The 4th Amendment - Arrest, Search, and Seizure Flashcards
What are the two major schools of interpretation when it comes to the 4th amendment?
A) 2-Clause Interpretation: 2 independant thoughts joined by an “and.” Such that government must have reasonable searches and seizures. Then there are also warrants. But the two groups dont have to go hand in hand.
B) 1-Clause Interpretation: In order to do a reasonable search or seizure, there must be a warrant present. This sets the presumption at the needing a warrant, with narrow exceptions.
Is the two-clause or one-clause interpretation of the 4th amendment the default?
The One-Clause interpretation is the default setting. The only well known 2 clausers are Scalia and Thomas.
What did Weeks v. United States (1914) impact the 4th amendment?
This was the first time the SCOTUS had ruled on this issue. They held that evidence seized illegally is excluded and cannot be used against the defendant in trial. But this did not apply against the state, just the federal government.
What was the impact of Wolf v. Colorado (1949) on the 4th amendment’s search and seizure requirements?
This case incorporated the Exclusionary Rule against the 14th amendment through the 14th amendments due process clause.
What remedy does the court create through Mapp v. Ohio (1961) for a 4th amendment violation and what was the reasoning?
Makes the first remedy of a 4th amendment violation the exclusionary rule against both the federal government and the states.
The reasoning was two fold:
1) Deterrence: Make sure the police follow proper procedure to ensure successful conviction.
2) Judicial Integrity: We want good cases with good evidence to get good convictions.
What are the “Dimensions” of the exclusionary rule? Would it apply in the following:
1) Forfeiture Proceedings?
2) Grand Jury Proceedings
3) Probation Hearings
4) Civil Matter following a Criminal Matter
1) Yes. The 4th amendment applies here - Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania
2) In a grand jury proceeding the witness cannot refuse to answer the questions on grounds that the search violated the 4th amendment. The defendant must answer, then later raise their concerns with the search and seizure.
3) No, by a 5/4 decision, the 4th amendment does not apply to probation hearings.
4) The 4th amendment doesn’t apply in the civil trial following a criminal trial - United States v. Janis.
What is the exception to the requirement of a warrant created under United States v. Leon (1984)?
The good faith exception. This states that the police can reasonably rely on a warrant they reasonably believe to be sufficient, even if it is invalid. So, if the police objectively had reasonable belief that the warrant is good, but it is actually invalid due to something out of their control, the evidence will not be suppressed.
What is the reasoning behind the Good Faith Exception found in United States v. Leon?
The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, not punish judicial errors because there is no need to deter judicial misconduct because they are essentially neutral.
What does the 4th Amendment’s particularity clause state and mean?
“…and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause… and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person’s or things to be seized.”
Basically means that the affidavit that is trying to get the warrant must be specific about what the police want to search/seize.
In Massachusetts v Shepard (1984) the Warrant and Affidavit don’t match exactly, it was the judges mistake, what does SCOTUS hold?
The Supreme Court held that the police officer could objectively reasonably rely on the judges actions. So this wasn’t the officers fault, it was the judges, so there was no bad police conduct to deter, thus the good-faith exception applies and the evidence cannot be suppressed.
What are the four exceptions to the good-faith exception found in United States v. Leon (1984)?
- Judge was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth.
- Judge wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner that no reasonable officer would ever be able to reasonably rely on the warrant.
- The Officer knows or reasonably should know that they cannot objectively rely in good faith on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking of probable cause as to render reasonable belief impossible;
- The warrant is clearly facially deficient that the officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid.
What did the Supreme Court say about relying on a statute rather than a judge’s discretion and how that applies to the good-faith exception in Illinois v. Krull (1987)?
The Supreme Court held that there is not any distinguishable difference between relying on a warrant invalidly issued by a judge or relying on a statute passed by the legislature. The good-faith exception still applies and the police can reasonably rely on the legislature when doing investigations as long as they are objectively reasonable in their actions.
What are the types of Warrants?
1) Knock and Announce: The most common warrant which requires the police to knock on the door and announce themselves, then wait a reasonable amount of time before entering.
2) No knock: The police do not have to announce themselves at all before entering the building. Not used very often and only in cases of danger to the police or evidence.
Under Hudson v. Michigan (2006) was a violation of the knock and announce requirement of the 4th amendment enough to warrant the suppression of the evidence? and why?
No. A knock and announce violation is insufficient alone to require the suppression of the evidence. This is due to the type of violation that occurred; the police did have a valid warrant, they simply made a mistake in execution. This does not warrant exclusion.
The majority went away from determining the outcome based on police deterrence and rather did a balancing test between the benefits of suppression vs the costs of the suppression.
What is required under Herring v. the United States (2009) for evidence to be suppressed?
“To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. The exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence…”
What is the analysis outline that the court will examine when determining if exclusion is appropriate found in Davis v. U.S. (2011)?
It will look something like this:
1) Was there a fourth amendment violation? Yes –> go to 2;
2) Would it deter police misconduct? Yes –> go to 3;
3) Was it deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent? If yes, what was the degree of culpability?
As seen in United States v. Jacobsen, what happens to evidence discovered by private persons, which would be excluded if found by the government?
In this case, shipping employees opened a suspicious package and found bags of white powder. They called the DEA and they discovered it was cocaine. The court held that the government actions did not expand past what had already been done by a private individual. For this reason, a warrant was not required.
Once the package was opened, its 4th amendment protection was broken.
What is the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine?
There is no remedy at trial for unconstitutionally producing the defendant. If evidence is found during the illegal arrest, the defendant can move to have the evidence suppressed or file a motion to quash the arrest, but if nothing comes from the illegal arrest except the defendant, then you cannot file a motion to quash the arrest.
What is the Katz Rule found in Katz v. United States (1967) regarding a search?
A search has occurred if the government has infringed on your reasonable expectation of privacy.
What is the 4th amendment designed to protect under Katz v. United States (1967)?
The 4th Amendment is designed to protect people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even if his own home or office, is not under the 4th amendment protection but what he seeks to keep private, may not be protected by the 4th amendment.
What test does Justice Harlan’s Concurrence in Katz v. United States create regarding what is a 4th amendment violation?
He created a two part test to determine if a 4th amendment violation has occurred:
1) Does the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
2) Is society willing to accept that this expectation is reasonable?
Under the Katz Test, what are the 3 parts that a State’s Attorney can hit to win under the 4th Amendment?
1) This was not a search or a seizure.
2) Even if there is a search or seizure, it was a reasonable search or seizure;
3) If the search or seizure was unreasonable, then there was a good-faith exception.
What does Florida v. Riley (1989) do to the Katz Test?
The court stated that under the Katz Test, the subjective expectation does not matter. The court only cares about the objective expectation of privacy.
Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage as sen in California v. Greenwood (1988)?
No. The court held 6/3 that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage because anyone can access it, so objectively it is no longer protected.
What is a binary search?
A dog search is an example of a binary search and is not covered by the 4th amendment. This is because there are only two outcomes to a dog sniff. Either the government learns that there is illegal drugs in the bag, or they learn absolute nothing.
If the police take a thermal image of a home from the outside to determine if there is excess heat in the home to determine if drugs are being grown inside, is this a binary search, or does the 4th amendment apply? (as seen in Kyllo v. United States; 2009)
The court held that this was not a binary search and violated the Katz Test because homes are heavily protected under the 4th amendment. It would also be against what society would consider to be a heavily protected area.
In United States v. Jones (2012) the court examined whether the Katz test replaced the old trespass test. What did they determine?
The court combined the tests. So now if the government commits a trespass to obtain incriminating information, or violates the Katz Test, then a search has been committed and the 4th amendment is activated.
What is the Mosiac Theory as seen in Justice Alitos Concurrence in U.S. v. Jones (2012)?
The court should put more weight on the amount of information gathered. One or two pieces of information is not that big of deal, but the more information gathered, the more likely a search has been committed.
What is the “Open-Field Doctrine” and its exception?
Open Field Doctrine - An individual has no 4th amendment protection in the area around their home, especially in the backyard.
Exception: 4th amendment protection does apply to the “curtilage” around the home. Curtilage is areas like an attached garage, front porch, etc.
Why is Florida v. Jardines (2013) an interesting search case?
In this case, the police, believing that there were drugs inside a home took a drug dog up to the front door and knocked. The dog then indicated that there was drugs in the home and the police used that to get a warrant to search the premises. This is interesting because the court relied on the intent of the police rather than using the usual objective test.
Why did the court hold in favor of the defense in Florida v. Jardines (2013)?
In this case, the police had a temporary license to be on the property and the property curtilage, BUT once the police had the intent to commit a search it became an unlicensed physical intrusion and the 4th amendment protected the home.
What does “probable cause” mean?
Probable cause is a term of art. It is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. It is more of a reasonable grounds for the belief of guilt.
What is the current rule for the reliability of criminal informants under Illinois v. Gates (1983)?
It is the totality of the circumstances test.
1) The totality of the circumstances: reliability, veracity, basis of knowledge, and any other relevant information should be considered to determine the reliability of the information for probable cause.
2) Taking the totality of the circumstances, is there a “fair probability” that the information is accurate? This is an examination of fair probabilities to determine if a common-sense conclusion could be drawn to support the information.
What is the standard of review on trial court determinations that criminal informants are reliable under Illinois v. Gates (1983)?
Clearly erroneous.
Does the state always have to produce the criminal informant for a suppression hearing under McCray v. Illinois?
No. The state does not have to produce the criminal informant at a suppression hearing as long as the state has a reasonable reason to not produce the informant.
