Pretextual Stops - Plain View and Plain Touch Flashcards
Whren v. US–Pretextual Stop
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the lower courts’ rulings and held that the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that the driver has violated the traffic laws does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, even if the officer’s subjective motivation for making the stop is to investigate other criminal activity. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard is based on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions, rather than the officer’s subjective motivations. As long as there is an objective basis for the stop, such as a traffic violation, the stop is constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Horton v. California–Plain View
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the lower courts’ rulings and held that the plain view doctrine allows the warrantless seizure of evidence that is not inadvertently discovered by a police officer during a search authorized by a warrant, as long as the officer’s discovery of the evidence is lawful and the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent. Justice Byron White delivered the majority opinion, stating that the inadvertence requirement, which had been suggested in previous cases, is not a necessary condition for the application of the plain view doctrine.
Chambers v. Maroney—Carroll Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that the warrantless search of the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court applied the Carroll Doctrine, which permits warrantless searches of automobiles when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The Court reasoned that the mobility of automobiles creates an exigent circumstance that justifies a warrantless search, as obtaining a warrant could allow for the destruction or removal of evidence.
California v. Carney—Diminished Expectation of Privacy
held that the warrantless search of a mobile home based on probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White explained that the mobility of a mobile home creates a diminished expectation of privacy compared to a traditional home. The Court applied the automobile exception, first established in Carroll v. United States, which permits warrantless searches of vehicles when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime.
Arizona v. Hicks–Prob Cause Seizure Plain View
Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
No. The Court found that the search and seizure of the stereo equipment violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Citing the Court’s holding in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), Justice Scalia upheld the “plain view” doctrine which allows police officers under some circumstances to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. However, critical to this doctrine, argued Scalia, is the requirement that warrantless seizures which rely on no “special operational necessities” be done with probable cause. Since the officer who seized the stereo equipment had only a “reasonable suspicion” and not a “probable cause” to believe that the equipment was stolen, the officer’s actions were not reconcilable with the Constitution.
Minnesota v. Dickerson—Plain Touch Doctrine
The officer found no weapons but did feel a small object in Dickerson’s jacket pocket. Believing this object to be crack cocaine wrapped in cellophane, the officer reached into the pocket to remove it. The officer found crack cocaine and arrested Dickerson for drug possession. At trial, Dickerson moved to suppress the evidence, but the Hennepin County District Court denied the motion, and Dickerson was convicted. The Minnesota Court of Appeals then reversed, refusing to adopt the “plain feel” exception and holding that the seizure of the cocaine violated the Fourth Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.
No. Under Terry v. Ohio, 391 U.S. 1 (1968), a police officer with reasonable suspicion is permitted to “stop and frisk” a suspect believed to be dangerous, so long as that search is limited to actions necessary to discover whether the suspect has a weapon. Terry does not permit this type of evidentiary search.
The plain touch doctrine is subject to certain limitations:
The initial pat-down or search must be lawful.
The officer’s discovery of the object must be through a permissible sense of touch, not through any further manipulation of the object.
The incriminating nature of the object must be immediately apparent to the officer.
Chambers v. Maroney—Carroll Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that the warrantless search of the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court applied the Carroll Doctrine, which permits warrantless searches of automobiles when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. The Court reasoned that the mobility of automobiles creates an exigent circumstance that justifies a warrantless search, as obtaining a warrant could allow for the destruction or removal of evidence.
Carroll Doctrine
The doctrine derives from the 1925 case of Carroll v. the United States, in which bootleg whiskey being smuggled into Michigan from Canada was seized in a search of the suspect’s automobile under circumstances unrelated to a search incident to lawful arrest. The exigency for this type of search arises from the mobility of the automobile, which sets cars or any other mobile vehicles apart from the constitutionally protected, immobile threshold of the home. Probable cause is the second requirement needed to legitimize a warrantless search under the Carroll Doctrine. Because the scope of search incident law was broad, the Carroll Doctrine remained undeveloped in ensuing decades. Since the case of Chimel in 1969, in a period of restricted interpretation of search incident, other cases have contributed to the fleshing out of the Carroll Doctrine, defining the perimeters of warrantless search in terms of sections of the vehicle or police relocation of the vehicle.
