Warrantless Searched Flashcards
o Warden v. Hayden
HELD: the warrantless entry into the house and the warrantless search for evidence were both lawful
Police received information from a taxi dispatcher that 2 drivers saw an armed robber run away from the scene and into a home. The police arrive and knock and announce. The wife let the police in, and the officers searched the home, finding the suspect as well as guns and ammo, and clothes that matched the suspect’s description
3 classic exigent circumstances (EHP)
(1) Officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant
(2) When they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect
(3) To prevent the imminent destruction of evidence
Warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances
Brigham City v. Stuart
- HELD: this was an exigent circumstance, and the police entered lawfully
- Police saw a violent brawl through the kitchen window
o Hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect
If the police have probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a felony and they are pursuing him to arrest him, then they have the right to enter a private building during the pursuit to search that building for the person or his weapons while they are present on the premises. And they can seize the evidence there even though the material found is mere evidence and neither fruits nor instrumentalities of a crime.
o Police created exigencies; preventing destruction of evidence
- HELD: police did not violate the 4th amendment by knocking, and exigent circumstances existed afterwards, so entry was constitutional
- The exigent circumstances rule does not apply when police create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the 4th amendment
- Police knocked loudly on the door and identified themselves. They heard noises inside and kicked down the door
o Dissipation of evidence: Blood Alcohol
- Warrantless blood test okay after a car accident
- Police entry into suspects home after observing erratic driving for purposes of gathering blood alcohol evidence violated the 4th amendment; investigation was of minor offense
- Natural disposition of blood alcohol does not always create exigency
- Warrantless blood test for blood alcohol is okay where the subject is unconscious in the hospital
o Exigency principles in applying the rule (NLPEA)
The nature of the exigency defines the scope of the search
The exigent circumstances exception lasts no longer than the exigency itself
The presence of the exigent circumstances doesn’t erase the probable cause requirement
Exigent circumstance exception doesn’t apply if law enforcement created the exigency through conduct that violates the 4th amendment
Emergency assistance scenario is unique – law enforcement do not need probable cause to enter
Chimel v. California (1969)
- Upon arrest, law enforcement may search – without a warrant – the arrestee’s person, and the area into which an arrestee might reach
- Standard: a lawful arrest creates a situation that justifies a warrantless contemporaneous search of the person arrested and the immediate surrounding area (i.e., wingspan) from which a weapon may be concealed or evidence destroyed
- If the arrest occurs in the home, its permissible to conduct a protective sweep for people who might attack, in spaces immediately adjacent to the place of arrest
Riley v. California (2014)
- Search incident to arrest does not permit search of cellphone contents
- Scope of search: the right to search incident to a lawful arrest includes the right to search pockets of clothing and to open containers found inside the pockets. The right also extends to shoulder bags and purses
- Absent exigent circumstances, police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information of a person arrested
NY v. Belton
- A search incident to arrest of a car’s occupant includes the passenger compartment, including containers
Knowles v. Iowa
- No search incident to arrest for a speeding ticket
o If a suspect is stopped for a traffic offense and given a citation but not arrested, then there can be no search incident to lawful arrest
o Automobiles and Pretext
The 4th amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity
Police must have an articulable, reasonable suspicion of a violation of the law in order to stop a car.
Arizona v Gant (2009)
- HELD: Police are authorized to search cars incident to arrest only when arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance OR when it is reasonable to believe the car contains evidence of the crime of arrest (URC)
Whren v. US (1996)
- HELD: officers had probable cause to believe that traffic code was violated. That rendered the stop reasonable under the 4th amendment
- Police may use pretextual stop to investigate whether a law has been violated, even if they have no reasonable suspicion, provided that they have probable cause to believe that the law for which the vehicle was stopped has been violated
- Officers patrolling a high drug area saw pathfinder with occupants waiting at a stop sign. Officers turned around when the car suddenly turned right without signaling and sped off at an unreasonable speed. The police went up to the car’s window and saw crack cocaine in Whrens hands
Automobile exception
- Court upholds warrantless search of car prior to arrest (and without grounds to arrest), but where there is probable cause to believe that the car is carrying contraband
California v. Carney (1985)
- Warrantless search of motor home is constitutional. A motor home is mobile, and vehicles are generally less private than homes and other effects as a result of pervasive regulation
Collins v. US (2018)
- HELD: warrant was needed as police had encroached on the home’s curtilage
- Officer approached motorcycle under a tarp in a residential driveway, and without a warrant, the officer pulled the tarp up and confirmed the motorcycle had been stolen
o US v. Chadwick (1997)
HELD: the search was unconstitutional
Agents arrested defendant outside of a train station, removed footlocker from trunk of car, and searched it at the station without a warrant
NOTE: not an automobile exception case, but it argues that the container search is analogous to the search of a car, an argument that the supreme court rejects
o California v. Acevedo (1991)
Overruled Sanders, court HELD that probable cause to search closed container in a car justifies warrantless search of the container
Without a warrant, police searched a paper bag in the car’s trunk. They had probable cause to search the bag but not the car
Police can search the bag that’s in the car, but they cannot search the car itself; if they couldn’t find the bag that they believed to contain the evidence, they could only search containers and compartments that could reasonably contain the evidence they’re looking for
o Plainview elements (LRI):
Lawful vantage point
Right of access to item
Incriminating nature of item is immediately apparent
o Horton v. California (1990)
Police, while searching Horton’s home pursuant to a warrant limited to proceeds of armed robbery, find weapons, a handcuff key, and more, in plain view
HELD: that plain view is not limited to instances of inadvertent discovery. Overruling Coolidge
o Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
During a search of an apartment for weapons just after a shooting, police noticed expensive stereo equipment, which they move to gather serial numbers
HELD: that even this minor manipulation was a search, requiring probable cause
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
- Court held that consent can be voluntary even if the target does not recognize their legal right to refuse
Bumper v. N.C. (1968)
- If a target is told that police have a warrant, that implies there is no right to refuse – and therefore consent is unvoluntary and invalid
Georgia v. Randolph (2006)
- If one physical present co-occupant refuses permission to search, the search is unreasonable and invalid as to him
- When the property to be searched is under the joint control of the defendant and a third party, and the defendant is present at the time of the search, then the police may not rely on third party consent if the defendant objects to the search
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)
- Where police reasonably believe that the person who consents to the search has authority to do so, but the police are mistaken, the warrantless entry is nevertheless lawful
- Police determinations don’t always need to be correct, but they must always be reasonable
- Scope of consent: objective reasonableness – what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and suspect
- Police called the residence of Dorothy Jackson, and her daughter told officers she was assaulted earlier in an apartment. The daughter told police that the assailant was sleeping, and she would take them to the apartment and open the door with her key. They saw drugs and drug paraphernalia
