Merit Sticker Quiz: Automobile Exception and SILA Flashcards
The police had, over time, accumulated reliable information that a man operated a large cocaine-distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home.
One day, the police received reliable information that a large brown suitcase with leather straps containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to the man’s home and that it would be moved to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search for and seize the brown suitcase and the cocaine, and they went to the man’s house.
The police knocked on the man’s door and called out, “Police. Open up. We have a search warrant.” After a few seconds with no response, the police forced the door open and entered. Hearing noises in the basement, the police ran down there and found the man with a large brown suitcase with leather straps. They seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on the man. A search of his person revealed a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber pistol. The man cursed the police and said, “You never would have caught me with the stuff if it hadn’t been for that lousy snitch!”
The police then fanned out through the house, looking in every room and closet. They found no one else, but one officer found an Uzi automatic weapon in a box on a closet shelf in the man’s bedroom.
In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, the man is charged with unlawful possession of weapons. The man moves pretrial to suppress the use as evidence of the weapons seized by the police and of the statement he made.
As to the switchblade knife and the .45-caliber pistol, how is the court likely to rule?
1.Deny the motion, because the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest.
2.Deny the motion, because the police had reasonable grounds to believe that there were weapons in the house.
3.Grant the motion, because the search and seizure were the result of illegal police conduct in executing the search warrant.
4.Grant the motion, because the police did not inform the man that he was under arrest and did not read him his Miranda rights.
1.Deny the motion, because the search and seizure were incident to a lawful arrest.
The Fourth Amendment generally requires that officers obtain a warrant before conducting a search. However, a warrant is not required to conduct a search incident to a lawful arrest because an immediate search is necessary for officer safety and to prevent the arrestee from destroying nearby evidence. This exception allows police to conduct a warrantless search of:
the person who has been lawfully arrested and
the areas within that person’s immediate reach.
Here, the police obtained a warrant to search for and seize the brown suitcase and cocaine believed to be in the man’s home. The police then entered his home, found him with the suitcase, and lawfully placed him in handcuffs. They conducted a warrantless search of the man’s person incident to that arrest and found a switchblade knife and .45-caliber pistol. As a result, the man’s motion to suppress that evidence should be denied.
Since the police had reasonable grounds (probable cause) to believe that there were weapons in the house, they could have obtained a warrant to search the home—but not persons in the home—for those weapons. But probable cause alone does not authorize a warrantless search.
Police need not inform suspects that they are under arrest, and Miranda warnings are only required if police intend to interrogate suspects while they are in custody. Since the man was not interrogated, Miranda warnings were not required. And even if they were, the court would suppress the man’s self-incriminating statement—not the knife and pistol.
When executing a warrant, police must announce their presence and give the occupant a reasonable opportunity to answer before forcibly entering the home (knock and announce rule). However, an unannounced or expedited entry is permitted when there is a credible threat of violence or destruction of evidence (eg, the man’s violent reputation and weapons arsenal).
Police do not need a warrant to conduct a search incident to a lawful arrest. However, that search is limited to (1) the person arrested and (2) the areas within his/her immediate reach.
Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men (whom she described) in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to schoolchildren near the city’s largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer. The only passenger was a young woman.
The police stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver’s jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it and found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment.
After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the driver was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics.
If the driver moves to suppress the use as evidence of the marijuana and cocaine found in the search of the truck, how should the court rule on his motion?
1.Deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine.
2.Grant the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine.
3.Deny the motion as to the marijuana but grant it as to the cocaine.
4.Grant the motion as to the marijuana but deny it as to the cocaine.
1.Deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine.
A court should suppress evidence obtained during an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search. An unreasonable search occurs when the government acts without a warrant based on probable cause and no exception to the warrant requirement applies. The automobile exception justifies a warrantless police search of a person’s vehicle when:
police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime and
the search is limited to areas where the evidence might be located.
During an automobile search, police can search any containers inside the vehicle—including locked containers—that might contain the illegal evidence. They can also seize any other illegal items discovered during this search.
Here, the police had probable cause to stop and search a truck and driver that matched the description given by the undercover officer. This allowed the police to then conduct a warrantless search of areas in the truck where the marijuana might be located—including the locked toolbox and the glove compartment. Since the police discovered marijuana and cocaine during that lawful search, they did not need a warrant to seize the illegal items. Therefore, the driver’s motion to suppress should be denied.
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement allows police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime. Officers can search any area within the vehicle where the evidence might be located, including locked containers.
Police received information from an undercover police officer that she had just seen two men (whom she described) in a red pickup truck selling marijuana to schoolchildren near the city’s largest high school. A few minutes later, two police officers saw a pickup truck fitting the description a half block from the high school. The driver of the truck matched the description of one of the men described by the undercover officer.
The only passenger was a young woman who was in the back of the truck. The police saw her get out and stand at a nearby bus stop. They stopped the truck and searched the driver. In the pocket of the driver’s jacket, the police found a small bottle of pills that they recognized as narcotics. They then broke open a locked toolbox attached to the flatbed of the truck and found a small sealed envelope inside. They opened it and found marijuana. They also found a quantity of cocaine in the glove compartment.
After completing their search of the driver and the truck, the police went over to the young woman and searched her purse. In her purse, they found a small quantity of heroin. Both the driver and the young woman were arrested and charged with unlawful possession of narcotics.
If the young woman moves to suppress the use of the heroin as evidence, how should the court rule on her motion?
1.Deny the motion, because she was planning to leave the scene by bus and so exigent circumstances existed.
2.Deny the motion, because she had been a passenger in the truck and the police had probable cause to search the truck.
3.Grant the motion, because the police should have seized her purse and then obtained a warrant to search it.
4.Grant the motion, because she did not fit the description given by the undercover officer and her mere presence does not justify the search.
4.Grant the motion, because she did not fit the description given by the undercover officer and her mere presence does not justify the search.
The exclusionary rule prevents the introduction of evidence found during an illegal Fourth Amendment search—ie, a search conducted without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. Under the search incident to lawful arrest exception, police can conduct a warrantless search that is:
limited to a person’s body and areas in his/her immediate reach and
conducted immediately before or after a valid arrest.
An arrest is valid when it is based on probable cause, a reasonable belief (greater than mere suspicion) that the person arrested committed a crime. But a person’s mere presence with a criminal—or in a vehicle believed to contain evidence of a crime—is insufficient to create such a belief.
Here, the police saw the young woman exit a truck that matched the officer’s description. They approached the woman, searched her purse without a warrant, and arrested her. But her arrest was not supported by probable cause (ie, it was invalid) since:
she did not fit the description of the suspected drug dealers and
her mere presence in the truck was insufficient grounds to believe that she had committed a crime.
And since the arrest was invalid, the warrantless search of the woman’s purse conducted immediately before that arrest was also invalid. Therefore, the heroin found during that search should be suppressed.
Under the exigent circumstance exception, police can conduct a warrantless search if they reasonably believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent a suspect’s escape or the destruction of evidence. Here, the woman’s plan to leave the scene by bus did not create an exigent circumstance because police had no reason to believe that she was a suspect in, or had evidence of, a crime (since the undercover officer described two men).
Police can conduct a warrantless search of a person’s body or areas in his/her immediate reach if the search is conducted immediately before or after a lawful arrest. But a passenger’s mere presence with a criminal or in a suspicious vehicle is not enough to establish probable cause.
A police officer stopped a man for a traffic offense, searched the man’s car, and found cocaine underneath the passenger’s seat. The man was arrested and subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance. The man filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, alleging that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and probable cause to search his car. The court held a hearing on the man’s motion to suppress and, after hearing the evidence, found that the officer had both reasonable suspicion to stop the man and probable cause to search his car. The man’s motion was accordingly denied. The man subsequently pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the court’s denial of his motion and timely did so.
Which standard(s) of review should the court of appeals apply to the trial court’s findings of historical fact and conclusions of law?
(Don’t worry if you don’t get this one right, we don’t spend time on appellate standards of review in class but it is good to know - and you might have learned this in legal comm2?).
1.De novo as to both findings of historical fact and conclusions of law.
2.Abuse of discretion as to findings of historical fact and de novo as to conclusions of law.
3.Clear error as to findings of historical fact and de novo as to conclusions of law.
4.Abuse of discretion as to findings of historical fact and clear error as to conclusions of law.
3.Clear error as to findings of historical fact and de novo as to conclusions of law.
Appellate standards of review
Standard
Level of review
Applicability
De novo
No deference to trial judge’s legal determination
Reverse if reasonably believe trial judge misinterpreted law
Pure legal issues, eg:
conclusions of law
content of jury instructions
Clear error
Highly deferential to trial judge’s factual findings
Reverse if no reasonable judge would have made this finding
Factual issues in bench trials, eg:
credibility of witnesses
factual determinations
Substantial evidence
Highly deferential to jury’s factual findings
Reverse if no reasonable jury would have made this finding
Factual issues in jury trials, eg:
credibility of witnesses
jury’s verdict
Abuse of discretion
Highly deferential to trial judge’s discretionary decisions
Reverse only if decision was unreasonable/arbitrary
Discretionary rulings by judge, eg:
grant/denial of new trial
admissibility of evidence
A trial court rules on a motion to suppress by:
determining which historical facts elicited by the parties to accept as true (eg, by judging the credibility of the parties’ witnesses at a hearing) and
applying the relevant statutory or constitutional standard to those facts to reach a legal conclusion (eg, concluding that an officer had reasonable suspicion or probable cause).
An appellate court should accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous—ie, if no reasonable judge would have made the findings. That is because the trial court is in the best position to accurately make factual determinations.
However, the appellate court should review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo (ie, anew). This means that the trial court’s legal conclusions are given no deference and are independently reviewed by the appellate court. This helps prevent unacceptably varied results by trial courts on cases featuring similar facts and allows appellate courts to maintain control of legal rules and unify precedent.
When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court should accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous. However, the appellate court should review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo.
A valid warrant was issued for a woman’s arrest. The police learned that a person with the woman’s name and physical description lived at a particular address. When police officers went to that address, the house appeared to be unoccupied: the windows and doors were boarded up with plywood, and the lawn had not been mowed for a long time. A neighbor confirmed that the house belonged to the woman but said that the woman had not been there for several months.
The officers knocked repeatedly on the front door and shouted, “Police! Open up!” Receiving no response, they tore the plywood off the door, smashed through the door with a sledgehammer, and entered the house. They found no one inside, but they did find an illegal sawed-off shotgun. Upon her return to the house a few weeks later, the woman was charged with unlawful possession of the shotgun.
The woman has moved to suppress the use of the shotgun as evidence at her trial.
Should the court grant the motion?
1.No, because the officers acted in good faith under the authority of a valid warrant.
2.No, because the officers did not violate any legitimate expectation of privacy in the house since the woman had abandoned it.
3.Yes, because the officers had no reason to believe that the woman was in the house.
4.Yes, because the officers entered the house by means of excessive force.
3.Yes, because the officers had no reason to believe that the woman was in the house.
An arrest warrant authorizes officers to take a suspect into custody for criminal prosecution and is generally required to arrest a suspect in his/her home. However, an arrest warrant does not give officers unrestricted authority to intrude upon a suspect’s privacy interests in his/her home. Therefore, officers may only forcibly enter a suspect’s residence to execute an arrest warrant if they:
knock and announce their presence
allow a reasonable opportunity for someone to answer and
have reason to believe that the suspect is inside.
Here, the officers went to the woman’s home after they obtained a valid warrant for her arrest. They repeatedly knocked and announced their presence before smashing through the door (forcible entry). But since the home appeared vacant and a neighbor confirmed that the woman had not been there for several months, the officers had no reason to believe that she was inside. Therefore, their forcible entry was unlawful, and the shotgun discovered during that entry should be suppressed.
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule allows illegally seized evidence to be admitted if officers reasonably believed that they were acting lawfully. But this exception does not apply here since the valid warrant did not give the officers reason to believe that they could lawfully use force to enter the woman’s apparently vacant home.
Since a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in abandoned property, police may freely enter and search it. But police cannot reasonably assume that a poorly kept home is abandoned. Therefore, the boarded doors and windows and unmaintained lawn did not support an assumption that the woman’s house was abandoned.
Although the officers entered the house by means of excessive force (since they had no reason to believe that the woman was inside), this does not support the suppression of evidence. Instead, the officers’ excessive force may expose them to civil liability for damage caused to the house or other property.
An arrest warrant allows officers to arrest a suspect in his/her home. But officers can only forcibly enter that home to make the arrest if they (1) knock and announce their presence, (2) allow a reasonable opportunity for someone to answer, and (3) have reason to believe that the suspect is inside.
A police officer had a hunch, not amounting to probable cause or reasonable suspicion, that a man was a drug dealer. One day while the officer was on highway patrol, her radar gun clocked the man’s car at 68 mph in an area where the maximum posted speed limit was 65 mph. The officer’s usual practice was not to stop a car unless it was going at least 5 mph over the posted limit, but contrary to her usual practice, she decided to stop the man’s car in the hope that she might discover evidence of drug dealing. After she stopped the car and announced that she would be writing a speeding ticket, the officer ordered the man and his passenger to step out of the car. When the passenger stepped out, the officer saw that the passenger had been sitting on a clear bag of what the officer immediately recognized as marijuana. The officer arrested both the man and the passenger for possession of marijuana.
At their joint trial, the man and the passenger claim that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the officer improperly (1) stopped the car for speeding as a pretext for investigating a hunch rather than for the stated purpose of issuing a traffic ticket and (2) ordered the passenger to step out of the car even though there was no reason to believe that the passenger was a criminal or dangerous.
Are the man and the passenger correct?
1.No as to the stop of the car, but yes as to the officer’s order that the passenger step out of the car.
2.Yes as to the stop of the car, but no as to the officer’s order that the passenger step out of the car.
3.No, as to both the stop of the car and the officer’s order that the passenger step out of the car.
4.Yes, as to both the stop of the car and the officer’s order that the passenger step out of the car.
3.No, as to both the stop of the car and the officer’s order that the passenger step out of the car.
A vehicle stop violates a driver’s and a passenger’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures if the stop is conducted without a warrant or an objectively justifiable basis like:
reasonable suspicion – specific and articulable facts to support a belief that a vehicle occupant is, or will be, involved in criminal activity or
probable cause – a reasonable belief that an occupant has violated the law (including a traffic law).
A seizure is reasonable—even if it is used as a pretext or excuse to investigate a hunch—if there is an objectively justifiable basis for the vehicle stop. Therefore, the officer’s subjective motivation for the stop is irrelevant. The driver and passenger(s) can then be ordered out of the vehicle while the officer addresses the matter justifying the stop since this additional intrusion is minimal and helps ensure officer safety. And evidence discovered during this process can create probable cause for an arrest.
Here, the officer stopped the car because she hoped to find evidence of drug dealing (subjective motivation). But she had probable cause to believe that the man had violated a traffic law since she clocked him driving 68 mph in a 65-mph zone (objectively justifiable basis). Therefore, the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. As a result, the officer properly ordered the man and the passenger out of the car while she wrote the speeding ticket. And since no Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the officer lawfully discovered the marijuana and validly arrested the man and the passenger.
A warrantless vehicle stop is a reasonable Fourth Amendment seizure if the officer has an objectively justifiable basis for the stop—ie, reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant. And during a legal stop, the officer can order the driver and passenger(s) to exit the vehicle.
Police officers received a tip that illegal drugs were being sold at a certain ground-floor apartment. They decided to stake out the apartment. The stakeout revealed that a significant number of people visited the apartment for short periods of time and then left. A man exited the apartment and started to walk briskly away. The officers grabbed the man and, when he struggled, wrestled him to the ground. They searched him and found a bag of heroin in one of his pockets. After discovering the heroin on the man, the officers decided to enter the apartment. They knocked on the door, which was opened by the woman who lived there. The officers asked if they could come inside, and the woman gave them permission to do so. Once inside, the officers observed several bags of heroin on the living room table.
The woman has been charged with possession of the heroin found on the living room table. She has filed a pretrial motion to suppress the heroin on the ground that it was obtained by an illegal search and seizure.
Should the woman’s motion be granted?
1.No, because the tip together with the heroin found in the man’s pocket provided probable cause for the search.
2.Yes, because the officers’ decision to enter the apartment was the fruit of an illegal search of the man.
3.Yes, because the officers did not inform the woman that she could refuse consent.
4.No, because the woman consented to the officers’ entry.
4.No, because the woman consented to the officers’ entry.
A court should suppress evidence that was obtained during an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search or seizure. A search or seizure is unreasonable when it is conducted without a warrant and no exception to the warrant requirement applies. The plain view doctrine is an exception that allows an officer to seize an item without a warrant if:
the item is in the officer’s plain view
it is immediately recognized as contraband and
the officer is lawfully in the area.
An officer can lawfully enter a private area without a warrant if the officer obtains the owner’s consent. Consent is a valid basis for entering an area if (1) the owner’s consent is given voluntarily (ie, without police coercion) and (2) any search is limited to the scope of the consent.
Here, the officers saw several bags on the woman’s living room table (item in plain view) that contained heroin (immediately recognizable contraband) after they entered her apartment. And since the woman voluntarily consented to their entry and the officers limited their actions to the scope of her consent, the officers were lawfully in the area. Therefore, the plain view doctrine allowed the officers to seize the heroin without a warrant, and the court should deny the woman’s motion to suppress that evidence.
The tip and the heroin found in the man’s pocket may have given the officers probable cause to obtain a search warrant—but did not justify their warrantless search of the woman’s apartment. Instead, that search was justified because the woman consented to their entry.
Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, a court should suppress evidence that stems from an unreasonable police search. However, that search must have violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights—not the rights of another. Therefore, the illegal search of the man is not a legitimate basis to grant the woman’s motion.
Consent is valid when it is given voluntarily—informed consent is not required. Therefore, the officers did not need to inform the woman that she had the right to refuse consent to enter her home.
The plain view doctrine allows police to legally seize an item without a warrant if they (1) see the item in plain view, (2) immediately recognize it as contraband, and (3) are in the area lawfully (eg, consent).
After a liquor store was robbed, the police received an anonymous telephone call naming a store employee as the perpetrator of the robbery. Honestly believing that their actions were permitted by the U.S. Constitution, the police talked one of the employee’s neighbors into going to the employee’s home with a hidden recording device to engage him in a conversation about the crime. The neighbor went to the employee’s home and was invited inside. During the conversation in the employee’s home, the employee admitted having committed the robbery.
The employee was charged with the robbery in state court. He has moved to suppress the recording on the grounds that the method of obtaining it violated both his federal and his state constitutional rights.
Assume that a clear precedent from the state’s highest court would result in a finding that the conduct of the police in making the recording violated the employee’s rights under the state constitution, and that excluding the recording is the proper remedy.
Should the court grant the employee’s motion?
1.Yes, because the making of the recording violated the employee’s federal constitutional rights.
2.No, because the police were acting in the good-faith belief that the federal Constitution permitted their actions.
3.No, because the employee’s federal constitutional rights were not violated, and this circumstance overrides any state constitutional provisions.
4.Yes, because the making of the recording violated the state constitution
4.Yes, because the making of the recording violated the state constitution
Although the federal Constitution sets a “floor” for personal liberties, state constitutions may offer protections that exceed the minimum federal constitutional requirements. And when a state’s highest court sets clear precedent regarding a state constitutional right, lower state courts (trial and intermediate courts) must follow that precedent when resolving a similar legal issue.
Here, the employee moved to suppress (ie, exclude) the recording from evidence on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. The state’s highest court has set a clear precedent establishing that the recording violated the employee’s state constitutional rights and should be excluded from evidence. Therefore, the state court must follow this precedent and suppress the recording on this ground.
A defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when a government informant speaks with the defendant and secretly records their conversation (as seen here). However, compliance with the federal Constitution does not excuse a violation of a defendant’s broader state constitutional protections. Therefore, the motion to suppress the recording should be granted on state constitutional grounds.
Under the good-faith exception, evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s federal constitutional rights is admissible if the police reasonably believed that they were acting lawfully (eg, that their actions were permitted by a prior court ruling). But here, the police’s good-faith belief that the federal Constitution permitted the recording is irrelevant since this state’s clear precedent holds that their actions violated the state constitution.
State constitutions may offer greater protections than the federal Constitution—eg, a state exclusionary rule can suppress more evidence than the federal exclusionary rule. And lower state courts must comply with precedents from the state’s highest court that interpreted those protections.
United States customs officials received an anonymous tip that heroin would be found inside a distinctively marked red package mailed from a foreign country to a particular address in the United States. Pursuant to this tip, United States customs officers intercepted and opened the red package and found heroin inside. They then resealed the package and left the heroin inside it. The FBI was notified and, as agents watched, the package was delivered to the address.
The FBI then secured a warrant to search the house for the package. About two hours after the package was delivered, agents executed the warrant at the house. The man who opened the door was arrested, and the agents found the package, unopened, in an upstairs bedroom closet. After seizing the package, the agents looked through the rest of the house. They found a machine gun in a small footlocker in the basement.
The man was charged with unlawful possession of the machine gun, among other crimes. He moved to suppress the use of the gun as evidence.
Should the court grant the motion to suppress the machine gun?
1.No, because narcotics dealers are often armed and the search was justified to protect the agents.
2.No, because, having found the package, the agents had probable cause to believe that more narcotics could be located in the house and the gun was found in a proper search for narcotics.
3.Yes, because the search exceeded the authority granted by the warrant.
4.Yes, because the initial search by the customs officers was without probable cause.
3.Yes, because the search exceeded the authority granted by the warrant.
Generally, a Fourth Amendment search or seizure must be authorized by a warrant that particularly describes the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Officers may seize illegal items discovered during the authorized search but cannot exceed the warrant’s authority. Therefore, once items specified in the warrant are seized, the search must end unless another warrant is obtained or an exception to the warrant requirement applies. But if the search instead continues, any items seized during that illegal search should be suppressed.
Here, federal agents obtained a warrant to search the man’s house for a red package (item specified in the warrant). Once they seized that package, their search should have ended. Instead, the agents exceeded the warrant’s authority by continuing to search the house. And since the machine gun was discovered during that unreasonable search, it should be suppressed at trial.
Seizure of items specified in the warrant may provide police with probable cause to believe that other illegal items are in the searched location, but it does not allow police to continue their search. Instead, they must obtain a warrant or establish an exception to the warrant requirement.
Police do not need a warrant to conduct a protective sweep of the premises if (1) they have reasonable suspicion that someone on the premises may pose a threat to their safety and (2) the sweep is limited to a cursory inspection of places where a person may be found (eg, a closet). Here, though narcotics dealers are often armed (reasonable suspicion of threat), the agents could not search the small footlocker since a person could not fit inside.
Under the special government purpose exception to the warrant requirement, customs officials may conduct border searches and search international packages without a warrant or probable cause. Therefore, this is not a basis to grant the man’s motion.
When police conduct a search pursuant to a warrant, they must end their search once the items specified in that warrant are seized. They can only continue their search if they obtain another warrant or establish an exception to the warrant requirement. But if they continue without doing so, any seized items should be suppressed.
A police officer lawfully stopped a driver’s vehicle because it had an expired registration tag. The officer asked the driver for her license and then ran the driver’s name through a police database. The officer discovered that the driver was the subject of an open arrest warrant for leaving the scene of a car accident, so the officer placed her under arrest. Before securing the driver in the back of his police vehicle, the officer conducted a warrantless search of the driver’s coat pockets. The officer found a clear bag filled with marijuana inside one of the pockets.
The driver was charged with illegal drug possession. She has filed a motion to exclude evidence of the marijuana from trial on the ground that the officer’s warrantless search was unlawful.
Should the court grant the driver’s motion?
1.Yes, because the driver’s coat pockets were searched without a warrant.
2.No, because the officer had no reason to believe that the driver was in possession of a weapon.
3.Yes, because the open warrant was for leaving the scene of a car accident, not a drug-related crime.
4.No, because the marijuana was discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest.
4.No, because the marijuana was discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest.
Search incident to arrest
(exception to warrant requirement)
General rule
Warrantless search permitted if:
person has been lawfully arrested and
search limited to person’s body & areas within immediate reach
Vehicle search
Search of vehicle is also permitted:
if it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to crime of arrest may be found therein
even if vehicle is outside of person’s immediate control
Impounded vehicle
Legally impounded vehicle & items therein may be searched as part of routine inventory search
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A search is unreasonable if it is conducted without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. One such exception is a warrantless search conducted incident to a lawful arrest, which applies when:
the person searched has been lawfully arrested
the search takes place contemporaneously with the arrest and
the search is limited to the person’s body and the immediate surrounding area (i.e., the person’s wingspan) from which a weapon may be concealed or evidence destroyed.
Accordingly, the right to search incident to a lawful arrest includes the right to search the arrestee’s clothing pockets.
Here, the marijuana was discovered during a warrantless search of the driver’s pockets, but no warrant was needed because the search was a valid search incident to arrest. That is because the driver was searched contemporaneously to a lawful arrest and the search of her pockets did not exceed the scope of a search incident to arrest. Instead, it was limited to the driver’s body and immediate surrounding areas (e.g., her pockets). Therefore, the court should deny the driver’s motion to exclude evidence of the marijuana from trial.
The search-incident-to-arrest exception exists (1) to protect officer safety by permitting the search of an arrestee for any weapons that might be used against the officer and (2) to prevent the destruction of evidence. An officer need not have reason to believe the arrestee actually has a weapon to conduct a search incident to arrest.
Since one rationale for a search incident to arrest is prevention of the destruction of evidence by the arrestee, evidence that is unrelated to the crime for which an individual is arrested (here, leaving the scene of a car accident) may be lawfully seized during a valid search incident to arrest.
A warrantless search incident to arrest is valid if (1) the person searched has been lawfully arrested, (2) the search is contemporaneous to the arrest, and (3) the search is limited to the person’s body and the immediate surrounding area (e.g., arrestee’s clothing pockets).
The Fourth Amendment has 2 clauses:
1.
2.
- The Reasonableness Clause
- The Warrant Clause
What is the reasonableness clause of the 4th Amendment?
The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated AND
What is the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment?
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.
The reasonableness clause and the warrant clause is separated by what?
, AND
If the first clause applies and the activity is considered a search, the second clause essentially requires a warrant issued with:
1.
2.
3.
4.
- probable cause
- supported by oath or affirmation
- particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized
- issued by a neutral and detached magistrate
A warrant is not needed every time a search and seizure is conducted. However, if you follow the warrant requirements, then the search is __________ _________.
presumptively reasonable
If an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government actor must
obtain a warrant, unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies
If the conduct triggers the ______ __________, the police will need a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement to do that particular police action.
4th Amendment
________ doesn’t include real property.
effects
The 4th amendment protects ______, not ______.
people
places
The 4th Amendment does not apply if the search is in a _______ _______ and the search is conducted exclusively by foreign authorities in their own country.
foreign country
The 4th Amendment does not apply if the search is in a foreign country and the search is conducted __________ by _____ _______ in their own country.
exclusively
foreign authorities
The 4th Amendment does not apply if the search is in a _____ _______ and the search, no matter who conducts it, is of property owned by a nonresident alien.
foreign country
The 4th Amendment does not apply if the search is in a foreign country and the search, no matter who conducts it, is of property owned by a _______ _____.
nonresident alien
Example: If you are in Mexico and you are searched by Mexican authorities would the 4th Amendment apply ?
the 4th amendment would not apply
Example: If it is a Mexican Citizen in Mexico and the search is on property owned by a non-resident alien
would the 4th amendment apply?
the 4th amendment would not apply
The 4th Amendment does apply if foreign search/seizure is of a _____ _____ ______ or _____ ______ AND foreign search/ seizure is conducted exclusively by U.S. authorities.
United States Citizen
Resident Alien
The 4th Amendment does apply if foreign search/seizure is of a United States Citizen or resident alien AND foreign search/ seizure is conducted exclusively by ______ _________.
U.S. Authorities
The 4th Amendment does apply if foreign search/seizure is of a United States Citizen or resident alien AND foreign search/seizure is conducted by the ____________________________.
US in a joint venture with foreign authorities.
The 4th Amendment does apply if foreign search/seizure is of a United States Citizen or resident alien AND foreign search/seizure where __________________________.
foreign authorities act as agents for the United States.
Example: you own a home in Costa Rica and the Costa Rican Police come to your home to search and they are also with DEA Agents that are conducting the search with them. That would mean that the _________________ because of the US law enforcement that is helping conduct the search.
4th Amendment does apply
Example: There are some situations where the Costa Rican police might do it at the behest of the US law enforcement like DEA as long as DEA is not conducting the search then the 4th Amendment would not apply but if they do get involved and it becomes a joint venture then in fact the _____________________.
Fourth Amendment does apply
MIDTERM –
New technology that SC has not ruled upon, and we do things that we are doing in class to be able to use creativity as a basis to help you make the arguments on whether something is a search or is not a search under the 4th. !!
!!
What are the case names to use on an exam?
Katz and jones are the case names to use on exam.
The first question that must be answered is:
Does the 4th Amendment apply?
In order for the 4th Amendment to apply
the conduct in question must be governmental, not private.
If it is _____ ________, then it is a government action.
law enforcement
If it is law enforcement, then it is a _______ _____.
government action
In situations where it is not a _______ _________ doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
government agency
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as _______, ______ _______, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
informants
private investigators
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a _______ and doesn’t _______ ___ ___ _____, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
badge
work for the government
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the _________ _______ ____ ______ _____ ____ _________ ____ ___ ______:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
private party is acting as an instrument of the state
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The _________ of ___________ encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
degree
government
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government __________, ___________, and or ____________ with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
encouragement
knowledge
acquiescence
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the _____ _____ _____ and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
private actor’s conduct
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) ?
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
The degree of government encouragement, knowledge and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The ________ underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
purpose
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the ______ _____ _____ (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
private party’s actions
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a _______ _______?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
governmental interest
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his ____ _______ or _______ _______?
own personal or business objectives
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) ?
(2) The purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
In situations where it is not a government agency doing the search such as informants, private investigators, or anyone who perhaps doesn’t have a badge and doesn’t work for the government, the following factors can be considered to determine whether the private party is acting as an instrument of the state:
(1) ?
(2) ?
(1) The degree of government encouragement, knowledge, and or acquiescence with regard to the private actor’s conduct and
(2) the purpose underlying the private party’s actions (was he pursuing a governmental interest?) or did he act to promote his own personal or business objectives?
The second question that must be answered is:
Is this a search under the 4th Amendment?
In order to determine whether something is considered a search under the 4th Amendment the ______ and _____ ______ can be applied. You only have to prove one in order to argue that it is a search.
Katz and Jones
_______ is the test for reasonable expectation of privacy.
Katz
Katz is the test for _______ ________ ___ _______.
reasonable expectation of privacy
Katz is the test for reasonable expectation of privacy:
(1)
(2)
(1) Did the search violate the defendant’s subjective expectation of privacy?
(2) Is that expectation of privacy one that society would consider reasonable under the circumstances?
In _______ the court found that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not subject to 4th Amendment protection (Intruding Eye)
Katz
In Katz the court found that what a ________________________________________________.
person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not subject to 4th Amendment protection (Intruding eye)
In Katz, the court found that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not subject to 4th Amendment protection (Intruding Eye). However, ____________________________________________.
what a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected (Uninvited Ear).
Not all 4th Amendment searches involve ______ _________ into an area in which someone enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy.
physical intrusion
Explain Intruding Eye.
What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office is not subject to 4th Amendment protection
Explain Uninvited Ear.
What a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected.
_______ is the test for physical trespass.
Jones
Jones is the test for physical ______.
Trespass
Jones is the test for physical trespass. Trespass of a _____, ______, _____, or ______ is deemed a search. The 4th Amendment is triggered anytime the government commits a trespass on a constitutionally protected area.
person,
house,
paper,
effect
Jones is the test for physical trespass. Trespass of a person, house, paper, or effect is _____ ___ ____.
deemed a search
Jones is the test for physical trespass. Trespass of a person, house, paper, or effect is deemed a search. The ____ ________ is triggered anytime the government commits a trespass on a constitutionally protected area.
4th Amendment
Jones is the test for physical trespass. Trespass of a person, house, paper, or effect is deemed a search. The 4th Amendment is triggered anytime the government commits a _______ on a _________ _____ ______.
trespass
constitutionally protected area
What is a search and what is not a search, the first thing that we do is we always do some sort of Katz and Jones analysis. These other SC cases that we are going to cover also make persuasive arguments that you can use in your analysis of determining whether this particular police action is considered a search or not. !!
!!
