Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
120 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the exclusionary rule?
|
a judge-made doctrine that prohibits the introduction of evdience obtained in violation of D's 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights.
|
|
|
What is the limitations to the exclusionary rule?
|
1. GOOD FAITH reliance on law, defective search warrant or clerical error
2. confessions inadmissible for failure to comply with MIRANDA warning may be admissible 3. use of illegally obtained evidence used to impeach D's credibility if he is on the stand: both illegally seized real or physical evidence can be used 4. does not apply to grand juries, civil proceedings, internal agency rules, and parole revocation proceedings |
|
|
What are the four exceptions to the good faith defense to the exclusionary rule?
|
1. no way a reasonable officer would believe the warrant was valid
2. the warrant was DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACT 3. the police officer or government lied to or MISLEAD THE MAGISTRATE 4. if the magistrate is not neutral/detached |
|
|
What is the scope of the exclusionary rule?
What is the doctrine called? |
Will exclude illegally seized evidence, as well as all evidence obtained or dervived from the explotation of that evidence
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine |
|
|
What is the way that to the fruit of the poisinous tree doctrine can be overcome? (Big picture)
|
Showing breaks in the causal chain
|
|
|
What are the specific exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
|
1. by showing an INDEPENDENT SOURCE of the original legality
2. INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: would have been inevitable that police would find the evid. anyway 3. INTERVENING ACTS OF FREE WILL on the part of the D |
|
|
Where the original police illegality is a ______ violation, real or physical evidence found as a result of exploiting the violation is not excludable as fruit of the poisonous tree
|
Where the original police illegality is a MIRANDA violation, real or physical evidence found as a result of exploiting the violation is not excludable as fruit of the poisonous tree
|
|
|
What does a person have to show in order to have a 4th amendment right?
|
1. governmental conduct AND
2. person in question must have a reasonable expectation of privacy |
|
|
What is the overall thing that a person must have in order to object to the legality a search and seizure
|
"standing"
|
|
|
Do passengers in a car who don't claim they own the car and don't claim the property taken out of the car, but were present at the time the things taken have standing to object?
|
No!
|
|
|
Do drug dealers briefly on the premises of someone else, solely for the business purpose of cutting up drugs have standing to object?
|
No!
|
|
|
What does it mean that a warrant must be precise on its face?
|
Must state with particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized
|
|
|
When is magistrate neutral for the purpose of warrant issuance?
When not neutral? |
Neutral: court clerks who issue warrant violations for city ordinances
Not Neutral: a. attorney generals b. magistrates getting paid based on issuance of warrants alone c. magistrate who goes w/police to the scene |
|
|
What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement? (broad)
|
C-H-E-A-P-S-S
1. Consent 2. Hot pursuit 3. Evanescent evidence 4. Automobile exception 5. Plain view 6. Searches incident to lawful arrest 7. Stop and frisk |
|
|
Requirements for search incident to a lawful arrest
|
1. arrest must be lawful
2. search and arrest must be contemporaneous in time and place 3. search must be limited to person's reaching distance -Exception: where a person is validly arrested in a car, wingspan includes interior of the car and everything in it, but not the trunk |
|
|
Do police have to warn you that you have a right not to consent to a search?
|
No.
|
|
|
What is the general requirement for a stop and frisk?
|
Reasonable suspicion
it's less than probable cause |
|
|
When is the Miranda warning required?
|
Anyone in CUSTODY of the government and accused of a crime must be given Miranda warnings prior to INTERROGATION by the police.
|
|
|
What is an interrogation for the purposes of Miranda?
|
any conduct in which the police knew or should have known that they might hav egotten a damaging statement
|
|
|
What must a Miranda waiver be?
What never counts as a waiver to Miranda? |
A Miranda waiver must be KNOWING, VOLUNTARY, AND INTELLIGENT
Silence or shoulder shrugs are never waivers to Miranda |
|
|
When is 6A violated? |
Once D |
|
|
Is 6A offense-specific? |
No. |
|
|
Someone hears their Miranda warning and says "I want my lawyer." What amendment applies? |
5A right to counsel |
|
|
Someone, outside of the time they hear their Miranda warning, says "I want my lawyer." What amendment applies?
|
6A right to counsel
|
|
|
Under 6A right to counsel, when must an attorney be present?
|
Attorney need only be present if the D is being asked questions about that attorney's case
|
|
|
Is 6A offense specific or non-offense specific?
|
Offense-specific
|
|
|
What are the two ways in which a D can successfully attack a pre-trial idenfication?
|
1. Denial of 6A right to counsel for post charge line-up and show-ups
2. Denial of due process: some pre-trial ID techniques ar eso UNNECESSARILY SUGGESTIVE to produce a SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF MIS-IDENTIFICATION that they deny due process of law |
|
|
What is the remedy for successful attacks on pre-trial identification?
|
Exclude the in-court identification
|
|
|
What is the purpose of the body of law surrounding pre-trial identification?
|
to give a quick check that the victim or witness is remembering the person from the crime and not from the proceeding
|
|
|
New Federalism |
States adopting more protective policies of the warren court. |
|
|
Conservative Justices |
Burger Blackman Powell Rhenquist Thomas Scalia |
|
|
Weeks v. US Mapp v. Ohip |
Exclusionary Rule Extends ER to states |
|
|
Bivens |
Civil claims for 4A violations |
|
|
Policy considerations of ER |
Balances deterring police misconduct vs. allowing criminals to go free |
|
|
Good Faith Exception to the ER |
US v. Leon: when reasonably well-trained officer acts in reasonablereliance on a search warrant obtained from a detached and neutral magistrate,even if the warrant is later found to lack probable cause. Applies to reliance on judicial precedent. |
|
|
What are the factors for determining attenuation of the taint/INTERVENING ACTS OF FREE WILL on the part of the D |
(1) How flagrant was the police violation(how strong is the tree?); (2) How close in temporal proximity (howmuch time passed) (3) Intervening circumstances (Wong Sun) Miranda by itself is not enough to attenuate. |
|
|
IndependentSource Doctrine |
Althoughknowledge was acquired at the time of the illegal entry, it was also acquiredat the time of legal entry pursuant to a warrantAlthoughknowledge was acquired at the time of the illegal entry, it was also acquiredat the time of legal entry pursuant to a warrant N/A if (1)decision of police to seek warrant was prompted by what they saw during theinitial entry, or (2) if info obtained during the entry was presenting tomagistrate as probable cause for warrant Dissent: hard to prove independence |
|
|
Inevitable Discovery |
State can show by preponderanceof the evidence that the information would’ve been inevitably been discoveredby lawful means Nix - christian burial speech |
|
|
Voluntariness standard under due process (5A) |
Statement is involuntary if, based on thetotality of circumstances, 1. Thepolice subjected the suspect to coerciveconduct; AND 2. Theconduct was sufficient to overcome thewill of the suspect (given her particular vulnerabilities and theconditions of the interrogation), thus inducing an involuntary statement. |
|
|
Voluntariness standard under due process (5A) Totalityof circumstances |
1. Suspect– age, education level, mental health 2. Police– what did they do Coercivepolice activity is a necessary predicate to an involuntary confession. - Connelly |
|
|
Informants |
Fulminante - 5A voluntariness violation - threatof physical violence from other inmates was coercive. Parker - Not miranda violation - no compulsion to talk. Henry - 6A violation - govt. set up situation to induce. |
|
|
Massiah - 6A right to council |
Prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches |
|
|
Escobedo - 6A right to council |
The criticalstage when an attorney is first required is not trial but when you gettaken into custody. |
|
|
Miranda warnings |
1. Ifthe suspect exercises his right to silence, interrogation must immediatelycease; 2. Ifhe requests an attorney, interrogation must cease until one is present. 3. Ifthe cops do get a statement, they have a “heavy burden” to demonstrate that theD “knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incriminationand his right to retained or appointed counsel.” |
|
|
Miranda Custody |
“Whata reasonable person believe that he was not free to leave.” Standard is an objective one: how areasonable person in his position would have understood the situation(location, duration, and persons present). But don’t forget the atmospheric piece! 1. Arrestor deprivation of freedom of movement in a significant way 2. Giventhe atmosphere, would a reasonable person feel free to leave?3. Consideratmosphere, location, duration, age |
|
|
Miranda Interrogation |
Conductdeliberately designed to evoke a confession as well as conduct the officersshould have “reasonably foreseen” would elicit an incriminating response. Forseeable: bothhe particular susceptibilities of the suspect and the knowledge the officershad of these at the time. Showing evidence can be the functionalequivalent of interrogation Not words or actions attendant to arrest |
|
|
No fruits for Miranda |
Miranda subsequent to questioning can cure (Oregon v. Elstad) See 2 phase questioning. |
|
|
2 phase questioning |
Todetermine if warnings delivered midstream are admissible, look at: (1)completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round ofinterrogation, (2) the overlapping content of the two statements, (3) timingand setting of the first and second statements, (4) the continuity of policepersonnel, and (5) the degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated thesecond round as continuous with the first. Can’t be repetitive. |
|
|
Public safety exception to Miranda |
Overridingconsiderations of public safety may justify failure to provide Miranda warningsbefore asking questions. |
|
|
Miranda request for council |
Questioningmust cease only after an unambiguous request for counsel. Once asuspect request council, a valid waiver cannot be obtained until council isavailable unless accused initiates communication. - Edwards v. Arizona “evinced a willingness and desire for generalized discussion about theinvestigation.” Compare to Davis where invokes right to remain silent and can be remirandized and questioned about another crime 2 hours later. |
|
|
Miranda waiver |
Knowing,intelligent and voluntary Knowing and intelligent: suspect understood that he had theright not to talk to the police or to talk only with counsel present AND thathe appreciated the consequences of foregoing these rights and speaking to thepolice. Therejust needs to be a minimal understanding of the rights and consequences. Voluntary, underthe totality of the circumstances, did the police subject the suspect tocoercive conduct that overcame the suspects will Lasts 14 days |
|
|
Implied miranda waiver |
Waiver may be “implied”through a suspect’s silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and acourse of conduct indicating waiver. Butler. “Wherethe prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it wasunderstood by the accused, an accused’s uncoerced statement establishes animplied waiver. |
|
|
6A interrogation |
Thegov’t deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the accused in theabsence of counsel (or a waiver of counsel); AND Thatthis occurred after the initiation of judicial proceedings, the point at whichthe right to counsel is triggered 1. Deliberateelicitation: did thepolice either act with the purpose of eliciting incriminating info or createan opportunity for the accused to make a statement? 2. Matterswhether officer intended to elicitthe confession, not whether actual questioning occurred, or the broaderstandard under Miranda. |
|
|
Listening post |
A listening post does not violate 6A because there is no deliberate elicitation. |
|
|
6A interrogation waiver |
Court appearance triggers 6A right to council. Jackson - police cannot question until conferred with council. Later overruled. Edwards does not apply - once the right to council has attached, police can question before seeing council without prisioner initiating contact. |
|
|
ID procedures |
1. Lineup (Wade case – line upwith only one Asian) 2. Photoarray – Departmentsthat are now being more sensitive show people one at a time. 3. Show up – Stowall case 4. Photocomposite pictures 5. Incourt identification (Wade) |
|
|
Right to council at identification under 6A |
6thAmendment triggered if adversary judicial proceedings have commenced - when indicted or otherwiseformally charged with criminal offense. Councilensures procedural fairness. Doesn't apply to other procedures - photo array, blood, ect. 6Adoesn’t attach pre-indictment. |
|
|
Fruits of right to council at identification |
Ifthe line-up was thrown out, then in court ID inadmissible UNLESSthe prosecution can establish that (1) evidence was independently based uponanother source (evidence had an independent origin) OR (2) error in its admission is harmless. |
|
|
Due process for identification procedures |
Underthe totality of the circumstances, procedure can’t be unnecessarily suggestiveand conducive to irreparable mistaken identification Stovall: have to analyze both (1) prejudicialnature of procedure and (2) the circumstances that necessitated. Evenif it’s unnecessarily suggestive, identification can still come in if it seemsreliable. Reliability factors must be weighed against the “corrupting effect ofthe suggestive ID itself,” Willnot do balancing if no unnecessarily suggestivecircumstances. |
|
|
Reliability factors for due process ID |
5 reliability factors must be considered: 1. Opportunity of the witness to view the perp at the time of the crime; 2. Witness’s degree of attention; 3. Accuracy of his prior description of the perp; 4. Level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation; and 5. Elapsed time between crime and confrontation. |
|
|
4th amendment |
4thApplicable if (1) govt action and (2) reasonable expectation of privacy |
|
|
Analysisfor violation if 4th is applicable |
1. Justificationforthe search and seizure 2. Necessity for a warrant (search, arrest, oradministrative warrant) 3. Scope or particularity |
|
|
Interpreting 4th Amendment |
Clauses –freedom from “unreasonable search and seizure” and requirement for probablecause and particularity when obtaining a warrant - are joined by the conjunction“and” Twointerpretations: (1) Read clauses separately, such that awarrant is but one of the factors in determining reasonableness (e.g., howmajority interpreted it in TLO) (2) Read the two clauses together, relying onthe second clause to give meaning to the term “unreasonable” (e.g., how Brenaninterpreted it in his dissent to TLO) – e.g., a warrant is required. |
|
|
Is there a search under 4A? |
Youhave a subjective expectation ofprivacy, that society accepts as objectively reasonable. |
|
|
Curtilage |
How close is the place (barn) Whether or not the place was in theenclosure around the home Nature of the uses Steps taken to protect the area fromobservations Open fields to not have a reasonable expectation of privacy |
|
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy and vantage point |
ifyou’re in a place where the public has lawful access (air or ground), theviewing of otherwise protected areas may not implicate the 4th |
|
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy - technology |
Mere enhancement of sensory perception to see things otherwise visible is okay. (Knotts chloroform drum) |
|
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy tactile |
Yes |
|
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy - third party exception |
Metadata– courts are currently conflicted Informants (Hoffa) Wire tapping Banking Garbage left outside cutilage |
|
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy - dogs |
Sui generis - no expectation of privacy because only detect unlawful behavior. (Caballes) Can't be on the property. Rodriguez |
|
|
TLO |
Scope of the search is limited to the justification. |
|
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy standing |
1. Have a key to an apartment and kept some of your stuff there. (Jones) 2. Overnight guest. (Olsen) 3. Sole purpose of packaging cocaine,business transaction, no standing (Carter) 4. Merepassengers of a car - no standing to contents of car. 5. If the car passenger was illegallyseized then you wouldhave standing (Brendlin v. California) 6. Ifyou keep items in someone’s purseno standing (Rawlings) |
|
|
Katz v United States |
TheFourth Amendment protects people, not places. Before Katz, invasion of property existed.Katz changes how we look at the 4th amendment. Court says oralconversations as well as tangible property are governed by 4thamendment. Katz running a gambling ring and using a public phone booth. Thepolice wire tapped it. Court says oral conversations as well as tangibleproperty are governed by 4th amendment. Once Katz entered the phonebooth he hada reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonableness balancing test. |
|
|
US v. Jones |
4Astill includes invasion of property Police got a warrant giving 10 days to install GPS trackeron car. Search warrant had grown stale and wasn’t for the location where it wasinstalled. |
|
|
Jones v United States |
Standing“legitimately” on the premises. Rule 41(e),a person aggrieved by an unlawful search or seizure. In this case, the Court wants to disregarddistinctions like guests and invitees |
|
|
Minnesota v Olson |
Overnightguest. Policebroke into the house and arrested him. An overnight guest in somebody else’s house. You need an arrest warrant to arrest somebodyin their house. As a result of the arrest,he makes a confession. So his argumentis that his statement is a fruit of the arrest. |
|
|
Rawlings v Kentucky |
Standing. Needexpectation of privacy in thing searched. Dumping drugs in anotherperson’s bag. Mr rawlings gave woman1800 tablets LSD to hold in her purse. Police dump out her purse. He admitsthey’re her drugs. He claims he had an expectation of privacy when he put thedrugs in the purse. Court says he didn’t have an expectation of privacy in thepurse. No expectation of privacy even if you have a possessory interest in theitem seized. |
|
|
Probable cause |
Factsand circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge that would warrant areasonable person to conclude that the individual in question has committed acrime (in the case of an arrest) or that specific items related to criminalactivity will be found at the particular place (in the case of a search). |
|
|
Probable cause - third party witnesses |
Reliability of the source must be weighed together with the accuracy of theinferences drawn. Two factor test: 1. Credibilityof the informant Could be demonstrated where the informantimplicates herself in criminal activity, history of useful information 2. Basisof the knowledge. Can be satisfied by information that canlead to the reasonable inference that the informant is speaking from personalknowledge. |
|
|
Probable cause - third party witnesses - independent corroboration |
Incases of anonymous tips, must determine that there is a “fair probability thatcontraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place” Canuse independent corroboration by police sufficient to “permit the suspicionsengendered by the informer’s tip to ripen into a judgment that a crime wasprobably being committed.” |
|
|
Probable cause - motivation |
Irrelevant |
|
|
Aguilar v Texas |
Twoprong test for informant credibility. Looking at the affidavit, and determining whetherthere is probable cause. Always analyzethe warrant. “Credible person” is a conclusorystatement. You’ve got to show that theperson is “reliable” and “credible” (veracity) and how this person knows, a twoprong test. Hearsay is admissible. *Certifieddogs are reliable informants |
|
|
Spinelli v United States |
Independentcorroboration can have the effect of helping to meet these prongs. Police got tip that guy was doing book making. Tosubstantiate tip police followed him for a few days and discovered that he hastwo phones listed under different names. No information that informant wascredible but substantiated. |
|
|
Illinois v. Gates |
Probable cause corroboration - If oneprong is substantially strong will ignore other prong. Shifts to totality test for probable cause.Anonymous letter telling police a couple is selling drugs. Police saw activity that could have been innocentactivity and stuff that was inconsistent with the tip. The letter may never satisfy the veracityprong. Court: the prongs are too technical and it should be a totality of thecircumstances analysis. Enoughcorroboration. |
|
|
Anticipatory warrants |
If atriggering condition occurs there is a fair probability that contraband orevidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, AND Thereis probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur. |
|
|
Probable cause - joint enterprise |
Withinthe narrow confines of a car, if you can make a reasonable inference that theoccupants had knowledge of and exercised dominion and control over contraband,probable cause. Court won’t put a threshold number on the # of people. Can't search everyone in a bar. |
|
|
Probable cause and arrest |
Cops have warrantless arrest power. |
|
|
Whren v United States |
If police had probable cause for thestop, his subjective intent doesn’t matter.Patrollingofficers were in vice squad – saw Mr. Whren stopped at intersection for longtime, pulled over. Find drugs. According to police got pulled over because hepulled through stop sign, but real reason was the type of area he was in. |
|
|
Atwater v City of Lago Vista |
Copshave warrantless arrest power. Even if the crime is very minor, if the officer hasprobable cause to believe that the crime was committed in his presence, he mayarrest the offender. Atwater drivingwithout a seatbelt on kids 3 and 5. .Under texas law, you can be arrested fortraffic offenses. |
|
|
Warrant requirements |
Must be issued by a neutral and detachedmagistrate. Not neutral in Lo-Ji Sales(justice officer participated in generalized search) Coolidge v NH (AGissued search warrants), Connelly v Georgia (magistrate gets $10 forevery warrant issued, a pecuniary interest) Probable cause Thewarrant must describe with particularitythe place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized. |
|
|
Detainment during execution of search warrant |
Searchwarrant for place allowed to seize (restrain) people on the premesis for 1.Safety of officers 2. Risk of flight 3. Integrity of search. But scopeof detainment limited to execution of search warrant. |
|
|
Arrest Warrants |
Needed for in home arrests |
|
|
Search incident to arrest warrant |
Youcan search the area in the immediate control of the arrestee. Justification for a search incident to anarrest. Two reasons: 1) lets remove anyweapons that can hurt the police, and 2) prevent the destruction of anyevidence relating to the arrest. "protectivesweep” of the premises: Canonly search things where a person could be hiding. If they can show (not asmuch as probable cause – articulable facts – that someone else might be onpremesis) can sweep whole house. |
|
|
Chimel |
Burglars coin shop. Armed with arrestwarrant cops search the whole house. Given justification, Scope of searchlimited to grabbing area. Not the wholehouse. |
|
|
Buie |
Two people commit armed robbery. Policego with arrest warrant. Maryland expands reaching distance to protected sweep.Can only search things where a person could be hiding. If they can show (not asmuch as probable cause – articulable facts – that someone else might be onpremesis) can sweep whole house. |
|
|
Warrant exceptions |
Consent Plain view Exigent Cars |
|
|
Consent to search |
Totality of the circumstances analysis to determine if consent was voluntary Knowledge of right to refuse consent isnot required but it is a factor to consider - Miranda not required. |
|
|
Consent to search - apparent authority |
Warrantlessentry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party if at the time ofthe entry, a reasonable officer would have reason to believe that the personhas authority to consent. Don’t need actual authority. |
|
|
Scope of a consent search |
Must be reasonable, limited to the justification |
|
|
Consent searches in cars |
If amotorist consents to a search, then the scope of the search may extend toanywhere in the vehicle where narcotics may be hidden (closed containers!) (Jimeno) |
|
|
Warrantless search - Plain view |
Elements 1. Vantagepoint has to be lawful (you have a right to be there) 2. Itemhas to be visible within the proper scope 3. Ithas to be immediately apparent that it’s evidence of a crime / contraband Can include plain touch if police feel something during a legal pat down and it is obvious what the contraband is. |
|
|
Warrantless search - Exigent circumstances |
Thecircumstances presented the police with a sufficient compelling urgency, makingresort to the warrant process both impracticable and risky; AND Thepolice had justification amounting to probablecause to believe that items relating to crime would be found (for a search)or that the suspect committed a crime (for an arrest) Urgency: gravity of the crime, likelihood that the suspect is armed; occupant is seriously injured or in imminent danger Blood alcohol level doesn't trigger - need a warrant |
|
|
Warrantless search - Exigent circumstances - Hot pursuit |
Ifin the home must be hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Once inside you can probably search for thesuspect and seize evidence and weapons found in plain view, while searchingthose areas where the suspect or weapons might be hidden. Butonce the pursuit turns cold, the excuse evaporates. |
|
|
Warrantless search - Exigent circumstances - Emergency aid exception |
Police can enter if they believe someone is hurt. |
|
|
Search incident to arrest |
Space: Limited to the person of thearrestee and the “grabable space” from which one could reach weapons orevidence. Includescontainers (US v. Robinson), but must occur contemporaneously (US v. Chadwick) Time: Search much occur at the time ofthe arrest; once the subject is securely in custody and the immediateexigencies of the arrest disappear, so too does the excuse |
|
|
Rileyv. California |
Search incident to arrest: Warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest isunconstitutional. Balancing:Degree which intrudes upon individuals privacy vs. need to promote legitimategovernmental interests. You don’t need a warrant in exigentcircumstances (e.g., suspected of being used to detonate a bomb). |
|
|
Search incident to arrest - cars |
Entireinterior of the passenger compartment = within the proper scope of acontemporaneous search incident to the arrest, even if subjects havealready been removed from the vehicle and cannot actually reach into it. |
|
|
NY v. Belton |
If you arrest someone who has just been in acar, you can search the interior of the car. Interior doesn’t include the trunk. Expands Chimel in autosituations. Officer pulls over, smells weed, arrests, and searches whole car. |
|
|
Gant |
A searchincident to a lawful arrest in a car can be effected only when either: i. The arrestee is unsecured and withinreaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or ii. It is “reasonable to believe evidencerelevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle” |
|
|
Warrant exception for car searches |
You don’t need a warrant to search avehicle if you have probable cause because the vehicle can quickly move out ofthe jurisdiction. Even if the car is impounded |
|
|
California v. Acevedo |
Police maysearch a car and any containers within it when they have probable cause tobelieve contraband or evidence of a crime is present anywhere inside – only limit is that they can search where suchitems may be hidden. |
|
|
Administrative searches |
Probablecause can be obtained by a reasonable administrative standard based on the reasonableness ofthe enforcement agency's appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole. |
|
|
Terry stop |
Need reasonable suspicion (lessthan probable cause) that criminal activity may have been afoot to stopsomeone. To pat down/frisk, need additional justification to justify furtherintrusion: reasonable suspicion suspect may be armed and dangerous. |
|
|
Terry v. Ohio |
Reasonablesuspicion for investigatory stop.Police officer with 39 years of experience notices a couple of men walking backand forth staring at a jewlrey store window. Officer stops them and ask fortheir names – they don’t respond. Pats them down and finds a gun. |
|
|
Investigatory stop - scope |
Scopeis limited by exigencies that justify its limitation: only to what is necessaryto discover weapons (pat down, pockets, etc.) |
|
|
Investigatory stop - Reasonablesuspicion |
Totality of the circumstances Areasonable suspicion need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct. Flight,high crime area, can be considered Can beinfo from an informant but it must be sufficiently credible. |
|
|
Seizure defined |
Yousomehow need to consent to police authority – become under their control – tobe seized. No seizure when cop is just chasing you. Runningbecause of a show of authority isn’t enough. |
|
|
Administrative searches - balancing |
Importance of the administrative objective to thepublic interest (gov’t purpose) VERSUS (1) Scope and degree of intrusion, (2)degree of discretion allowed to official, (3) degree of expectation of privacy(PRIVACY CONCERNS) Can't be criminal searches in disguise Neutral standardizedprocedures |
|
|
Administrative searches - School |
Reasonablesuspicion, not probable cause is required. School =special needs context; warrant and probable cause requirement would undulyinterfere with maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures |
|
|
Administrative searches - Roadways |
Notokay if traffic checkpoint program designed to interdictillegal activity Traffic checkpoints thatprimarily serve the purpose of ensuring safety are okay |
