MidTerm Deck Flashcards
Probable Cause Definition
Viewed in a totality of circumstances, there is a substantial basis for knowledge or belief.
What does Probable Cause Do?
P.C. makes a search or seizure reasonable.
Why is Probable Cause imprecise?
Probable Cause is necessarily imprecise because it must be particularized to the person who is to be searched or seized. A reasonable ground of guilt must be particularized, it deals with probabilities and depends on a totality of circumstances. (MD v. Pringle)
MD v. Pringle
Definition of PC has evolved through Supreme Court decisions. The substance of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt and the belief or guilt must be particularized with respect to the person being arrested.
Knock and Announce Rule
(Hudson v. Michigan). Officers must wait a reasonable time after knocking and announcing before entering. If officers violate this rule, it does not necesarrily trigger the exclusionary rule (by itself).
IL v. Gates
(Substantial basis for belief.) The task of the magistrate is to make a practical, common sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
Spinelli
Two prong test: 1) Veracity, and 2) Basis of Knowledge.
Notes about Probability
0% – very uncertain
Probable Cause– sufficient to issue a warrant
50% – about half certain
Preponderance of Evid. – Civil trial wins here
Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Criminal trial wins here
100% – Completely sure: not likely to happen
Magistrate
Must be neutral and detached (Gates AND Coolidge)
Executive Branch
Can’t issue warrants. Cops and Prosecutors aren’t neutral or detached.
Shadwick v. City of Tampa
Magistrates must be:
1) Neutral and detached.
2) Capable of determining whether PC exists.
Ybarra v. IL
A search must be particularized to the person being seized. (you can’t arrest someone simply because they are ‘near’ or proximate to a person for whom you have a warrant).
Horton v. CA
(Plain view Doctrine) Plain view seizures are not necessarily required to also be inadvertent.
At common law, a person may be arrested when:
Misdemeanor or felony witnessed by officer OR Probable cause that a felony has occurred, or is about to be committed.
US v. Watson
A government official (postal inspector) may arrest someone without a warrant upon probable cause if they believe the person has committed a felony. Supreme Court allows for warrantless arrest when exigent circumstances, because “we’ve always done it that way.”
Atwater v. City of Lato Vista
Illustration of Common Law Arrest. The officer witnessed the driver and her kids driving without seat belts.
Gerstein v. Pugh
If arrested as a result of an officers’ on-scene determination of P.C., a timely determination of P.C. is a prerequisite for detention.
The County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
Timely determination of P.C. for detention is defined as 48 hours (but this is not a brightline).
U.S. v. Robinson
Search incident to arrest (SITA). A full search of the person in custody is allowed for 1) officer safety and 2) preservation of evidence.
Types of searches allowed without a warrant.
1) SITA
2) Terry stop
Chimel v. California
Wingspan, Grab area. Everything within a person’s immediate control. Purpose: 1) Officer Safety and 2) Preservation of Evidence.
Peyton v. New York
It is unconstitutional to search someone’s home without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist. The court draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.
Steagald v. U.S.
An arrest warrant does not justify entry to the home of a third party without a search warrant.
MD v. Buie
A protective sweep is authorized for officer safety reasons. This is a limited-scope search… a cursory inspection to look for compatriots lying in wait. The officer cannot re-enter the danger zone. The sweep my last no longer than necessary to complete the arrest, dispel suspicion of danger, and depart the premises.
Katz v. US
1) 4th Amendment protects people, not places.
2) REP
3) Subjective belief
3) Objective belief.
U.S. v. Jones
GPS on vehicle is a trepass, because vehicle is an “effect” under the language of the 4th Amendment.
Arizona v. Hicks
1) If an officers disturbs an item to view it better, a search has occurred.
2) If an officer believes there is an immanent threat, entry is justified.
Scalia: “The Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few, in order to protect the privacy of us all.”
Vale v. LA
Arrest on the street does not justify a search of the home. . . because Supreme Court protects the home.
Bond v. U.S.
Personal luggage is an “effect”. Physical mainuplation of bag is a 4th Amendment Search.
Segura v. U.S.
1) Entry into a home is okay if in hot pursuit.
2) It is okay to secure the premises to preserve the status quo, if others are seeking a warrant in good faith.
Brigham City v. Stuart
Emergency Aid Doctrine: You may enter a residence to render emergency assistance or to protect from eminent injury. Why? Preservation of human life is valued higher than the privacy of the home.
Welsh v. WI
If not hot pursuit, you can’t enter a house w/o a warrant.
Hot Pursuit: Immediate or continues pursuit of a suspect from the scene of a crime to another location.
U.S. v. Edwards
It is permitted for a reasonable amount of time to elapse when seizing evidence (SITA) because the result would be the same whether taken at the time of arrest or at a later time.
Schmerber v. CA
DUI blood draw at a hospital: Permissible to draw blood at a hospital against wishes of defendant, if P.C. because of threat of destruction of evidence.
Winston v. Lee
Bullet wound: Court ordered surgery to remove a bullet is not a reasonable search. In this case, they ruled against it, but the court should evaluate on a case by case basis. Weighing between individual’s interest in privacy and security vs. societies interest in conducting procedure.
Knowles v. IA
Speeding citation in lieu of arrest: Officer found marijuana on a search that was considered unconstitutional because there was no threat to safety or preservation of evidence.
Whren v. US
Pretextual Stop: Decision to stop an automobile is reasonable when officer has P.C. to believe a traffic violation has occurred.
U.S. v. Calandra
Exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceeding. Why? Minimal deterrence . . . a prosecutor would not likely go to grand jury if a conviction could not be obtained.
IL v. Krull
Evidence is admissible because the search was made in good faith.
Groh v. Ramirez
If a warrant is facially deficient, evidence is inadmissible. A good warrant must contain 1) place to be searched, person or things to be seized.
U.S. v. Leon
Evidence is admissible if police relied in good faith on magistrates PC warrant. Why? Deterrence purpose of exclusionary rule.
Mapp v. Ohio
Applies Weeks to the states. All evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in state courts.
Weeks v. U.S.
Federal Exclusionary Rule
U.S. v. Karo
Beeper in chemicals, no reasonable expectation of privacy because the beeper isn’t transmitting personal information, until it enters into the home where REP.
Kylle v. U.S.
REP in home. Thermal imaging is a search.
CA v. Greenwood
No REP of garbage on a street curb.
Oliver v. U.S.
No REP in open fields, neither open, nor field.
FL v. Riley
No REP by helicopter fly over.
