Warrant Clause & Probable Cause Flashcards
Johnson v. US - Is something burning in room 207
In Johnson, police officers went to the defendant’s hotel room after receiving a tip that the defendant was involved in illegal drug activities. When the officers arrived at the hotel, they smelled a strong odor of burning opium coming from the defendant’s room. The officers knocked on the door, and when the defendant opened it, they entered the room without a warrant and arrested her. A search of the room revealed illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was subsequently charged with drug offenses. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the warrantless search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, emphasized that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, with only a few narrowly defined exceptions. In this case, the Court found that the smell of burning opium did not justify a warrantless entry and search. The Court held that the officers should have obtained a search warrant before entering the room, as they had time to do so while waiting for the defendant to answer the door; The reason for the warrant clause is to provide a check on potentially overzealous officers by having a third party magistrate determine the credibility of their suspicions → neutral and detached magistrates can ensure the protections of the 4th from unreasonable searches and seizures
Aguilar-Spinelli v. US—Pre Gates - Are they Smart? Are they Reliable
In Spinelli, the FBI obtained a search warrant to search the defendant’s apartment and car based on information from an anonymous informant and their own surveillance. The informant claimed that Spinelli was involved in illegal gambling activities, but the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not provide any details about the informant’s reliability or the basis for their knowledge. The search resulted in the discovery of evidence of illegal gambling, and Spinelli was subsequently charged with federal gambling offenses. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause and that the evidence should be suppressed.
Two-pronged test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for a search warrant. The test requires that:
The Veracity Prong: This prong requires the government to show that the informant has provided reliable information in the past, or that the information provided is corroborated by other independent sources.
The Basis of Knowledge Prong: This prong requires the government to show that the informant had a basis of knowledge for the information provided.
Illinois v. Gates - Everything Bagel
In Gates, the police received an anonymous letter that alleged the defendants, a husband and wife, were involved in drug trafficking. The letter detailed their criminal activities and predicted a future drug run. The police conducted an investigation that corroborated some aspects of the letter, including the defendants’ travel plans. Based on the anonymous letter and their investigation, the police obtained a search warrant, which led to the discovery of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The defendants were subsequently charged with drug offenses.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and upheld the validity of the search. The majority opinion, authored by Justice William Rehnquist, abandoned the two-pronged test from Spinelli and established a new, more flexible standard for evaluating informant tips in search warrant applications. The Court adopted a “totality of the circumstances” approach, which allows judges to consider all relevant information, including an informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge, along with the degree of corroboration, in determining whether probable cause exists.
Totality of the Circumstances Test
Totality of the circumstances: judicial examination of the facts from a practical, common-sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before then, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying the hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
Strong Prong/Weak Prong
Carter v. US: no specific statement was given as to the basis of the informants knowledge for staging that marijuana was growing on a certain property; however, some details concerning the location of the property was given, and any deficiency in basis of knowledge is compensated for by an informants prior tracker record of reliable tips
Function of Corroboration
US v. Warner: a confidential and reliable source provided a tip about a gun, then the next day another tip corroborated this information
Massachusetts v. Upton
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 per curiam decision, reversed the state court’s ruling and held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The Court applied the “totality of the circumstances” approach established in Illinois v. Gates and found that, considering the informant’s reliability, the corroborating information from the officer’s investigation, and other relevant factors, there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found at the defendant’s residence.
Knock and Announce Requirement
United States v. Contreras-Ceballos—The requirement for knock and announce serves 3 purposes
Protects citizens and law enforcement officials from violence
Protects individual privacy rights
property
The knock and announce rule requires law enforcement officers to identify themselves, announce their presence, and provide the reason for their entry before entering a private residence to execute a search warrant. This rule is meant to protect individual privacy and property rights, as well as to prevent unnecessary violence or confrontation between officers and occupants of a residence.
Exceptions to Notice Rule - Open Common Areas, “Amazon Delivery”
- If the door to a residence is already open, police are not required to announce their presence before entering, because the prohibition is only against breaking the door
- United States v. Mendoza: Officers are not required to knock on the front door of a duplex because the door opened to a common hallway where the defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy; and they were not required to knock before entering the defendants apartment because it did not have a door
- United States v. Alejandro: Officers pretended that they were employees of a utility company checking out a gas leak when the defendant opened the door the officers entered, there was no violation of the knock and announce requirement because there was no breaking
Totality of the Circumstances Test
Totality of the circumstances: judicial examination of the facts from a practical, common-sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before then, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying the hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
Strong Prong/Weak Prong
Carter v. US: no specific statement was given as to the basis of the informants knowledge for staging that marijuana was growing on a certain property; however, some details concerning the location of the property was given, and any deficiency in basis of knowledge is compensated for by an informants prior tracker record of reliable tips
Function of Corroboration
US v. Warner: a confidential and reliable source provided a tip about a gun, then the next day another tip corroborated this information
Totality of the Circumstances Test
Totality of the circumstances: judicial examination of the facts from a practical, common-sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before then, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying the hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
Strong Prong/Weak Prong
Carter v. US: no specific statement was given as to the basis of the informants knowledge for staging that marijuana was growing on a certain property; however, some details concerning the location of the property was given, and any deficiency in basis of knowledge is compensated for by an informants prior tracker record of reliable tips
Function of Corroboration
US v. Warner: a confidential and reliable source provided a tip about a gun, then the next day another tip corroborated this information
Maryland v. Pringle
The definition of probable cause is imprecise and dependent upon the totality of the circumstances, but probable cause generally requires that the arresting officer had a reasonable basis for believing in the guilt of a particular person. Accordingly, there was sufficient probable cause to arrest Pringle, and his arrest did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Totality of circumstance: The drugs and cash were found in a relatively small car, not a large vehicle where the contraband could easily be concealed from the other occupants. The arrest took place during a late-night traffic stop, a time when drug transactions are more likely to occur. The large amount of cash and drugs found in the car suggested the possibility of drug dealing, an enterprise that often involves more than one person.
Florida v. Harris - I’m gonna see the dogs permit
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling and held that the use of a drug-detection dog’s alert can provide probable cause for a search. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized that a “totality of the circumstances” approach should be applied in determining whether a dog’s alert provides probable cause. The Court rejected the Florida Supreme Court’s more rigid requirements for establishing a dog’s reliability and instead focused on factors such as the dog’s training, certification, and the handler’s experience.
Warden v. Hayden - Hot pocket
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, reversed the lower courts’ rulings and held that the warrantless search was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Byron White, found that the officers’ entry into the house was justified due to the hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect who posed a potential threat to the officers and others. The Court also held that once the officers were lawfully inside the house, they could search for and seize any evidence related to the crime in plain view or in areas where the suspect could be hiding.
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily—You took pictures of me?
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, reversed the lower courts’ rulings and held that the search warrant was constitutionally valid. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Byron White, found that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the issuance of search warrants for newspapers or other third-party entities not suspected of criminal activity, as long as the warrant is based on probable cause and particularly describes the items to be seized. The Court rejected the argument that newspapers should receive special protection from search warrants under the First Amendment, stating that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were sufficient. Valid warrants may be issued to search any property, whether or not occupied by a third party at which there is probable cause to believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime will be found – nothing on the 4th suggests that the third party search should not normally issue
Andresen v. Maryland—Particularity Requirement - Can I get uhhh…
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the search and Andresen’s conviction, finding that the search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., reasoned that although the warrant authorized the seizure of a large number of documents, it was sufficiently particular in describing the items to be seized and the alleged criminal activity. The Court emphasized that the warrant did not authorize a general search, but rather targeted specific documents and records that were relevant to the investigation of the land transaction fraud.
Andresen v. Maryland—Particularity Requirement - Can I get uhhh…
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the search and Andresen’s conviction, finding that the search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., reasoned that although the warrant authorized the seizure of a large number of documents, it was sufficiently particular in describing the items to be seized and the alleged criminal activity. The Court emphasized that the warrant did not authorize a general search, but rather targeted specific documents and records that were relevant to the investigation of the land transaction fraud.
