Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
51 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Was it a search?
|
Katz Rule-
'4th amendment protects people, not places' person must have an ACTUAL expectation of privacy Expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected, but what he attempts to conceal may be protected. technically comes from Harlan's concurrence |
|
|
Informants and expectations of privacy
|
Hoffa-
when you conspire with other people, the fourth amendment doesn't protect you if they turn on you. Often includes the phrase 'assumption of risk' Lopez- doesn't matter whether or not informant and perp's statements are recorded Lee- ok for undercover cop to wear a wire White- agent who was listening to an informant talk to perp is conducting a search subject to the 4th. Note- always need warrant for wire tap Note- after formal proceedings begin and 6th amendment rights attach, this becomes a different question. |
|
|
Exclusionary Rule
|
Weeks- preferred remedy for 4th amendment violations
problem... what if violation isn't linked to a criminal prosecution? wolf- there are other options to the exclusionary rule... we pretty much don't use them though |
|
|
Physical encroachment or lack thereof and the fourth amendment
|
Supposedly pre-Katz doctrine
Olmstead (1928)-telephones put sound outside the house, so taps of the actual outside wires are not searches Goldman (1948)- agents using a device to pick up sounds in another room weren't violating the 4th Silverman (1968)- mike that touched a piece of perp's house was encroaching and violating 4th amendment Katz is supposed to uncouple searches from trespass. Kyllo (2001)- police used thermal cameras to study perp's home. Court found that this was a violation. Shows abandonment of the 'emanations' and 'constitutionally protected places' ideas of earlier cases |
|
|
To get a warrant or not to get a warrant?
|
Scalia- any reasonable search doesn't need a warrant.
Everybody else- absent special circumstances, a warrant is required to perform a search. It has to actually be a search though. |
|
|
Curtalege and searches
|
Unlike trespass, which is defined by property limits, 4th amendment privacy is defined by the boundary of where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy- curtalege.
Four factors Distance from the house Fencing Expectation of privacy in use of property Precautions taken to prevent others viewing |
|
|
Dog sniffs and searches
|
US v. Place- drug dog sniffs are sui generis (their own thing) and are pretty much always not violations. Why?
designed to detect only illegal stuff accurate IL v. Cabballes dicta suggests that if the perp is detained for longer than a standard traffic stop in order to perform a dog sniff, the sniff would have been a violation. |
|
|
Trash and searches
|
Greenwood (1988) – Police go through suspected drug dealer’s garbage to get info for a warrant. Court says No 4th violation. People assume their trash will enter into the hands of a third party. (the trashman)
emphatic dissent analogizes trash to mail, which does require warrant, and notes amount of personal info in trash. changes in technology, identity theft makes majority more persuasive today |
|
|
The 4th protects people, and not places. Except for some places. Mostly the home.
|
Knots- electronic monitoring of something that you could see without a search is not a search.
Karo- once the monitored object enters a home, and can't be viewed without a search, using the device is a search. Rule- the home is entitled to special protection. Yes, this isn't the 'people not places' line from Katz. Kyro- police monitored a house with thermal imaging camera to find growing marijuana plants. This was a search. |
|
|
Elements of a seizure
|
Intentional (Broward- SCOTUS held that perp crashing into roadblock was a seizure because police intended him to run into it... but just running off the road is not)
Immobilization, either through physical force or authority (Hadari- seizure doesn't occur until subject is stopped, even if subject is running away) Reasonable person would feel free to leave. (Bostic- perp was stopped on bus, consented to search of his bag. Court held that it was not a seizure, b/c even though he didn't feel free to leave, a reasonable person would have) |
|
|
What do cops need to arrest someone?
|
inside perp's home- arrest warrant
outside perp's home- probable cause inside another's home- search warrant, but no arrest warrant. |
|
|
Probable Cause
|
objective standard- a good enough reason to invade someone's privacy
Brinegar- the facts within the officer's knowledge are reliable and sufficient enough to warrant a man of reasonable caution's belief that an offense has been committed Nathanson- mere affirmation of suspicion isn't enough |
|
|
Informants as the basis for probable cause
|
Draper- paid informant that had given reliable information in the past gave a specific tip, so pc was there
Spinelli- informants aren't evaluated under totality of the circumstances. you look at: informant's reliability informant's basis for knowledge this is supposed to be more precise. |
|
|
How good warrants go bad
|
objectively reasonable mistakes are okay
MD v. Garrison- police had good warrant and searched wrong apartment. objectively reasonable Meuler v. Menna- held woman in her garage while searching house. suspect was somewhere else. o/r Retale- cops pull naked couple from their bed, don't let them cover themselves for a few seconds. not o/r Knock and Announce rule- old common law rule. Banks- police don't have to wait until the door is opened, especially if it would give perp time to dispose of drugs or evidence. 15-20 seconds is about the right amount of time. Wilson v. Lane- cops take a reporter to look for probation violator. Court says it is o/r, 3ps can be present and assist, but is uncomfortable with the idea of press being allowed on search- humiliation is not legitimate law enforcement objective. |
|
|
Exigent circumstances excusing warrantless searches
|
Grave endangerment- Mincey v. AZ- as long as people's lives are in danger.
Mincey also says that once no one is in danger, you have to go get a warrant... no exception for scenes of homicide Destruction of Evidence- Mendez- police smelled pot being smoked in an apt, while standing in the hallway. exigency existed Balancing test- exigency only exists if the underlying offense is serious enough Walsh- non-jailable drunk driving offense wasn't serious enough IL v. McArthur- jailable pot possession was serious enough Brigam City v. Stewart- at all costs, we want to avoid a rule that will prevent police from helping a citizen with a genuine emergency. |
|
|
Plain view doctrine
|
If cops see something in plain view, they have the right to sieze it without a warrant
NY v. Class- cop had to lean into car to move papers to see vin. had a legal right to be there, so could seize gun he saw under seat AZ v. Hicks- cop had to turn over stereo to see serial number and confirm that it was stolen. This wasn't in plain view. Horton v. CA- cops looking for stolen goods found guns while searching. That puts guns 'in plain view'. Note, if cops are looking for something bigger than a container, they can't open the container and be saved by the plain view doctrine (so looking for a piano, couldn't open a coffee can and seize perp's stash) |
|
|
Cars and probable cause, before Acevedo
|
Carol v. US- moving cars are exigent circumstance- car can zoom out of jurisdiction before police get warrant
Chambers v. Mooney- cops can search car in their custody without a warrant Chadwick- package in non-moving car is not covered by exception. robbins v. ca- plastic-wrapped drugs are still a package. US v. Ross- pc for drugs in car extends to entire car. if they had pc for something bigger, could only search places where object could fit (no pianos in glove box) Need a warrant to search container inside a car. Unless probable cause for entire car. If you only have probable cause for a container, you need a warrant. |
|
|
Cars and probable cause, after Acevedo
|
acevedo- cops had pc for container, but not car.
If there’s probable cause for the container - no need for warrant to search container in the car. (But if on street, not in a car, you can't search it without first making arrest). To search the entire car, need probable cause for the entire car. Another note on car searches- WY v. Haughten- if first search justified by exigent circumstances finds contraband, it may justify additional search for more contraband |
|
|
Mobile homes and probable cause
|
CA v. Carney- mobile home counted as car. Note that this was a trailer-style mobile home, with wheels, parked in front of someone else's house, so definitely capable of swift movement.
|
|
|
Clothing and probable cause
|
Clothing currently being worn is a part of the person
Clothing not being worn is a container. |
|
|
Arrests, warrants, and probable cause
|
All arrests need probable cause. Some also need arrest warrants.
Watson- outside of the home, all police need is pc. However, they can't search perp's person without warrant or exigency Payton- need arrest warrant to enter home and arrest perp. While there, police can seize things in plain view, but can't search without search warrant. Stegald- need search warrant to enter someone else's house to arrest perp. Atwater- no protection from arrest if pc for an offense, no matter how small. |
|
|
Inventory Search Doctrine
|
Police may search anything they bring to the station. Tends to eclipse any other search incident to arrest rules.
|
|
|
Searches incident to Arrest
|
Weeks- police may search person of the arrested perp for evidence and fruits of crime
Agnello v. US- police may also search place where arrest is made for fruits of crime for weapons Narrowed by Go-Bart and Leftwitz- can't open drawers, etc. because police could have gotten a warrant Then expanded by Harris and Rabinowitz- similar cases to go-bart, but police allowed to search more places. Chimel v. CA- police can search immediate area where perp could grab a weapon, but not the whole house Robinson- an arrest based on pc justifies search intrusion, doesn't need any more justification MD v. Buie (1990)- police can do a CURSORY sweep of home incident to arrest warrant |
|
|
Searches incident to arrest and automobiles
|
NY v. Belton- when cops make an arrest, they are allowed to search the passenger compartment of a car
Thornton- also allows search of passengers who just exited the car McLaughlin- allows search of passengers even if arrestee is removed from scene, 9th cir. AZ v. Grant- Belton does not authorize a search of passenger compartment when perp has been removed UNLESS officers have a reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) that evidence of the crime of arrest may be found in the passenger compartment. |
|
|
Terry Stops
|
Cops do 'search and seizure lite', calling it 'stop and frisk'
comes with lower suspicion requirement- reasonable suspicion. Wardlow- running away is enough for reasonable suspicion AZ v. Johnson- gang colors are enough for reasonable suspicion justification- frisk is less intrusive, so lower standard no recourse for a fruitless Terry stop Dunnaway- once a suspect could not reasonably believe he was free to go, such as being taken to the station house, he is seized, not stopped. US v. Place- Terry stops include exposing luggage to drug dogs |
|
|
Anonymous tips, reasonable suspicion, and Terry stops
|
anonymous tips alone may be more reasonable based on circumstances - airports, bad neighborhoods, and bomb threats, etc. Police a lot of discretion for reasonable suspicion.
AL v. White- anonymous tip described lady, where she came from, and where she was going. enough for reasonable suspicion FL v. JL- anonymous tip only described suspect. not enough for reasonable suspicion |
|
|
Frisks and 'plain feel' doctrine
|
Courts give great deference to officer safety
terry is supposed to be to check for weapons to protect officer safety. Smells or feels of other contraband must be pc for a separate search. pimms- cops can frisk during routine traffic stops MN v. Dickerson- plain feel case- if cop has to manipulate an object to tell that it's contraband, he can't say that he found it during a frisk |
|
|
Profiling in reasonable suspicion
|
Race is covered under 14th amendment
explicit classifications get strict scruitny= auto-fail for this class racist enforcement of facially neutral laws must be proved by policy had discriminatory effect policy had discriminatory purpose oneata- police can use race classification if it's reasonable, ie victim describes perp as 'black' other profiles like 'drug dealer' (sokolow) are ok, including nationality |
|
|
Vehicle stops
|
Whren- if there's pc for the stop, the inquiry ends there
Martinez-Fuerte- suspicionless checkpoint stops near the border are okay b/c gov't has high interest in combatting illegal immigration DE v. Prouse- random, reasonless stops to verify dl and insurance are not okay. fixed checkpoints might be, but that was not the case at hand. Sitz- sobriety checkpoints are constitutional. Edmond- suspicionless checkpoint with drug dogs in IN. Court said DUI was immediate public hazard, distinguished Sitz. Police can't use checkpoints to ferret out generalized wrongdoing. Lidster- stops to ask citizens for information about another crime are ok |
|
|
Border searches
|
At borders, all reasonable searches are constitutional. Border officials are more than cops, they protect the country from harmful entrants, so they have more discretion
Montoya de Hernandez- perp suspected of being 'swallower' could be detained for at least 16 hours to allow evidence to pass. Flores-montano- 'routine search' of vehicle could include taking apart the gas tank |
|
|
Use of force by police officers
|
TN v. Garner- constitutional standard is not old common law rule that force could be used to stop fleeing felon. New test is to deadly force is okay when officer has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect is a public safety hazard or when crime involves serious physical harm or threat thereof
Grahm v. Connor- Court says that use of force is what is objectively reasonable under the circumstances Scott v. Harris- lots of deference to police judgment using deadly force. police allowed to use deadly force to take out a fleeing speeder |
|
|
Consent to searches
|
Bustamonte- consent to search is valid whether or not suspect knows he can not consent.
Matlock- co-habitants can consent to searches of shared areas Randolph- if both co-habitants are present, they both must consent Rodriguez- if police reasonably believe that someone has the ability to consent to a search, search is valid FL v. Jimeno- officers can open containers, etc. if it was objectively reasonable for them to assume that consent covered the extra search. HUGE gray area |
|
|
Police executing defective warrants
|
Leon- Magistrate issues defective warrant based on confidential info that doesn't amount to pc. Court holds that good faith belief in warrant's legitimacy will protect evidence from exclusion.
Groh v. Ramirez- defective warrant didn't describe what was to be searched. Court said this warrant couldn't be executed in good faith. Gary v. GA- GA has statutory exclusionary rule, so Leon doesn't pre-empt. |
|
|
Standing to challenge a constitutional violation
|
Jones: target theory- if police were looking for evidence against you, you have standing
Alderman- rejects target theory. You have to be searched to challenge Payner- highlights just how much police can get away with under Alderman Rakas- guy was in car he didn't own, police seized gun he didn't own and used it in proceedings against him. Couldn't challenge search because it wasn't his property. Guests in the home MN v. Olsen- overnight guests- expectation of privacy and therefore standing MN v. Carter- not overnight guests- no expectation of privacy therefore no standing |
|
|
Fruit of the poisonous tree
|
Defined in Wong Son
doctrine designed to extend standing to certain 3rd parties If police would not have found evidence A but for the illegal search of evidence B, A is inadmissible. Technically, perp is arguing against his own search, so he has standing. |
|
|
Saving probable cause that was grounded on constitutional violations
|
Independent source doctrine- Murray- if police have other evidence that by itself amounts to probable cause, search is constitutional.
Inevitable discovery- Nix v. Williams- if police would have found the evidence anyway, b/c of ongoing search, etc., evidence is admissible. Attenuation- shifty doctrine, but some factors break the causation chain so pc can't be said to be based on violation. time intervening actions flagrancy of intentional illegality |
|
|
Impeachment and fruits of illegal searches
|
Havens- Admissible for impeachment purposes
James- limits impeachment- can't use criminal defendant's statements to impeach a regular witness (can impeach D himself though) |
|
|
Elements of 5th amendment protection
|
No person shall be
compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself Boyd- customs official was forced to choose between turning over papers and confessing to a crime. 5th violation. Ward- doesn't apply to civil cases Counselman v. Hitchcock- extends to any questions in anticipation of litigation Burr- statement does not have to be outright confession- could be 'link in the chain' that leads to being guilty |
|
|
Immunity and the 5th amendment
|
No 5th right is impinged if perp has immunity, so statement already can't be used against him
Use immunity- that statement specifically can't be used transactional immunity- the state can't bring any charges against perp in relation to the matter that he speaks on. |
|
|
Compelled testimony under 5th amendment
|
Lyle- if perp has a choice whether or not to make statement, even if choosing not to speak means loosing privileges, statement is not compelled
Schmerber- drawing blood for a blood test is not testimony, it's a seizure Doe- signing a form to turn over overseas bank info was not testimony. Key is whether or not you reveal contents of your mind- key is seized, telling combination is testimony. Muniz- asking drunk perp to do math was testimony |
|
|
Voluntariness and the 5th amendment
|
Bram- early case. Perp had to strip naked while being interrogated. This was coercive. Also mentioned that promises of beneift may also make the confession involuntary
Brown v. MS- perp was beaten to extract confession. Also not voluntary. also violates due process Ashcraft v. TN- help perp for 36 hours without sleep. not voluntary. also violates due process. Watts v. IN- cops hold perp for several days, interrogate him over the course. not voluntary. |
|
|
Miranda right to counsel
|
More limited than 6th amendment right to counsel-
only attaches if perp invokes it perp must be in custody perp must be subject to interrogation attempts to solve the fuzzy voluntariness problem case sets out a framework for a warning, but says that other procedures that accomplish the same purpose would be acceptable. |
|
|
Custody for Miranda
|
Berkemer- traffic stop is not custody. Pre-arrest activity is also probably not custody
Murphy- guy in his probation officer's office was not in custody Orozco v. TX- several officers in perp's home at 4am is custody |
|
|
Interrogation for Miranda
|
RI v. Innis- cops talking to each other about gun and risk wasn't interrogation. Court defined interogation as direct questioning or its functional equivalent-
IL v. Perkins- perp talking to undercover officer in a holding cell is not interogation, b/c when atmosphere is not police dominated, perp is free to shut the hell up. |
|
|
Right to counsel under Miranda
|
Davis- no equivocation- 'I think I want a lawyer' is not enough. Must be overt and unambiguous
Mosley- perp is brought in, questioned, invokes Miranda right to silence. Police wait two hours, then re-mirandize and question him about a different matter. Court says that's okay. Edwards- perp invokes right to counsel. Police put him in a cell, take him out in the morning, and question him about the same matter. Courts say this is not okay- once perp invokes right to COUNSEL, police can't approach him again- perp must voluntarily start again. Burbine- perp's sister hires him a lawyer after arrest. Lawyer is kept from client, who makes statements. This is okay... if perp voluntarily waives right, other factors don't matter. |
|
|
Behavior of suspect that will re-begin questioning under Miranda
|
Bradshaw- perp in back of police car invokes right to remain silent and asks 'so what's going to happen to me now?' Court says this 'general inquiry' was enough to start contact over again. Dissent doesn't like this, says that it was a legitimate procedural question.
|
|
|
Public Safety exception to Miranda
|
Quarles- perp raped woman at gunpoint, ran into supermarket, hid gun in market. Police didn't have to mirandize to ask where the gun was.
Voluntariness requirement still applies |
|
|
Impeachment and Miranda
|
Paris- Nonmirandized statements can still be used for impeachment.
Big exception- put a witness on the stand and everything is fair game. |
|
|
Fruit of the poisonous tree and Miranda
|
OR v. Elstad- generally, fruits of miranda violations do not have to be excluded
|
|
|
Executive branch's attempts to skirt miranda
|
Dickerson- Congress attempted to legislatively overrule Miranda. Court says this is a BIG no-no. Congress could put something like Miranda warnings in place, but can't roll back Miranda
Scabert- police interogatted suspect without warning, got confession, warned her, and had her repeat her confession. This is a violation. Patane- Perp interupted cops in the middle of reading rights, and confessed. Admissible. Shatzer- police question perp while perp is serving time in prison. He invokes right to counsel. Cops come back two years later and question him again. Scalia writes opinion... says Edwards immunity expires after reasonable period- 14 days. |
|
|
6th amendment right to counsel
|
Attaches once criminal proceedings begin.
Massiah- perp is arrested, arraigned, let out on bail. Police wire co-conspirator turned informant, listen in while informant gets perp to make incriminating statements KS v. Vantras- statements that violate Massiah can be used for impeachment, but not in the case in cheif. Brewer v. Williams- the 'christian burial' speech. Williams had counsel on either side of a road trip, after he'd been arraigned, etc. Court said it was violation of 6th amendment rights Jackson- 6th only protects you from questioning about the crime at hand, not other crimes |
