Unit 2: Justifying Searches and Seizures Without Warrants - Warrantless Exceptions Flashcards
Warrantless Exceptions
Probable cause still governs but warrants NOT required!
Exigent Circumstances
RULE: exigent circumstances rule justified a warrantless search when the conduct of the police preceding the exigency is reasonable in the same sense, so long as the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the 4th amendment.
reasonableness of officer = objective standard (do not inquire into the subjective beliefs of the officers).
A warrantless search must be STRICTLY CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE EXIGENCIES WHICH JUSTIFY ITS INITIATION.
The scope of the exigency dictates the scope of the permissible warrantless search.
Potential loss of evidence, danger to others or police, or the inability to obtain a warrant (considering other two consideration) Mincey v. Arizona.
Warrantless search must end when the exigency ends.
BAC
Birchfield and Missouri v. McNeely - 4th amendment permits warrantless breath tests, but not warrantless blood tests unless support for exigency to justify a properly conducted warrantless blood. Case by case basis
Risking loss of evanescent evidence is case by case. Mitchell v. Wisconsin the exigent circumstance exception to the 4th amendment’s warrant requirement applied in drunk-driving cases involving someone who is unconscious because that person is unable to perform a breath test and evidence is literally disappearing by the minute (an argument that sounds interestingly like inherently evanescent”).
Clarifies when “exigency” exists: (1) BAC evidence isdissipating;and (2) health, safety, or law enforcement needs arepressing.Both are present when someone is unconscious.
Emergency Aid/ Community Caretaking
Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury. – rule: officers may enter home without warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. for rendering emergency aid, prevent violence, and restore order. Danger does not have to be life-threatening.
Fleeing allows warrantless arrest in the home. Warden v. Hayden (danger to lives): U.S. v. Santana (“hot pursuit” of felon permits warrantless entry into the home even without additional exigency). BUT SEE Lange v. California (pursuit of fleeing misdemeanant assessed on case by case basis for exigent circumstances; risk of escape counts as exigent circumstance, but flight itself does not).
Exception to Exigent Circumstance Exception -
Police created exigency. Police cannot create the exigency and then claim no warrant required. (Kentucky v. King - officers went wrong apt but smell weed knocked down door to prevent destruction of evidence).
Government activity goes beyond the scope of the exigency.
Plain View
Let’s Go (Party-Charlie)
This is about the seizure of evidence.
Doctrine: assuming that officer was behaving legally when he SAW the evidence in question, and assuming that he is legally in a place where he can gain physical control over the evidence, can he then seize it? Arizona v. Hicks says YES, if the officer has probable cause!
- Officer (l)awfully there,
- Officer could (g)ain physical control over evidence, and
- Officer had (p)robable (c)ause that item is evidence of crime.
** no probable cause = no plain view seizure of evidence **
yes to all 3 = police may seize item
Arrest Power
All custodial arrests require probable cause. Dunaway v. New York.
The 4th Am generally permits WARRANTLESS arrests upon a showing of probable cause (i.e., no presumptive warrant requirement).
Probable cause to arrest DOES NOT authorize warrantless entry into the home to arrest; an arrest warrant permits entry for the limited authority to arrest (no search warrant necessary to enter). Payton v. New York.
An arrest warrant does not justify the entry and search of a home of someone other than the arrestees. Steagald v. United States (need search for 3rd party’s house).
Consent
Consent is voluntary if neither express or implied duress or coercion exists; the state does not have to prove that the individual had knowledge of the right to refuse consent. Schneckloth (knowing and intelligent waiver doctrine reserved for rights relating to “fair trial”).
The scope of consent search is determined by whether a reasonable officer would understand the particular area to be searched t be included within the consent. Florida v. Jimena (1991).
Consent to search may be given by anyone with common authority over the area searched. Matlock. This consent is valid if the police could reasonably believe that the individual had common authority, even if actual authority did not exist. Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990).
Whereas objection to a search by a present co-tenant prevents a search, the objection of a non-present co-tenant does not, unless the objecting individual is not present by virtue of police trying to avoid the objection. Randolph. Prior objections do not prevent a search if the non-present objector has been removed reasonably, such as via a lawful arrest. Fernandez; Matlock. (key difference here is that both co-tenants are present. but if one co-tenant was not present but the present co-tenant consents then warrantless search is permissible.)
Warrantless search in the situation where a present co-tenant refuses and other agrees would be constitutional only if exigent circumstances existed.
4th Amendment and Vehicles - Generally
Carroll v. United States (1925) - first recognizes the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement when obtaining a warrant is not “reasonably practicable” and probable cause exists that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle.
Chambers v. Maroney (1970) warrantless search based on probable cause that evidence of a crime was contained in the vehicle was permitted even after police has total custody of the vehicle.
Automobile Exception Car General Probable Cause
If probable cause to search extends to entire car, then everything in the car, including containers, can be searched under the automobile exception. Acevedo (reaffirming Ross).
Automobile Exception Container Specific Probable Cause
Scope of warrantless search hinges on:
1. object of search
2. places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. Ross
The means probable cause that a container, within car, has evidence allow warrantless search of container. Acevedo.
But it does not allow search of the entire car without more. You could get car general probable cause once you open the container and you find evidence/contraband, so could then search the car.
Passenger Personal Belongings in Car
When there is probable cause to search for contraband in a car, it is reasonable for police to examine packages and containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one - a passenger’s belongings, just like the drivers’ belongings attached to the car like a glove compartment, are IN THE CAR, and the officer has probable cause to search for contraband IN THE CAR.
Compare with United States v. Di Re (does not extend permissible search to passenger’s person) and Maryland v. Pringle (permitting warrantless arrest of passenger based on probable cause evidence of contraband was in car).
Probable Cause for Car within Curtilage, does the automobile exception allow for warrantless search of the vehicle?
No. Collins.
What is permitted by incident to lawful arrest?
Chimel permits, incident to lawful arrest:
- Search of a person to remove weapons for resistance or escape;
- Seizure of evidence on the person to prevent its concealment or destruction; and
- Search of the area where the arrestee might reach to grab a weapon or evidentiary items (within the immediate control)
Robinson extends Chimel to allow full search of a person, incident to lawful arrest, for protection and to seize and search physical evidence of wrongdoing, even if not related to the particular crime that served as the basis for the arrest.
Note: individualized, particularized suspicion is not required for the search.
Buie allows for a protective sweep of a space immediately adjoining the place of arrest for the protection of officers; only a cursory inspection of those space where a person may be found (and could launch an attack) is allowed.
For areas not immediately adjoining articulable suspicion that a dangerous person is present in that space is required.
Belton’s Search Incident to Arrest Rule - Severely limited by Gant
Belton held that a lawful arrest of a vehicle occupants permits contemporaneous search of the car and containers within the vehicle.
The means Belton’s search incident to arrest rule overlaps with Acevedo’s automobile exception in cases where the probable cause for the arrest (under Belton) or the car search (under Acevedo) is the same.
But Belton could allow car searches, purely based on a lawful arrest, even if there was no probable cause that the vehicle obtained evidence of the crime supporting the arrest.
Gant Searches Incident to Arrest 3 Part Rule
(1) Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to an occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle (i.e., neither the safety nor evidentiary justifications exist from Chimel).
(2) Belton and Gant do authorize a vehicle search incident to an occupant’s arrest, but only if the arrestee is unsecured, and only if the passenger compartment is “within reaching distance” of the unsecured arrestee at the time of the search (tethering to Chimel).
(3) In the event the arrestee is secured, a vehicle search incident to arrest also can occur when there is reason to believe evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.(J. Scalia, concurrence)
Thus, if lawful arrest, only need “reason to believe” evidence of the crime supporting the arrest is in the vehicle to search.
If no arrest yet, Acevedo requires probable cause that there is evidence of a crime in the vehicle to search.
