4Th Amendment

Front 1

Exclusionary Rule

Back 1

A rule precluding the introduction @ trial of evidence unlawfully obtained in violation of the constitution safeguards against unreasonable searches & seizures.

Front 2

"Silver Platter" Doctrine

Back 2

Holding doesn't bar state officials from giving illegally seized evidence to Federal prosecutors.

Front 3

Standing

Back 3

Right to complain

Front 4

Mapp v. Ohio
Factual Changes:

Back 4

-Elkins case discarded "Silver Platter" Doctrine

-Rea discarded the reverse of "Silver PLatter" Doctrine

-Relaxation of standing to challenge requirements

Front 5

Effect of E/R

Back 5

To exclude from consideration otherwise useful evidence obtained in violation of Constitutional rights

Front 6

E/R said to be...

Back 6

either part & parcel of the 4th Amendment, or practically necessary as the only truly viable sanction giving teeth to its guarantees

Front 7

E/R rationales

Back 7

(1) Deterrence of police misconduct

(2)Maintain judicial integrity

Front 8

E/R Applicable

Back 8

E/R 1st announced for the Fed. Gov. (Weeks) is applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (Mapp).

Front 9

"The New Federalism"

Back 9

States granting greater rights to the accused than required by the Supreme Court.
-Typically, these protections are based upon the state's own constitution.
-States can raise the bar, but never lower it beneath Fed. guidelines.

Front 10

Cardozo's E/R Observation

Back 10

"The criminal goes free b/c the constable blundered."

Front 11

Exceptions to Use of the E/R

Back 11

(1) Non-trial proceedings
(2) Impeachment of witnesses
(3) "Good Faith" Exceptions
(4) "Independent Source"
(5) "Inevitable Discovery"

Front 12

Non-Trial Proceedings

Back 12

Include grand jury & preliminary hearings

Front 13

"Good Faith" Exceptions

Back 13

(1) Evidence obtained in REASONABLE RELIANCE on defective warrant may be admissible (Leon)
(2) Can't be OBVIOUS ERROR or judicial rubber stamp for police
(3) Can't be deficient in PARTICULARIZING place to be searched or things to be seized
(4) Can't cure IMPROPERLY EXECUTED warrants

Front 14

"Independent Source"

Back 14

Where evidence produced from some source other than police mistake or misconduct.

Front 15

"Inevitable Discovery"

Back 15

Where, despite police misconduct, the evidence definitely would have been discovered in any event by some means beyond any taint.

Front 16

E/R Standard of Proof

Back 16

Preponderance of the Evidence

Front 17

Interests Protected by 4th Amendment

Back 17

Specific guarantees: Persons, houses (including curtilage), papers, and effects.

-Original emphasis on places (property) using trespass doctrine (Olmstead)

Front 18

Contemporary Right of Privacy

Back 18

(A) Katz Doctrine

(B) Emphasis on PEOPLE, not places

(C) No need for PHYSICAL TRESPASS to initiate violation

Front 19

Katz Doctrine

Back 19

(1) Reasonable (objective)
Expectation of Privacy (subjective)
(2) Justifiable (objective)
Reliance on Privacy (subjective)

Front 20

Specific Applications

Back 20

(a) SUBJECTIVE EXPECTATION may not be a REASONABLE EXPECTATION (Ciraolo)
(b) Thermal imaging violates REASONABLE EXPECTATION (Kyllo)
(c) No REASONABLE EXPECTATION where "FALSE FRIEND" or undercover officer, whether unwired, recording, or using a transmitter (White)
(d) No REASONABLE EXPECTATION where beeper facilitates survelliance

Front 21

Jones GPS Case

Back 21

Katz Doctrine does not replace Olmstead's trespass approach, merely expands 4th Amendment protections to include people as well as places

Front 22

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Back 22

No need to consider the necessity of Probable Cause or either a warrant or some exception to the warrant requirement.
-B/c no constitutionally-protected interest at stake.

Front 23

Pre-Katz Cases [Old Bad Law]

Back 23

(1) Boyd v. U.S.
(2) Olmstead v. U.S.
(3) Warden v. Hayden

Front 24

Boyd v. U.S.

Back 24

-Compelling papers fall b/w 4th & 5th
-Gov. is not allowed to arbitrarily search for private papers

Front 25

Olmstead v. U.S.

Back 25

Non-trespassory wiretaps do not violate constitution b/c only protects tangible things, so w/o physical trespass no violation

Front 26

Warden v. Hayden

Back 26

Mere evidence may be seized where there's PC

Front 27

Post-Katz Cases [Good Law]

Back 27

(1) Kyllo
(2) White
(3) Jones

Front 28

Kyllo

Back 28

Thermal imaging lawful

Front 29

White

Back 29

It's ok to have undercover officer w/ tape recorder on his person & undercover transmitter (wire).
-No expectation of privacy

Front 30

Jones

Back 30

-GPS tracking device is a search
-May use if reasonable in duration

Front 31

"Open Fields" Doctrine

Back 31

See something in plain view, like an open field, no search, which means no 4th violation

Front 32

Probable Cause (P/C)

Back 32

(1) Required for BOTH warranted & warrantless searches & seizures
(2) Incapable of precise definition, but MORE than merely "likely"
(3) Must be REASONABLE GROUNDS for PROBABILITY of guilt, particularized re the person to be arrested or the object to be searched & seized

Front 33

Clauses of 4th Amendment

Back 33

(1) Reasonableness Clause

(2) Warrant Clause

Front 34

Warrant Preference Model

Back 34

-Normally need P/C AND warrant
-Limited number of exceptions
-Warrantless arrests & searches/seizures are PER SE unreasonable

Front 35

Arrests

Back 35

(1) P/C, officers may arrest for felonies & misdemeanors COMMITTED IN THEIR PRESENCE, & for felonies NOT IN THEIR PRESENCE

Front 36

(2) No warrantless arrest INSIDE HOUSE, unless Exigent Circumstances (Payton)
-Violation is an illegal search
-If P/C not an illegal arrest

Back 36

(3) Inherent in arrest warrant is limited authority to enter D's house

Front 37

(4) Must knock & announce even w/ warrant (unless "no-knock" warrant)

Back 37

(5) Should only enter during the day, unless authorized to enter a house at night

Front 38

Searches & Seizures

Back 38

(1) Confidential informants cannot be basis for warrants unless informant shown to be RELIABLE & information CREDIBLE by TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES (Gates)

Front 39

(2) 2 Prong Test of Aguilar & Spinelli

Back 39

(1) Must show UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES of informant's information

(2) Must show informant is CREDIBLE OR information is RELIABLE

Front 40

(3) 2 prong test is no longer strictly required, but may still be considered as party of the totality of the circumstances considered by the magistrate

Back 40

(4) Where officers acted in GOOD FAITH, imperfect warrants MIGHT still survive constitutional challenge as being REASONABLE

Front 41

(5) The magistrate may issue an "Anticipatory Warrant," contingent on the occurrence of specified conditions or events

Back 41

(6) Even w/ warrant, when entering home must "knock & announce" (unless "no-knock" warrant

Front 42

Recognized Exceptions to Warrant Requirement

Back 42

(1) Consent
(2) Search Incident to Arrest
(3) Exigent Circumstances (including especially automobiles)
(4) Plain View
(5) Open Fields

Front 43

Consent Searches

Back 43

(1) Must be FREE & VOLUNTARY (considering education, advice of rts., length of detention, prior illegal police action, custody, etc.)
(2) May be REVOKED AT ANY TIME
(3) Must be W/IN THE SCOPE of consent given (unless locked, containers in auto do NOT need separate consent)
(4) "Common Authority"
(5) "Apparent Authority"

Front 44

3 Principle Views on Warrant Preference Model

Back 44

(1) W/C pertains only to exclusively protecting against general warrants
(2) W/C stands alone; W/C & R/C should NOT be looked at together.
-W/C designed to control & regulate criminal warrants, not just general warrants, but even so there should be a "Conjunctive Relationship"
(3) W/C does not apply to R/C.
-R/C need to be seen through the analysis of the W/C

Front 45

P/C Standard

Back 45

Only a probability opposed to a prima facie case
-Credible=Believable
-Reliable=Informative

Front 46

"Apparent Authority"

Back 46

Constitutional where police are acting in good faith upon reasonable belief that 3rd party has authority to give consent (Rodriguez)

Front 47

U.S. v. Matlock

Back 47

Co-Tenants "Common Authority" have no authority to consent when the other co-tenant is present & objecting

Front 48

Coolidge v. N.H.

Back 48

(1) Initial intrusion must be lawful
(2) Inadvertent discovery not anticipated [Horton]
(3) Must be immediately apparent that items are subject to seizure (can't be exploratory search)

Front 49

Staleness

Back 49

Information is too old to be used for PC purposes

Front 50

Search Incident to Arrest

Back 50

(1) May search FULL PERSON for weapons or evidence (Robinson)
(2) May search area where person could grab weapons or evidence (Chimel)
(3) May seize any contraband readily apparent during search (Dickerson)
(4) Applies to ANY full-custody arrest, even minor traffic offense
(5) See Auto Searches

Front 51

Auto Searches
[PC Searches]

Back 51

(1) Need NO warrant b/c of exigency provided by both vehicle's mobility on highway & lesser expectation of privacy (Carroll)

Front 52

(2) If PC search is permissible on the highway, police can choose to move vehicle to the police station before carrying out that search (Chambers)
-Separate justification of inventory searches

Back 52

(3) Trunk probably included in full search, unless PC clearly not for trunk

Front 53

(4) Where PC for contained (even in trunk), may also search entire car (Acevedo)
-2 exceptions

Back 53

(a) Distinguish (Chadwick), where footlocker only temporarily allowed to be placed in D's trunk in order to prove D's possessory interest

(b) Distinguish (Sanders), where bag in trunk of taxi gave no PC for passenger compartment of taxi

Front 54

Auto Searches
[Incident to Arrest]

Back 54

(1) Limited to search for weapons and evidence

Front 55

(2) Entire interior of car and containers

Back 55

(3) Even when driver or occupants are not in car (Belton); and even if "recent occupants" are handcuffed and in patrol car (Thornton)
-Contra: (Gant), which took opposite view where accused handcuffed in patrol car
(Did no formally overturn (Belton), distinguished it on the facts)

Front 56

(4) Will lose right to search incident to arrest if car is impounded, but remember:
-(Chambers) if you can search on highway, can search at station; and also
-inventory searches

Back 56

(5) Reasonable Suspicion gives initial justification

Front 57

Inventory Searches

Back 57

(1) Can inventory ALL contents of vehicle when impounded
(2) Will need initial justification for impounding the car

Front 58

Stop

Back 58

Has to be justified at its inception

Front 59

Frisk

Back 59

Has to be reasonably related to the scope of the stop

Front 60

Stop & Frisk v. Search Incident to Arrest

Back 60

-S/F happens instantly; SIA happens BEFORE the arrest
-S/F pat down; SIA is FULL BODY search & grab/lung area
-S/F doesn't require PC; SIA requires PC for arrest
-S/F just for weapons; SIA can seize weapons, contraband, mere evidence

Front 61

3 Levels of Seizure

Back 61

(1) Merely Stop to Question
(2) Temporary Detention
(3) Full-Scale Arrest

Front 62

Merely Stop to Question

Back 62

-No 4th intrusion b/c not a seizure
-No R/S needed

Front 63

Temporary Detention

Back 63

-Must be reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave
-Any implication that police are exercising authority constituting temporary detention(Terry)

Front 64

Full-Scale Arrest

Back 64

Accused objection not free to leave, in which case, have to have PC

Front 65

"Terry" Reasonableness Searches/Seizures

Back 65

(1) Weapons Search
(2) Apparent Contraband
(3) Search of Vehicles
(4) Temporary Detentions

Front 66

Weapons Search

Back 66

(a) Criminal activity Reasonably believed to be afoot
(b) Officer identifies himself & makes reasonable inquires
(c) Nothing dispels fear regarding his safety
(d) Limited search of outer clothing
(e) For purpose of discovering weapons

Front 67

Seizing Apparent Contraband

Back 67

If during weapons pat-down "plain touch" reveals APPARENT contraband (PC), officer may seize it (Dickerson)

Front 68

Search of Vehicles

Back 68

(a) May do protective weapons search of interior of car (MI v. Long)
(b) Limited to where weapons might be hidden
(c) May seize any contraband in plain view during weapons search
(d) Weapons search may be made even if occupants out of car

Front 69

Temporary Detentions

Back 69

(a) Typically used to allow more time for PC to be developed
(b) Luggage may be seized BRIEFLY for a dog sniff (Place)
(c) Be careful that not too much time passes while search made
(d) Typically the initial "Seizure" is permitted where very little suspicion
(e) "Search" usually requires some individualized suspicion

Front 70

Roadblocks

Back 70

(1) Sobriety checkpoints do not violate 4th (Sitz)
(2) Non-border checkpoints for illegal aliens do not violate 4th (Martines-Fuerte)
(3) Would need individualized suspicion to pull any car out of line
(4) Drug checkpoints DO violate 4th (Edmond)

Front 71

Dog Sniffs

Back 71

(1) Sniffs, being plain smell to a trained dog, are not a search (Place, Caballes)
(2) State need only show dog trained to be reliable to raise presumption of PC (Harris)
(3) Question whether front-door sniff can provide PC for house (Fla. v. Jardines)

Front 72

Border Searches

Back 72

(1) Need NO suspicion at border
(2) Body cavity search needs particularized suspicion (Montoya de Hernandez)
(3) Need no particularized suspicion to examine gas tank (Flores-Montano)

Front 73

Sobriety Checkpoints typically approved:
-Need NO suspicion to stop cars for brief period
-Need individualized suspicion to pull any particular driver out of line

Back 73

Immigration Checkpoints (Even inland from border):
-Require NO suspicion

Front 74

Mandatory Drug Tests

Back 74

(1) Falls under "special needs" apart from normal policing, so NO suspicion needed
(2) Usually an element of implied consent
(3) Blood, breath, urine are all "searches", but Minimal intrusions
(4) Applies to student athletes & even extra-curricular activities when consent