Unit 3: The Shift to Reasonableness Flashcards
After you get over threshold 4th Amendment Question
Threshold question - was there a search or seizure? 2 different buckets:
- warrant bucket
- reasonableness bucket
Administrative Warrants and Reasonableness
Frank v. Maryland (1959): warrantless inspection of private premises to locateand stop a suspected public nuisance was permissible because it did NOTimplicate the core interests protected by the 4th Amendment.
Camara holds thatsuch searches DO implicate the core interests of the 4th Amendment, which are not reserved for those suspected of criminal behavior (e.g., 4th Amendment protects law-abiding too).
But…“[h]aving concluded that the area inspection is a ‘reasonable’ search of private property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, it is obviousthat ‘probable cause’ to issue a warrant to inspect must existif reasonable legislative or administrative standards…are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling.”
“If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant.”
Takeaway: Camara brings administrative searches within the 4th Amendment, but in doing so opens up a new analytical framework that prioritizes reasonableness over something like the warrant requirement.
Reasonableness Balancing:
You must use reasonableness to balance the need to search against the invasion which the search entails (need vs invasion).
Most citizens allow inspection of their property without a warrant - consent - therefore, warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry.
Terry v. Ohio (Stop and Frisk)
Terry applies to intrusions that fall short of a formal arrest.
When the officer has grounds to suspect criminal activity, the officer may conduct a limited search of the suspect’s person without probable cause. (less than probable cause some court use reasonable suspicion)
subsequent decisions have credited Terry with authorizing the brief, investigative detention of individuals in the absence of probable cause, provided an officer “has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.”
Justification
In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, take together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.
Would the facts available to the officer in the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reason caution in the belief that the was appropriate?
Scope:
Did the officer’s activity comport with the “reasonable suspicion” that justified the activity?
If justification is reasonable suspicion of armed and dangerous individual, then stop and frisk must be carried out in line with that purpose.
Did the nature and quality of the intrusion match what was necessary to effect the purpose of the stop or frisk (“confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover weapons”)?
Officer SEIZED Terry and subjected him to a SEARCH when he patted him down within the meanings of the 4th Amendment. - Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away - he has SEIZED THAT PERSON, also a pat down of the persons clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find a weapon is also A SEARCH.
Officer acted reasonably based on the behavior he witness. He was determining whether the men were armed.
sole justification is officer safety. Must balance officer safety and expectation of privacy.
a more intrusive search would have required probable cause.
officer only needs grounds to suspect crime for limited search of stop and frisk. once officer felt the pistol he had probable cause to reach into Terry’s clothes and seized the pistol and arrest them for carrying concealed weapons.
Terry Progeny: Bright Line Rules when Officer Safety Prioritized
The Court has permitted Terry analysis where the Court views the needs of officer safety as particularly high:
Frisk of driver during traffic stop after noticing bulge in clothing was permissible.PA v. Mimms(1977).
Police may friskdriver or passenger during lawful traffic stop whenreasonable suspicion of weapons and dangerexists, even if nobelief that either occupantis involved in criminal activity.Arizona v. Johnson (2009).
Frisk of a car is also permitted upon a concern for safety but is restricted to areas within reach of the occupant and that are capable of hiding a weapon.Michigan v. Long (1983).
Terry frisksthat yield probable cause for a weapon authorize seizure of the weapon (“plain feel seizure”).
But a Terry frisk thatsuggests item is not a weapon or contraband does not permit additional investigation, unless there is probable cause for such investigation.Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) (manipulation of item after initial conclusion was not supported by probable cause).
Terry Extensions: Balancing Standards
Terry stops can be justified if specific and articulable facts exist for a non-violent crime. Florida v. Royer (1983). Thus,Terrycan be utilized to carry out preemptive drug investigative activity.
Terry can apply to the temporary detention of property.United States v. Place(1983).
But the Court has scrutinized subsequent searches under thescopeprong ofTerry,paying close attention to thenature of the intrusion.Place held that while temporary detention of a piece of luggage was permissible,doing so for 90-minutes required probable cause.
Later, the Court held that courts should determine whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation to determine whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause was necessary for a lengthy detention.
Terry Progression
Unusual activity + experience
Inference that crime may be afoot
Persons may be armed and dangerous
STOP
Reasonable Inquiries
Still has feat for personal or others’ safety based on specific facts + rational inferences
FRISK
Defining Reasonable Suspicion: Anonymous Tips
Terryrequired “specific and articulable facts, together withrational inferences,possibly drawn from experience, thatwould suggest to the officer ofreasonable caution that crimeis afoot.”
J.L.held that an anonymous tip indicative of identity, absentan assertion of illegality, is insufficient alone to establishreasonable suspicion.
Tip has to provide something more than just identification. Something more has to go to it assertion of illegality; for example, predictive information that actually ends up happening. — The tipster supplied no additional information about how he knew about the gun or the suspect’s affairs, and the tip included no predictions of future behavior that could be corroborated to assess the informant’s credibility. As such, this “bare bones” tip did not establish reasonable suspicion.
J.L. left room for different threshold if alleged criminal behavior was particularly dangerous. But did not adopt a firearm exception.
Navarette held that an anonymous tip via 911 from an eyewitness who alleged illegal activity on the road, and where officers verified geographical details shared by the witness, was sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
J. Ginsburg (author of J.L.) and J. Scalia dissent: anonymous call + geographical detail does not equal assertion of criminal illegality
Exam Tip for Terry Stops
Questioning reasonable suspicion or probable cause look at the seizure. If its more than the stop and frisk of Terry then you are out of reasonable suspicion area.
Defining Reasonable suspicion: Generally
Mere presence in a crime area or near a crime is insufficient for reasonable suspicion. Illinois v. Wardlow.
Unprovoked flight + other circumstances can be enough, even if the flight is legal. Wardlow.
Stop of vehicle based on previous traffic violation of registered owner is reasonable unless there is information negating inference that driver of vehicle is the actual registered owner. Glover.
reasonable suspicion does not require much investigation at all. Observation + Experience = Rational Inference
Terry Stop and Frisk Wrap Up
is there reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk?
Are there specific and articulable facts, together with rational inferences, possibly drawn from experience, that would suggest to the officer of reasonable caution that crime is afoot? Terry.
Anonymous Tips: Is it reliable in its assertion of illegality, not merely descriptive of identity? J.L.; Navarette (rational inference).
Officer Safety. Mimms; Johnson.
Flight + other circumstances can be enough. Wardlow.
Did the stop and frisk, in its scope, comport with the justification? Royer; Place.
Police Discretion and Street Policing
Effects of Whren
Justification for the stop is NOT THE SAME AS MOTIVE - motive does not matter, any objective justification = valid stop
Police seeing traffic violation = probable case to pul car over (this line of reasoning is applicable to stops and arrests).
The motives of the officer orwhya search or seizure was carried out do not affect itslegality.
In effect, this untethers motive and the justification; if sufficientjustification forinterventionexists (assessed objectively),theintrusion is reasonable.
This line of reasoning isapplicable to stopsandarrests.
The objective basis of theofficer’s actions is whatmatters, not the motives.
The 4th Amendment, assuch,does not contemplateequal protection arguments, effectively foreclosing claims based on race, class, age, etc. (matter for the 14th Amendment).
Atwater Rule
Justification:If an officer has probable cause tobelieve that an individual has committed even a veryminor criminal offense in his presence, he may,without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest theoffender.
Scope:Butif the arrest is made in an “extraordinarymanner, unusually harmful to her privacy or physicalinterests,” it can be unreasonable.
probable cause to arrest – regardless of how minor the offense, is VALID – regardless of ANY PRETEXTUAL motive by the police!
SCOPE – but if arrest is made in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to her privacy or physical interest, it can be unreasonable
Whren + Atwater –> these cases permit a lot of policing that CAN have downstream negative effects, they give a lot of discretion to police to do their jobs
Checkpoint Seizure
what primarily distinguishes checkpoints is their primary purpose!
the court have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. checkpoint programs that the court ha approved were designed primarily to serve purposes closely related to the problem of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety.
For a checkpoint to permits stops WITHOUT individualized suspicion, the government needs primary purpose the pursues a serious safer or security concern, like border security (Martinez) or roadway safety concerns (Sitz, Prouse).
DUI checkpoints that involved stopping ALL cars, due to a serious drunken driving problem and the government’s interest in stopping it, were permissible. Mich. Dep’t. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).
A general interest in crime control (such as intercepting drugs) is insufficient to justify suspicionless roadblocks.
roadblocks that are not programatic (randomized or allow for abuse of discretion) are viewed skeptically.
If a checkpoint is designed to detect ordinary criminal wrongdoing, ten individualized suspicion is necessary to stop vehicles.
Exception: if the checkpoint is designed to gather information about a past crime, unrelated to the driver’s activity, individualized suspicion is unnecessary. Lister (stopping to investigate past crime is like serious interest above).
Justifying Supicionless Checkpoints: The Balancing Approach
Serious Public Interest?
- Border Security. Martinez-Fuerte.
- Roadway Safety. Sitz, Prouse.
- Imminent Emergency (terrorism or dangerous and on the run)
Is the primary purpose of that checkpoint pursuit of that interest (not detection of ordinary wrongdoing)? Edmond.
Is the procedure pragmatic (not subject to abuse of discretion)? Prouse.
Is the procedure crucial to purser of the interest (practical and effective)?
Is the privacy intrusion minimal (brief, temporary, non-invasive).
“Special Needs” Searches
Exception to the Fourth Amendment allowing searches without a warrant or probable cause generally for purposes other than law enforcement, like administrative inspections or drug screenings.
Individualized suspicion is required!
balancing of government interest, connection between intrusion and interest, and privacy interests is framework for analysis.
School personnel may search student belongings ifthere are “reasonable grounds for suspecting” thestudent has violated the law or rules of the schooland the scope of the search is not “excessivelyintrusive.”New Jersey v. T.L.O.(1985);but seeRedding(2009)(strip search after reasonablesuspicion of drug possession was unlawful).
Warrantless searches by probation officers ofprobationers’ homes on “reasonable grounds”thatcontraband was present are reasonable.Griffin v.Wisconsin(1987).
Warrantless search ofoffice, desk, or file cabinetofgovernmental hospital doctor suspected ofmismanagement was reasonable.O’Connor v.Ortega(1987).
Special Needs Searches Programmatic
Suspicion-less drug testing ofstudentsvoluntarily wishing to participatein extra-curricular activitieswas alloweddue to lesser privacy interest in school,minimal intrusion from urine test,andinterest in combating drug problem was”sufficiently great.”PottawatomieCty.v.Earls(2002).
But absent a “sufficiently great” stateinterest and appropriatemeans to achieveit, the Court will not rubber stamp suchprograms, even if the intrusion isminimal.Chandler v. Miller(1997) (invalidating drug test for electoral candidates).
Must be
1. Sufficiently great stat interest and appropriate means to achieve it
2. minimal intrusion
Terry Light Cases because these are Terry style intrusions.
Maryland v. King - The King Rule(s)
- A lawful arrest based on probable cause for a “serious” crime permits the police to collect a DNA sample from the suspect in custody, via cheek swab (minimal intrusion), for identification purposes (significant, non-investigative purposes).
- If the purpose of the procedure is investigation, individualized suspicion is required.
Mitchell v. Wisconsin (conducts reasonableness balancing analysis in Part 3 for category of cases … involving unconscious drivers.
- “Vital public interest: eradicating drunk driving
- Effective testing is necessary to enforce laws (“BAC tests arecrucial links in a chain on which vital interests hang”)
- Privacy: medical attention would result in sameinvasiveness
