking in indicia of probable cause, and
3. where the warrant is facially deficient in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things seized
4. the situation must not involved a warrant application containing statements known by the officer to be false or misleading, or about which the officer recklessly disregarded the truth

Question 172

Frank v. Delaware

Answer 172

Warrant affidavits are presumed valid and that the burden of invalidating a warrant based on the affiant’s lies or reckless disregard for the truth was on the defense

Question 173

Groh v. Ramirez

Answer 173

A search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of th 4th amend is unconstitutional

Question 174

Herring v. U.S.

Answer 174

Facts: Sheriff’s employee had failed to update the sheriff’s database to reflect the recall of a warrant for Herrings arrest. An officer relied on the database and arrested Herring. In the search incident to arrest, found drugs that were used to prosecute him.

Held: The exclusionary rule inapplicable in a situation in which police had not acted culpably despite the fact that they had arrested Herring on the basis of law enforcement error. The police must act with at least gross negligence, or as a result of the systematice negligence of their depts if excluding evidence will contribute to deterrence significantly enough to justify the social costs of exclusion.

If the exclusionary rule does not apply, then make a section 1983 claim.

• 1983 actions are settled, and when actions are settled there is not precedent therefore there is no way to control police behavior

Question 175

Attenuation of Taint exception

Answer 175

• Brown v. Illinois
  
  • a piece of evidence that can be linked casually to the constitutional violation nevertheless may be admissible if that casual link is so attenuated that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary ruel would not be served
• Factors the court considered:
  
  • the temporarl proximity of the arrest and the confession
  • the presence of intervening circumstances, and
  • the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct

Question 176

Kaupp v. Texas

Answer 176

Facts: Kaupp’s half brother Thrice failed a plygraph test, eventually admitting that he had stabbed his half-sister and placed her body in a drainage ditch. Thrice was mirandized in the interview after the handcuffs were removed. Kaupp admitted having some part in the crime, without confessing to the murder itself or acknowledging causing the fatal wound.

Held: Precedent requires suppression of the evience unless that confession was act of free will sufficient to purge the primary taint.

Question 177

Hudson v. Michigan

Answer 177

Facts: Police obtained and executed a search warrant for drugs and firearms in Hudson’s home in violation of the 4th amendment’s knock and announce rule. When executing the warrant they waited 3-5 secs after announcing their presence, before turning the unlocked front door knob and entering Hudson’s home. Hudson moved to suppress evidence seized arguing unreasonable search and seizure.

Held: attenuation occurs in two circumstances: when the causal connection is remote; and when the specific interests protected by the particular constitutional guarantee violated would not be served by suppression. Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable and the attenuation exception applies.

Question 178

United States v. Ramirez

Answer 178

Destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the 4th amend, even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search are not subject to suppression.

Question 179

Ways to suppress statement

Answer 179

1. 5th Amend Miranda violation
2. Due process of 5th and 14th Amend
3. Exclusiontary Rule with 4th Amend
4. 6th Amend Right to Counsel