Search Flashcards
What is the Automobile Exception?
A police officer may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile if: (1) there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or other evidence which is subject to seizure under the law, and (2) exigent circumstances necessitate a search or seizure
What is the rule for warrantless searches?
The rule is warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few exceptions.
What is the standard for probable cause for a search?
Probable cause exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances leads a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime.
Why did Martin lacked arguable probable cause to search petithomme’s vehicle?
The Officers were called to investigate two black males in a white Dodge on a street corner. The Officers allegedly observed a silver Nissan Altima brake lights flickering on private property with a vehicle tag of 222WBB. The Officers circled around and allegedly saw an obstructed tag on private property. The Officers came on private property and said they were investigating a suspicious vehicle and refused to give said description. The Officers asked to search Petithomme’s vehicle and for identification. Petithomme refused as to the search of the vehicle. In order to comply with the Officers’ request, Petithomme asked the Officers if she could go into her home to retrieve the identification. The Officers permitted her to walk into her home. Petithomme’s vehicle was parked on private property and had been from their initial observation. Martin admitted that: the vehicle was left unlocked, so he opened the vehicle to look for proof of ownership. Martin stated reason for Petithomme’s arrest was because he did not like the way she gave him the identification and if he dropped the charges how would he explain the vehicle search.
What’s the officer’s argument for the support of arguable probable cause to search her vehicle?
probable cause to search Petithomme’s vehicle because she could have been involved with the suspicious vehicle they were called to investigate, she was driving a stolen vehicle, or she was doing something she was not supposed to be doing.
Do you believe the Officer’s argument for probable cause supporting the search is reasonable?
The officer’s argument for probable cause is unreasonable.
What is fatally missing from Martin’s knowledge is a link between the suspected criminal activity and Petithomme.
Had Martin received contradictory stories about Petithomme’s relationship and the ownership of the car, noticed that the vehicle identification number was missing from the car, and the registration papers did not match the Petithomme’ names or anyone she claimed to know, then maybe the search was supported by arguable probable cause.
You contend that martin failed to do basic police work. What basic police work?
run the license plate tags or otherwise attempted to determine who owned the car or to whom it was registered, look inside the car and see anything that would give him reason to believe that he would find contraband in the car.
Martin contends had Petithomme provided the identification, this would have dispelled the Officers’ suspicion.
the production of a driver’s license does nothing to aid the investigation. The Officers were looking for two black males in a white Dodge. Mere observation would have made known to a reasonable officer neither Petithomme nor her vehicle was the subject of the investigation.
What is the purpose of behind something is clearly established
Qualified immunity operates to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful. For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent
What are the three ways to demonstrate that a right is clearly established?
(1) “that a materially similar case has already been decided, giving notice to the police;” (2) “that a broader, clearly established principle should control the novel facts in this situation;” or (3) “this case fits within the exception of conduct which so obviously violates [the] constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d1152, 1159 (11th Cir. 2005).
What does the fourth amendment say?
guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Why do you believe the Fourth Amendment gave Officer Martin fair warning that his search violated fourth Amendment?
Searches that are not connected pursuant to a valid warrant “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).
Why is there a lack of pc for the search?
Specifically, Martin was investigating two black males in a white Dodge on a public road, encroached on Petithomme’s private property, demanded for identification, failed to conduct basic police work to establish probable cause, asked to searched the vehicle, Petithomme refused, allowed her to go into her home, and searched the vehicle because it was unlocked.
Hope v. Pelzer
The Court stated that the more salient question is whether the law provides fair warning that Defendants conduct was unconstitutional. Id. Additionally, the Court said that “general statements of the law are not inherently incapable of giving fair and clear warning, and in other instances a general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though the very action in question has [not] previously been held unlawful.”Id
