Is the warrant valid? Flashcards
What are the requirements for a Warrant under the 4th amendment explicitly?
The warrant must be supported by oath and particularly describe the places to be searched and the people or things to be seized.
What is the purpose of the particularity requirement?
This requirement protects people who are subject to searches by…
1. Limiting police discretion and ensuring the police have reason/knowledge supporting their desire to search a place.
2. Ensuring that there is a record of probable cause, so police cannot construct a probable cause narrative in hindsight based on what they find.
3. Preventing the police from conducting a general, unrestricted search.
Andresen v. Maryland (1976)
Holding: The catch all phrase at the end of this warrant did not make the warrant too general because the phrase could be read in the context of the rest of the very detailed warrant which listed items that related to the fraud in question (the sale of Lot 13T).
Counter argument: The addition of the catch all phrase makes this situation no different than if the police had just applied for one detailed warrant and then went back and asked for the general warrant. Also The police conduct revealed that they were treating this as a general warrant, the seized a lot of things that they ultimately did not use.
Facts: the police suspected that the defendant was engaged in fraud. They got a warrant that particularly detailed all the things they were allowed to search for/seize but there was a catch all phrase at the end of the warrant. The defendant objected that this catch all phrase was not particular and made the warrant too general.
Shadwick v. City of Tampa (SCOTUS, 1972)
The magistrate who approves a warrant does not need to be a lawyer. They need only be neutral and detached. In Shadwick, a municipal clerk without any legal training was allowed to grant a warrant.
(This is connected to the Gates idea that probable cause is not legalistic, and is a common sense determination)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire (SCOTUS 1971)
A warrant issued by the state AG was not valid because the AG, as the state’s head law enforcement officer, could not be a neutral and detached magistrate.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire (SCOTUS 1971)
A warrant issued by the state AG was not valid because the AG, as the state’s head law enforcement officer, could not be a neutral and detached magistrate.
What are examples of situations in which the courts have held that a magistrate is/not neutral and detached?
Not:
1. If they get paid (Connally SCOTUS)
2. Rubber stamping without even reading it (Decker 8th Cir.)
Are:
1. If they are a reserve police officer, their husband is on the force, and they go to observe the execution of the warrant out of curiosity. (McKeever 5th Cir).
2. When issuing a huge number of warrants and this number is based on their expertise (Brown 7th Cir.)
