Fourth Amendment – Scope Flashcards
Katz (1967)
Expectation of Privacy: Stewart (Harlan Concurrence): changed paradigm from privacy related to curtilage (places) to protection of people conducting themselves privately. Established REOP: 4th A protects people not places. D recorded in phone booth by electronic recording device installed in telephone booth by FBI. Harlan concurrence: D must have 1)subjective EOP and 2) society willing ro recognize as reasonable.
Knotts (1983)
Expectation of Privacy: Police use chemical can with beeper located in false compartment. Police conduct surveillance based on tracking can in car-simply augmented police sensory abilities. Police stopped using beeper once can on private property.
Karo (1984)
Expectation of Privacy: DEA agents use beeper hidden in can except can is inside house. Beeper provides critical info concerning interior of house. Can�t monitor someone inside house without warrant.
White (1971)
Expectation of Privacy: Assumption of Risk: Doubts on expectation of privacy due to Katz put to rest; no expectation of privacy when conversing with another person; changed “reasonable expectation of privacy” to “possible risk of disclosure”
An informer was wired to transmit to narcotics agents conversations with D occurring in restaurant, in D’s home, and in the informant’s car.
Oliver (1984)
Refining the Expectations: Open Fields Doctrine: Searches of open fields /public spaces not covered under 4th
2 KY state police walk around a gate with “no trespassing” sign; on a tip of pot growing; walk past barn and camper along footpath; someone said �no hunting�; they shouted back they were police and found camper vacant; KY police found marijuana mile away
Miller (1976)
Refining the Expectations: Assumption of risk found in White extended to bank records with Bank as a 3rd party.
Police searched van with distillation equip; 3 wks later, warehouse fire allowed detectives to discover a distillery and untaxed whiskey; 2 wks after, Treasury officials subpoenaed banks to produce account info on D without D’s knowledge
Congress passed Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1968 (direct response to Miller)
Riley (1989)
Refining the Expectations: traveling in FAA approved public airway at specific altitude (400ft is above lower limit for helicopters)
viewed with naked eye (no tech enhancements)
frequency/rarity of flights: helicopter flights at 400ft not necessarily “rare”
interference with curtilage; no indications of interference or no undue noise/wind/dust/threat of injury
Dunn (1987)
Refining the Expectations: 4 factors to determine curtilage: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.
-D brought drug chemicals to barn on property; barn wasn’t curtilage
Place (1983)
Refining the Expectations: A governmental interest supporting an initial seizure of a person as effective crime prevention and detection underlies the recognition that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. Three law enforcement interests that justify limited detention of the occupants of the premises during execution of a valid search warrant are: preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found, minimizing the risk of harm both to officers and occupants, and orderly completion of the search.
Kyllo (2001)
Neverending REOP Story: Any info that would traditionally require entrance to the house to obtain has heightened awareness of Fourth Amendment and requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant.
Thermal imager pointed to house using heat lamps to grow marijuana. Heat signature of internal area of home (garage) that was not in normal public use.
Jones (2012)
Neverending REOP Story: GPS tracking device secretly installed in car constitutes a government tresspass to a warrantless search.
The tracking device was installed outside the window specified on warrant. State argued the device installation was not a search but SCOTUS disagreed.
Jardines (2013)
Neverending REOP Story: Info of curtilage that traditionally requires cops to be physically present in the curtilage requires a warrant.
Driving factors to allow a a warrantless search: place and purpose (cops can physically approach front door but only purpose understood is to knock and not search).
K-9 brought to door alerted, and so cops got warrant to enter and the marijuana grow operation was found
Jacobsen (1984)
Private Searches, Evaporating Privacy, & Plain View: FedEx employees damage box with coke; not an infringement to reexamine the contents that were in plain view exposed and out of the box. They justify it by stating that they merely avoided a risk of a flaw in the FedEx employees’ recollection rather than further infringing in the respondents privacy.
Lawful seizure at inception can nevertheless violate Fourth Amendment because manner of execution unreasonably infringes on the possessory interests protected by the Fourth Amendment (destroyed a quantity of powder by converting a temporary deprivation into a permanent one with the chemical test. Here, was reasonable because the suspicious nature made it virtually certain that it was contraband. And the respondents didn’t notice the trace amount gone. (balance test)
