Unreasonable searches/seizures cases

Question 1

DC v. Wesby (2018)

Holding, Issue

Answer 1

• Issue: Whether there was sufficient probable cause to arrest these individuals for unlawful entry
• Holding:
  1. there was sufficient probable cause to support the arrests
  2. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable police officer could disbelieve the claim of innocent entry and infer that they knew or should have known that they did not have permission to be in the house.

Peaches case (house party, trespassing, not peaches home)

Question 2

DC v. Wesby (2018)

basis for arrest (standard), probable cause knew or should have knew

Answer 2

• Basis for arrest: unlawful entry (standard they knew or should have knew)
• What’s the probable cause they knew or shuld have known?
  1. Condition of the house and the conduct of the partygoers
  2. Partygoers reaction to the officers
  3. Untruthful and evasive answers

Peaches case (house party, trespassing, not peaches home)

Question 3

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

Holding, Issue

Answer 3

• Issue:
  1. Whether the warrant sufficiently satisfied the requirements of the Warrant Clause; meaning the warrant was one “particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
  2. Whether the police executed the warrant in a way consistent with the defendant’s constitutional right to be secure in his home
• Holding:
  1. Yes – the warrant sufficiently described the place to be searched and the things to be seized
  2. Yes – the police executed the warrant properly

Question 4

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

Sufficiently Particular
- Main question - did the factual mistake invalidate the warrent?

Answer 4

• Validity of the warrant must be assessed on the basis of the information disclosed, or had a duty to discover and disclose, to the issuing magistrate
• Must judge constitutionality of police conduct in light of the information available to them when they acted
• Due dilligence

Question 5

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

In Execution:
- Main question – was the police conduct reasonable in executing the search?

Answer 5

• “Court has also recognized the need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes . . . In the dangerous and difficult process”
• Validity depends on “whether the officer’s failure to recognize the overbreadth of the warrant was objectively understandable and reasonable”

Question 6

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

Key Takeaways:

warrents requirements particulaity and execution

Answer 6

• The place to be searched must be described in the warrant with sufficient clarity that the officer executing it can identify it with reasonable effort
• Doesn’t have to be perfect and based on information known at the time presented to
  magistrate
• If a mistake is made in executing a warrant, the Court will allow the evidence to be used if the law enforcement mistake was objectively understandable and reasonable

Question 7

Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)

Issue, Holding, Exception

Answer 7

Issue:
- Whether the 4th Amendment warrant requirement requires police officers to knock-and-announce prior to executing a warrant
Holding:
- Yes, police must knock-and-announce
Exception:
- “In order to justify a “no-knock” entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” (cant be a blanket exception)

Question 8

United States v. Watson (1976)

Answer 8

Issue:
- Whether the police may make a public arrest without a warrant or an exigent circumstance based solely on probable cause.
Holding:
- Yes – police may arrest an individual in public without a warrant or without an exigent circumstance if there is probable cause

Question 9

Big Picture – post Watson, a warrant is not necessary for a police officer to make an arrest in a public place so long as

Answer 9

he has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed

Question 10

Payton v. New York (1980)

Issue, Holding

Answer 10

Issue:
- Whether the 4th Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest in the home, even if supported by probable cause
Holding:
- No – to arrest an individual in his/her home, probable cause is not enough; instead, must have a warrant or an exigent circumstance

“In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance of the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant”

Question 11

United States v. Robinson (1973)

Issue, Holding

Answer 11

• Issue:
  Whether the ‘seach incident to an arrest’ exception to the warrant requirement allows for a full search of the person, as opposed to only a “safety” search
• Holding:
• Yes, search incident to an arrest allows the police officer to search the entire person of the arrestee – not limited to where a gun or knife could be
• Analysis – An arrest based on probable cause alone is a reasonable search under the 4th Amendment. A search of the person incident to the arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement. This allows for a full search of the
  person

Question 12

United States v. Robinson (1973)

The majority

Answer 12

“Well settled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is a
traditional exception to the warrant requirement:”
1. Search may be made of the person of the arrestee by virtue of the lawful arrest
2. A search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee

Question 13

United States v. Robinson (1973)

Issue related to the scope of the breach

Answer 13

limited towhere a weapon could be (Terry) or any where a weapon or evidence could be

Question 14

United States v. Robinson (1973)

The rational for the exception

Answer 14

not just the officer’s safety, but also the need to find/preserve evidence

Question 15

Chimel v. California (1969)

Holding, Issue

Answer 15

Issue:
- Whether law enforcement may search the entire home when arresting an individual in his/her home
Holding:
- No, while police may conduct a warrantless search incident to an arrest while in the home, the search is limited to:
1. The arrestee’s person; and
2. The area within the arrestee’s immediate control, meaning the area from within which he/she might gain possession of a weapon or destructible device

Question 16

Reasoning behind Chimel v. California (1969)

Answer 16

Common sense - searching for a nearby weapon or nearby destructible evidence makes sense, but searching entire home does not

Question 17

New York v. Belton

Issue, Holding

Answer 17

Issue: Whether the scope
of a search incident to an
arrest in a vehicle extends
to the entire passenger
compartment

Holding: Yes, when police
make a lawful arrest of a
driver, police may search
the entire passenger
compartment of the
automobile and any
containers therein – even if
there is no possibility the
arrestee could gain access

Question 18

Thorton v U.S

Issue, Holding

Answer 18

Issue: Whether the rule from
Belton applies when the
arrestee was a ‘recent
occupant’ of the vehicle

Holding: Yes, Belton applies
to recent occupant

Question 19

Gant v. Arizona

Issue, Holding

Answer 19

Issue: Whether the scope of a search incident to an arrest in a vehicle extends to the entire passenger compartment after arrestee is placed in police car

Holding: No. Police may search a
vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is:
1. Within reaching distance of the
passenger compartment at the time of the search, OR
2. it is reasonable to believe the
vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest

Question 20

Reily v. California (2014)

Issue, Holding

Answer 20

Issue: Whether police officers may search an individual’s phone as a search incident to a lawful arrest

Holding: No, the phone has a heightened expectation of privacy and therefore law enforcement may not search the phone absent a warrant

Question 21

Riley v. California (2014) how the court came to their decision

Answer 21

applied the balancing test and used the exigent circumstances justifying Chimel as the “government interest” that is then weighed against the nature of the intrusion

Question 22

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)

Issue, Holding

Answer 22

Issue
* Whether a “consent” to search is voluntarily given if the person consenting is not aware of his/her right to refuse to consent.

Holding
* It depends – consent to search is valid if it is voluntarily given; meaning that the consent was not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied
* Voluntariness is a finding of fact determined by the totality of the circumstances
* Subject’s knowledge of the right to refuse is a factor, but not dispositive

Question 23

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

Issue, Holding

Answer 23

Issue:
- Whether one occupant may give law
enforcement effective consent to search shared
premises, as against a co-tenant who is present
and states a refusal to permit the search

Holding:
- No, a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for
evidence over the express refusal of consent by a
physically present resident cannot be justified as
reasonable as to him/her on the basis of consent
given to the police by another resident

Question 24

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

Third Party Consent Generally

Answer 24

1. Allows for warrantless entry of a person’s house without a warrant based on the voluntary consent of an individual possessing authority
2. That person might be the householder against whom evidence is sought, or a fellow occupant who shares common authority over property, when the suspect is absent.

Question 25

# Georgia v. Randolph (2006) Third Party Consent Generally rests on

Answer 25

“mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.” - Doesn’t matter if police are wrong – so long as they reasonably believed the person who consented is a resident

Question 26

Search incident to an arrest for the phone

Answer 26

cannot search the content of the phone as a search incident ot an arrest; requires a warrant to search the content of the phone. However, law enforcement can seize the phone as they await a warrant and they can view anything that “pops up” on the phone

Question 27

Must be voluntary: totality of the circumstances test

Answer 27

What would a typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and subject - Third parties consent if they chare common authority over then property, when the subject is absent

Question 28

U.S. v. Santana (2021) What is Hot Pursuit? | 4 points

Answer 28

- When the police have probable cause and attempt to make a warrantless arrest in a “public place,” they may pursue the suspect into private dwellings - Police officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure - Can look for the felon anywhere he/she may be in the house - The scope of the search may be as broad as reasonably necessary to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping

Question 29

# Coolidge v. New Hampshire Basic Rule of Plain View Doctrine

Answer 29

An objective of an incriminating nature may be seized without a warrant if it is “plain view” of a police officer lawfully present at the scene

Question 30

Plain View Doctrine is a justification for

Answer 30

the police to conduct a warrantless seizure of the evidence in plain view

Question 31

Court in Coolidge provides that an article is in plain view and subject to warrantless seizure by police if: | 3 prongs - remember the second prong is not relevent after Horton

Answer 31

1. Police lawfully make an initial intrusion or otherwise be in a position from which they can view a particular area; 2. Police must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and 3. It is immediately apparent to police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure

Question 32

Arizona v. Hicks (1986) | Issue, Holding

Answer 32

Issue: Whether the plain view doctrine requires police officers to have probable cause or a warrant to search an item located in plain view Holding: - Yes, when police discover an item under the plain view doctrine, they must have probable cause to conduct a “search” of that item

Question 33

Key to the third prong of the probable cause doctrine

Answer 33

need probable cause to support the "immediately apparent" requirement

Question 34

Horton v. California (1990) | Issue, Holding

Answer 34

Issue: - Whether the plain view doctrine allows for the warrantless seizure of evidence even though the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent Holding: - The inadvertent prong of Coolidge was not binding precedent - The two prongs of plain view doctrine is: 1. Incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent; and 2. The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself (police officer lawfully entitled to be in the location)

Question 35

Maryland v. Buie (1990) | Issue, Holding

Answer 35

Issue: Whether, under the general reasonableness balancing test, can the government conduct a protective sweep whenever they make in-home arrest for a violent crime Holding: - No, while the reasonableness balancing test allows for the potential of a protective sweep – as the government interest outweighs the privacy interests – a protective sweep is not “automatically” allowed whenever police make an in-home arrest for a violent crime

Question 36

Lange v. California (2021) | Issue, Holding

Answer 36

Issue: Whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always – or more legally put, categorically – qualifies as an exigent circumstance Holding: No. In determining whether an exigent circumstance justifies a warrantless entry of the home, the determination must be made on case-by-basis, utilizing a totality of the circumstances analysis to determine that the emergency present allows insufficient time to get a warrant

Question 37

Maryland v. King (2013) | Issue, Holding

Answer 37

Issue: Whether the collection of DNA from an arrested individual, without a warrant, amounts to an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment Holding: No, police may collect a DNA sample from an arrested individual without first acquiring a warrant - “When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photography, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment”

Question 38

# Maryland v. King (2013) Goverment interests (5)

Answer 38

1. Helps law enforcement know the arrestee’s true identity 2. Helps law enforcement ensure that the custody of the arrestee does not create inordinate “risks for facility staff, for the existing detainee population” 3. Helps law enforcement ensure that persons accused of crimes are available for trial 4. Helps determine whether bail is appropriate 5. Help free innocent people - Says that taking and analyzing a cheek swab (aka getting DNA) is like fingerprinting

Question 39

Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) | Issue, Holding

Answer 39

Issue: Whether police may order a warrantless blood test for a drunk-driving offense when the driver’s unconsciousness or stupor requires him to be taken to the hospital before police have a reasonable opportunity to get a warrant Holding: Yes, when the police have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a drunk driving offense and the driver is unconscious, a warrant is not generally required to order a blood test

Question 40

California v. Carney (1985)

Answer 40

Issue: Whether the 4th Amendment requires law enforcement to acquire a warrant before searching a motor home when there is probable cause of a felony being committed Holding: No – police do not have to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle, to include a motor home, so long as they have probable cause

Question 41

Significance of California v. Carney (1985) | Automobile Exception

Answer 41

ffirms the automobile exception to the warrant requirement – police don’t need a warrant to search a vehicle so long as they have probable cause - They can search anywhere in the car where the evidence for which they are searching may be - Includes containers if the container can fit the evidence

Question 42

California v. Carney (1985) Not based on exigency, but rather a lessened expectation of privacy stemming from:

Answer 42

- Inherent mobility of the vehicle - The amount of regualtion - Significant because state can then not limit it to when an exigency prevents getting a warrant (Maryland v. Dyson) “A citizen who enters an automobile surrenders the right to have the initial probable cause determination of a car search made by a magistrate”

Question 43

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) | Issue, Holding

Answer 43

Issue: Whether police officers conducting a search under the automobile exception may inspect passengers’ belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search Holding: Yes, when police have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may search a passengers’ belongings so long as those belongings are capable of concealing the object of the search

Question 44

# Automobile Exception PC attaches to car

Answer 44

search anywhere to include containers where evidence may be without a warrant

Question 45

# Automobile Exception PC attaches container within the car

Answer 45

search the container without a warrant, but not the rest of the car

Question 46

# Automobile Exception PC attaches to the car which holds passenger containers

Answer 46

can search containers belonging to passengers, but not their bodies (e.g. pockets, etc).

Question 47

Automobile - Inventory Searches

Answer 47

- So long as police are following standard operating procedures, may impound and search a vehicle - Scope extends to anywhere weapons or valuable materials may be

Question 48

Colorado v. Bertine (1987) | Issue, Holding

Answer 48

Issue: - Whether law enforcement may search a vehicle and its containers therein without a warrant as an “inventory search” even if the policy standard affords the officer a certain amount of discretion Holding: - Yes, if the police have lawfully impounded a vehicle, they may, pursuant to an established standard procedure, secure and inventory the vehicle’s content - Inventory search permissible even if departmental regulations gave the police officer discretion to choose between impounding and not so long as the discretion is exercised according to standard procedure

Question 49

Colorado v. Bertine (1987) end result

Answer 49

reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the 4th Amendment, even if courts later on could devise equally reasonable rules