Is there probable cause? Flashcards
Johnson v. United States (1948)
Holding: It was unconstitutional to search the defendant’s hotel room without a warrant. The purpose of warrants are to make search that zealous, and competitive officers do not lie about having probable cause, and instead that probable cause determinations are made by neutral magistrates.
*Facts: A detective got a confidential tip that people were smoking opium in a hotel room. The detective and other officers go to the hotel, smell burning opium and followed it to the door of the defendant’s room, where they arrested her and searched the room. *
Spinelli v. U.S. (1969)
OVERRULED
Holding: There was not enough here for the police to establish probable cause because…
1. The police had no information to prove the informant was reliable,
2. The tip did not contain information regarding how the informant knew the information he was providing and the information was not sufficiently detailed to support an inference of knowledge; and
3. an additional investigatory report by the FBI did not remedy these deficiencies.
Dissent: hearing for a warrant should not be like a trial, a commonsense evaluation of the evidence provided should be enough to establish probable cause.
Facts: The police suspected defendant of traveling with intent to gamble and applied for a warrant with…
1) a report from an anonymous informant and
2) an FBI report corroborating some of the information provided by the informant.
What is hearsay?
This is information provided to the police, that the police themselves did not see or hear.
Aguilar-Spinelli Test
Gates overruled this test but, given that the Gates test is a more permissive one, Courts still rely on this test to determine probable cause.
This test holds that, to establish probable cause based on information from an informant, the police must prove:
1. The reliability of the informant
2. The reliability of the information provided
If there is a defect in either of these prongs, the police can remedy this by corroborating the evidence/suspicious facts.
What informants are automatically considered reliable when it comes to warrants/probable cause hearings?
1) Police officers.
2) Law abiding citizens (who identify themselves, presumptively motivated by their concern for their community)
3) Criminals and ex-criminals with a track record of providing reliable information or who give a statement that goes against their own interest.
Unreliable: paid informants, anonymous informants (could be reporting false information for nefarious purposes).
What makes information reliable?
If the information is direct personal knowledge (i.e. something that a person heard or saw).
This includes if the statement contains such a wealth of detail that personal knowledge can be inferred (i.e. they don’t say they heard/saw something but the detailed nature of the information implies this).
Under Aguilar-Spinelli, What type of facts must the police corroborate to hold an informant’s tip reliable?
Suspicious facts. I.e. not just what the person is wearing or where they will be. But remember, this case has been overturned.
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Holding: Overrules Spinelli. Even though this information did not meet the Aguilar-Spinelli test, there was still probable cause. Probable cause is a totality of the circumstances test that focuses on probability. Police should not have to worry about proving prima facie elements in drafting an affidavit.
Rule: To establish probable cause, the police need to show that there is a fair probability that a search would uncover evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This is a common sense test.
*Facts: The police department received an anonymous handwritten letter that accused the Gates of running a drug dealing operation. The letter contained details about where the Gates lived, their frequent travels to Florida, and where the drugs were stored/how much they were worth. The police confirmed the address, the alleged travel schedule and used this along with the letter to get a warrant. The searched the Gates’ car and home and found drugs and weapons. *
Gates Test
Probable cause is a common sense, totality of the circumstances test that only requires “fair probability”
To establish probable cause for a search there but be fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a certain place.
In the context of an arrest it mean there is a fair probability that the person has committed a crime.
Draper v. United States (1959)
Holding: there was probable cause to stop and search Draper without a warrant even though the police did not confirm suspicious facts because the informant was reliable and accurately described the defendant.
*Facts: an informant, who had previously provided reliable information, told the police that the defendant would be travelling with drugs. He knew particular, intimate details about what the defendant would be wearing, what luggage he would have, where he would be, his mannerisms etc. However, the informant did not say how he knew that the defendant would be travelling with drugs. The police were able to corroborate other information provided by the informant. *
United States v. Prandy-Binett (D.C. Cir 1993)
Holding: when a block fell and an officer thought he recognized it as a block of drugs, there was probable cause to arrest the defendant because, under the totality of the circumstances, there was fair probability to belief he was engaged in criminal activity (Gates test).
*Facts: Two police officers at Union Station were meeting a train coming in from NY—a known source city for drugs. The police noticed the defendant walking quickly, and saw that he started walking faster upon seeing the police. When they stopped him, he claimed to be from D.C. but had a Maryland license and he claimed he had come in from N.J. but his ticket was from N.Y. The police asked to search the defendant’s bag and a rectangular block wrapped in duct tape fell out. The police suspected this was drugs because of the mistaken belief many people have that narc dogs cannot sniff through duct tape. They arrested the defendant. *
United States v. Valez (2d Cir. 1986)
Holding: the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant because he fit the description provided. This description of the Defendant was not overly broad/general. And the facial hair disparity does not matter because facial hair can be used as a disguise.
Rule: The police have probable cause to arrest a person even though their appearance does not match the description of a suspect exactly—particularly when the discrepancy could be a result of a disguise. Also descriptions that could fit multiple people are not too broad to establish reasonable suspicion.
*Facts: Officers on patrol saw and confirmed a drug deal on the street. The suspect walked away. The officer described the suspect to his colleague as a Hispanic male in a dark jacket, white shirt, with a comb in his pocket. The officer, who had not seen the suspect, went looking for him and arrested the Defendant. Defendant was searched incident to arrest, and the police found cocaine on him. However, when Defendant was brought to the station, the officer who had ordered his arrest confirmed that Defendant was not the suspect. Defendant had facial hair and the suspect did not. *
Maryland v. Pringle (SCOTUS 2003)
Holding: the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant even though the drugs were in the back seat and defendant was in the front passenger seat. It was reasonable to conclude that all the people in a car are engaged in a common enterprise/had knowledge of and dominion over the drugs in the backseat.
*Facts: Defendant was a front passenger in a car with companions. The police pulled the car over for speeding. The police notice rolls of money in the glove compartment. Police asked to search the car. Over $700 was found in the glove compartment. Cocaine was found in the backseat armrest. None of the passengers confessed to owning the drugs, so the police arrested all of them. Defendant ultimately admitted that the drugs were his. *
Mere Evidence Rule
This rule states that, when conducting a search/seizure, the police can search for/seize any evidence of a crime. This broadened the prior rule which only allowed police to seize the “fruits and instrumentalities” of a crime (aka weapons, stolen property, but not a bloody rag).
Warden v. Hayden (1967)
Holding: Police can search/seize any evidence of a crime. Police are not limited to just seizing fruits/instrumentalities of crime when they are conducting a search. There is no distinction between fruits/instrumentalities of crime and mere evidence is arbitrary and not in the 4th amendment.
*Facts: the police suspected the Defendant of a crime. They searched his house and seized his clothing. *
