Intro - Criminal Procedure Flashcards
What is the 4th amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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”
What is a search?
law enforcement examining a persons items or belongings and the search can not violate the 4th admendment
Katz v United States Search
Facts
Charles Katz was convicted for transmitting wagering information via telephone across state lines, in violation of federal law. The evidence used to convict Katz was obtained by FBI agents who, without a warrant, attached an electronic listening and recording device to the exterior of a public phone booth Katz used to make his calls.
The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, noting that the Fourth Amendment was not violated as there was no physical entry into the booth.
Issue
The case presents two primary issues: whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area such that evidence obtained by electronic surveillance without physical penetration violates the right to privacy and whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary to constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that Katz’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the warrantless electronic surveillance. The Court established that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that what a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
Reasoning
The Court, in its reasoning, rejected the government’s argument that surveillance techniques that do not involve physical penetration are not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The decision emphasized that the Fourth Amendment must adapt to the reality that surveillance can now be achieved without physical intrusion. The Court underscored that Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth and that the government’s eavesdropping constituted a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court clarified that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ privacy rights against government intrusion, not just in physical spaces but also in the communications they believe are private. The ruling established a new precedent that electronic surveillance of private conversations is a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant based on probable cause
Reasonable privacy test Katz
It is used to determine if a person’s privacy has been violated, as it relates to the 4th amendment. That protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
*** Justice Harlan concurring opinion in Katz introduced a two part test.
1. Subjective expectation The individual must have a personal expectation of privacy.
- Objective Expectation: This expectation must be one that society recognizes as reasonable.
****For example, people generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, but not in public spaces like parks or streets1.
Open Fields Doctrine
Beyond the curtilage of the home is open fields.
Flordia v Riley open fields doctrine
Facts
The case involves surveillance by the police of Joe Riley’s greenhouse located in his residential backyard. Acting on an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on Riley’s property, a police officer conducted surveillance by circling twice over the property in a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet. From this vantage point, the officer was able to see through the openings in the roof and the sides of the greenhouse, which were obscured from ground-level view by the property’s fencing, mobile home, and vegetation. Based on what he observed with his naked eye, the officer believed he saw marijuana plants. A search warrant was subsequently obtained, and the search confirmed the presence of marijuana in the greenhouse. Riley was charged under Florida law. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, but the decision was reversed by the Florida Court of Appeals and later quashed by the Florida Supreme Court, reinstating the trial court’s suppression order.
Issue
Does surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse constitute a “search” for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment?
Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the helicopter surveillance of Riley’s greenhouse did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, did not require a warrant. The Court reversed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
Reasoning
Justice White, writing for the majority, applied the reasoning from the Court’s decision in California v. Ciraolo, which involved aerial surveillance from a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet. The Court held that Riley could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against observation from public navigable airspace, noting that helicopters, like fixed-wing aircraft, are commonly used in public and commercial flights. The Court reasoned that any member of the public or police could legally fly over Riley’s property at 400 feet altitude without violating the law, and the observation made by the officer did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. The Court emphasized that the observation did not involve any physical invasion, did not reveal any intimate details of the home, nor did it cause undue noise, wind, dust, or threat of injury. The ruling was grounded in the principle that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in their own home or office, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
What is a curtilage?
The immediate proximity to the home . The 4th amendment covers both the home and the immediately proximity
WHat are Dunn Factors?
Supreme Court has afforded apartments and hotel rooms status as homes under the 4th amendment. Unfortunately, courts have also generally ended this protection at the inside of the door of an individual apartment or motel room based on the Dunn FActors:
- the PROXIMITY of the area to the home
- whether the area was ENCLOSURE surrounding the home
- the nature of the use to which the area was put
and
the steps taken to protect the area from observation by passers by
Third party doctrine
an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information or items voluntarily conveyed to a third party.
Smith v Maryland 3rd party
Facts
In the case of Smith v. Maryland, the petitioner, Michael Lee Smith, was implicated in a robbery case. Following the robbery, the victim began receiving threatening and obscene phone calls from an individual claiming to be the robber. The police, suspecting Smith due to his use of a vehicle matching the victim’s description and after spotting him near the victim’s neighborhood, requested the telephone company to install a pen register at its central offices to record numbers dialed from Smith’s home without obtaining a warrant. The pen register recorded a call from Smith’s home to the victim, contributing to his arrest and subsequent conviction for robbery. Smith challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained from the pen register, arguing that the police’s failure to secure a warrant prior to the device’s installation violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the installation and use of a pen register by the police, without obtaining a warrant, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, which had found no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed on a telephone system, and thus, no “search” within the Fourth Amendment’s scope had occurred.
Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning, delivered by Justice Blackmun, was grounded in the Katz v. United States framework, which established that Fourth Amendment protections depend on whether the individual has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that was infringed by government action. The Court concluded that individuals do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed on their telephones because this information is voluntarily turned over to telephone companies. Since telephone users are aware that dialing information must be conveyed to the telephone company for the completion of calls, and because such information is routinely used by telephone companies for legitimate business purposes (including billing and detecting fraud), the Court reasoned that users could not reasonably expect these numbers to remain private. Furthermore, the Court noted that telephone users assume the risk that the telephone company might disclose this information to third parties, including law enforcement. Therefore, the use of a pen register, which records only numbers dialed without capturing the contents of communications, did not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, negating the requirement for a warrant
** Dissenting judges indicated that warrants ar needed to secure information the phone company
California v Greenwood 3rd party
Facts
In early 1984, the Laguna Beach Police Department, led by Investigator Jenny Stracner, began surveillance on Billy Greenwood, suspecting him of narcotics trafficking. Based on tips and observations of suspicious activities at Greenwood’s residence, Stracner arranged for the collection and examination of Greenwood’s garbage, left outside his home for collection. The garbage revealed evidence of narcotics use, leading to the issuance of a search warrant for Greenwood’s home, where police discovered drugs, resulting in Greenwood’s arrest. Following a second instance of garbage examination and subsequent home search, more evidence was found, and Greenwood was arrested again. The Superior Court dismissed the charges against Greenwood, citing a violation of the Fourth Amendment and California Constitution due to the warrantless trash searches. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
The central legal question was whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Reasoning
Justice White, delivering the opinion of the Court, articulated that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures hinges on whether the individual has a “subjective expectation of privacy” that society is prepared to recognize as “objectively reasonable.” In this case, the Court determined that placing trash on the curb for public collection is an act that relinquishes any reasonable expectation of privacy due to its accessibility to the public. The Court observed that garbage left outside is commonly accessible to animals, scavengers, and other individuals, indicating that society does not recognize an expectation of privacy for disposed waste in such a context. Additionally, the Court noted that by discarding items as trash, individuals are intentionally conveying it to a third party (the trash collector), further diminishing any reasonable expectation of privacy. This decision underscored the principle that protections under the Fourth Amendment are not applicable when individuals expose their activities to the public, paralleling previous rulings concerning exposed activities and items to third parties. The Court also rejected the argument that the California Constitution’s privacy protections should dictate the expectations under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing a uniform standard for reasonable expectations of privacy based on societal norms rather than varying state laws.
United States V White 3rd party
Facts
In 1966, James A. White was convicted under two consolidated indictments for various illegal narcotics transactions, violating 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 174, and sentenced to 25-year concurrent sentences as a second offender.
The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of government agents who relayed conversations between White and a government informant, Harvey Jackson.
These conversations were overheard through a radio transmitter carried and concealed on Jackson.
The surveillance included conversations within Jackson’s home, overheard directly by an agent hidden in a closet and by another outside using radio equipment, and others in various locations captured solely by radio equipment.
The informant, Jackson, was not present at the trial, and the trial court dismissed objections to the agents’ testimonies based on electronic surveillance.
Issue
The central legal issue was whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of evidence from government agents who overheard conversations between the defendant and a government informant through electronic surveillance, especially when the informant consents to carrying a concealed radio transmitter but is not available at trial.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not bar evidence obtained through an informant who willingly carries a radio transmitter to record and transmit conversations with the defendant to government agents. The Court reasoned that such surveillance does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was multifaceted. Firstly, it clarified that prior to Katz v. United States, electronic eavesdropping did not violate the Fourth Amendment unless it involved physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.
Katz expanded the protection against unauthorized electronic surveillance, but the Court distinguished Katz by emphasizing that it did not address situations where an informant consents to monitoring.
The Court found support in Hoffa v. United States, affirming that a defendant’s misplaced belief in the confidentiality of his communications with an informant does not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the notion that electronic surveillance through an informant fundamentally alters the Fourth Amendment analysis.
Lastly, the Court addressed the applicability of Katz, emphasizing that its decision in Katz should not retroactively affect cases involving surveillance conducted before Katz was decided.
Role of technology Kyllo v United states
Facts
In 1991, Agent William Elliott of the United States Department of the Interior suspected that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Danny Kyllo, located in Florence, Oregon. To confirm this suspicion, Elliott and another agent used a thermal-imaging device from a public street to detect heat emanations from Kyllo’s home. The device, which does not require physical entry into a property, showed that parts of Kyllo’s home were emitting more heat than neighboring homes. Based on this evidence, along with tips from informants and utility bills, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a warrant for a search of Kyllo’s home, where agents found a substantial marijuana growing operation. Kyllo was indicted for manufacturing marijuana. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his home on the grounds that the thermal imaging constituted an illegal search, but the motion was denied, and he entered a conditional guilty plea.
Issue
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect heat emanations from a home constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the denial of Kyllo’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the thermal imaging.
Reasoning
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that at the heart of the Fourth Amendment is the right of a person to retreat into their home and be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. The Court emphasized that the advancement of technology should not erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The majority reasoned that the use of technology to obtain information from the interior of a home that could not have been obtained without physical intrusion constitutes a search. The Court specifically noted that thermal imaging, even though it does not reveal intimate details, still provides information about the home’s interior that would not be discernible without the technology. This constitutes a search because it is an intrusion into the privacy that the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect. The Court also highlighted that the rule must take into account more sophisticated systems than the relatively crude technology used in this case. Therefore, any technological observation of the home’s interior that could not otherwise be obtained without physical intrusion is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The Court concluded that the thermal imaging in this case was an unlawful search and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the evidence obtained could be admitted on any other basis.
Trespass Test - Reasonable expectation of privacy
United States v Jones
Facts
In 2004, Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia, became the target of an investigation for suspected narcotics trafficking by a joint FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. The investigation employed various techniques including visual surveillance, a camera at the club, and monitoring Jones’s phone. In 2005, the Government obtained a warrant to install a GPS tracking device on Jones’s wife’s Jeep, which Jones used. However, the GPS was installed in Maryland, not the District of Columbia as authorized, and a day later than permitted by the warrant. Over 28 days, the device tracked the vehicle’s movements, generating extensive data without Jones’s knowledge. The Government conceded it did not comply with the warrant’s conditions but argued a warrant was not required. Evidence from the GPS led to Jones’s indictment on drug trafficking charges. After a motion to suppress the GPS data was partially granted, Jones was eventually convicted. The conviction was reversed by the D.C. Circuit, which found the warrantless GPS tracking violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issue
The primary legal issue was whether the installation and use of a GPS tracking device on an individual’s vehicle, without a valid warrant and beyond the scope of the initially granted warrant, to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitutes a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a vehicle and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning
Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the Court, reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protects against unauthorized physical intrusions by the Government into personal property for the purpose of obtaining information. This reasoning is rooted in the understanding of the Fourth Amendment’s protection of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” against unreasonable searches and seizures, which historically included protection against physical trespasses. The Court emphasized that the vehicle, as personal property, was protected under the Fourth Amendment and that the Government’s physical intrusion—attaching the GPS device without a valid warrant—constituted a search. This interpretation aligns with historical protections against government trespass onto private property and seeks to preserve the degree of privacy that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining privacy protections even as technological advancements create new methods of surveillance, ensuring that the Fourth Amendment adapts to modern challenges while retaining its foundational principles.
