What does clause 1 of the 4th Amendment say
Persons, houses, papers, and effects are protected from unreasonable search and seizure
Boyd
makes 4th Amd. search and seizure a "property rights" question, i.e. govt. may not trespass on your land; however, no possessory interest in 1) fruits 2) instrumentalities 3) contraband; mere evidence rule- officers cannot search for mere evidence of a crime as opposed to 1,2,3.
Schmerber
rejects 4th/5th amd. property rights analysis under Boyd; 5th amd. applies to testimonial evidence; replaces Boyd analysis with privacy one- reasonableness determined by PC w/ a warrant or a warrant exception.
Warden v. Hayden
rejects "mere evidence" distinction in Boyd; 4th amd. is about privacy- govt can search for evidence so long as warrant/ warrant exception is satisfied
Katz
"What is a 4th Amendment search?" Boyd trespass doctrine overturned; 4th amd. protects people, not places; Harlan's concurrance gives us the test- suspect must have 1) subjective (actual) and 2) objective (reasonable) expectation of privacy. Test has empirical (fact-intensive) and normative components ( 1) social value in protecting privacy 2) level of intrusion 3) degree to which D attepted to protect interest 4) value in crime control
US v. White
false friend w/ wiretap; assumption of the risk analysis- no expectation of privacy in what you tell another person.
Ciraolo, Riley
no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything you can see from FAA regulated airspace (lawful, public vantage point)
Oliver
Open fields doctrine; society not ready to recognize that privacy interest.
o New Analysis – there is no REP in open fields
Empirical – trespass into open fields occurs often
Normative – privacy value is high and arguably the value
to law enforcement is high
o Dissent – there can be an expectation of privacy in open fields because they include private wooded areas for nature walk, lover’s meeting, religious gathering, etc. Also there were efforts to guard the land
o New Analysis – there is no REP in open fields
Empirical – trespass into open fields occurs often
Normative – privacy value is high and arguably the value
to law enforcement is high
o Dissent – there can be an expectation of privacy in open fields because they include private wooded areas for nature walk, lover’s meeting, religious gathering, etc. Also there were efforts to guard the land
Dunn
curtilage test: 1) proximity to home 2) existence of enclosure 3) nature/use of area 4) steps taken to exclude others
Bond
physical touching/manipulation of a bag is a 4th amd. search- subject to reasonableness test.
Place
no reasonable expectation of privacy in "smells" i.e. a drug dog sniffing effects.
o No REP with respect to dog sniffs…the privacy interest you’d have to assert is very small because your privacy interest would be limited to the smell of drugs from your luggage. Also there is no physical intrusion
o Normative analysis to argue this is a search: privacy interest is the interest in your personal effects. Not as intrusive as physical invasion, but its use of a sense-enhancing device to gather information that otherwise would require physical invasion to obtain!
o No REP with respect to dog sniffs…the privacy interest you’d have to assert is very small because your privacy interest would be limited to the smell of drugs from your luggage. Also there is no physical intrusion
o Normative analysis to argue this is a search: privacy interest is the interest in your personal effects. Not as intrusive as physical invasion, but its use of a sense-enhancing device to gather information that otherwise would require physical invasion to obtain!
Jacobson
fed ex employee- officers may replicate a citizen's search; not subject to reasonableness requirement- no expectation of privacy if the "cat is already out of the bag"
Skinner
test for who is a state actor- totality of the circumstances- did police 1) advise 2) encourage 3) participate?
Kyllo
thermal imaging is a search; technology not commonplace, privacy level is highest (home). Binoculars would be ok- common technology.
Mendenhall
What is a 4th Amendment person seizure? Application/threat of force so that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; mere questioning does not equal a seizure
Florida v. Royer
(From Outline)
• Florida v. Royer – suspect approached in an airport was seized because the officers retained his ticket and license and never indicated he was free to leave.
(From Original Card)
nervous, false name, false name on luggage, traveling under alias = RS
(Erik's Comment)
. . . RS allows for a Terry Stop and Frisk . . . Which is a seizure . . .
• Florida v. Royer – suspect approached in an airport was seized because the officers retained his ticket and license and never indicated he was free to leave.
(From Original Card)
nervous, false name, false name on luggage, traveling under alias = RS
(Erik's Comment)
. . . RS allows for a Terry Stop and Frisk . . . Which is a seizure . . .
Bostick
seizures in enclosed spaces; in this case, other factors (bus leaving) made him not feel free to leave; instead, test is does reasonable person feel they can terminate the police encounter?
Hodari D
a person is not seized when being pursued; only when physically caught, or submissive to show of authority.
Chesternut
the mere following of a suspect in a marked police car did not constitute a seizure. they did not make any show of authority or attempt to block or control the suspects movements.
Garner
police force must be proportionate; for deadly force, 1) police must believe suspect poses a risk to safety of self or others 2) use of deadly force will effectuate and is necessary
4th Amendment, cl. 2
No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What does clause 2 of the 4th Amendment say?
Warrants are only issued on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and with particularity describing place to be searched and things to be seized
Weeks
Established the federal Exclusionary rule; evidence obtained illegally shall not be permissibly used at trial.
Garza-Hernandez/Brinegar
probable cause to search an area demands that there be a certain quantum of likelihood that: (1) something that is properly subject to seizure by the government, i.e., contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, (2) is presently (3) in the specific place to be searched.
Probable cause does not require certainty, but only a sufficeitne likelihood. Consequently, a showing of probably cause is not undermined if the conclusions drawn turn out, in fact, to have been mistaken
Probable cause does not require certainty, but only a sufficeitne likelihood. Consequently, a showing of probably cause is not undermined if the conclusions drawn turn out, in fact, to have been mistaken
Ventresca (warrant preference)
The court has repeatedly indicated that the standard of probable cause for warrant-authorized searches and seizures is slightly less demanding than the standard of probable cause for warrant less searches and seizures.
officer's determination is reviewed de novo on appeal. while magistrates are reviewed for clear error
officer's determination is reviewed de novo on appeal. while magistrates are reviewed for clear error
Aguillar/Spinelli
two pronged test for determining if informant tips are sufficient for probable cause: 1) veracity- reliability, credibility 2) basis of knowledge- self-verifying details
Illinois v. Gates
overrules Aguillar/Spinelli for a totality of the circumstances test taking into account the prongs, plus other factors; policy rationale- deference to magistrate, common sense determination
Whren
Whren v. US - subjective intent of cop is irrelevant if there is probable cause
• Rule
-- NO pretext analysis when there is PC. Argue Equal Protection Claim (EPC) if there is a concern with pretext.
pretext is irrelevant; cops pull over for one offense, PC for another develops while pulled over, OK
• Rule
-- NO pretext analysis when there is PC. Argue Equal Protection Claim (EPC) if there is a concern with pretext.
pretext is irrelevant; cops pull over for one offense, PC for another develops while pulled over, OK
Hayden (exigency)
1) destruction of evidence 2) hot pursuit 3) preventing flight 4) protecting public safety
McArthur
officers may seize a house and make you wait outside while they obtain a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence
Johnson
warrant preference- magistrates are detached and neutral, not in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime
Franks
"oath or affirmation"- if an officer falsifies an affidavit, the warrant is invalid
Santana
"threshold of door" is a public place- if police witness crime, then you dart in your house, they can come after you- "hot pursuit" exigency; no Payton requirement
Chambers v. Maroney
automobile warrant exception- based on recurring exigency 1) inherently mobile 2) diminished EofP
. . . hence, an immediate search is constitutionally permissible.
. . . hence, an immediate search is constitutionally permissible.
California v. Carney
test for automobile- 1) appearance of ready mobility 2) use as a vehicle or home? 3) curtilage
Chadwick
no warrant exception for containers- need a warrant 1) heightened level of privacy 2) purpose- storing effects, not transportation
Sanders (bad law)
D puts suitcase in car; officers had PC for of drugs in the case, no warrant. Chadwick governs- need a warrant b/c PC was particularized to container, not car.
Acevedo
overrules Sanders; Sanders situations governed by Chambers, not Chadwick; particularized PC irrelevant- same exigency rationales apply to a container in a car as the car itself.
Houghton
owner of container irrelevant; if PC, they can search anyone's containers in the car.
Ross
officers w/ particularized PC about drugs in an automobile; search bag in the car, find drugs- Chambers governs, thus OK. automobile exceptions governs containers in cars as well.
Watson
publicly executed arrests for felonies and misdemeanors committed in officer's presence w/o warrant is ok.
McLaughlin/Gerstein
Justice O'connor announced that a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement.
Payton
must have arrest warrant and PC that they are in the residence to make felony arrest in residence
Chimel
search incident arrest is ok w/o warrant; limited to area in immediate control of suspect 1) temporal- "reasonably contemporaneous" and 2) spatial- grabbing area, wingspan, person; rationale- police protection, destruction of evidence
Belton
if valid arrest, and recent occupant of vehicle, police may search passenger compartment (but not trunk) incident to arrest
Arizona v. Gant
If the police have a reasonable belief that the arrestee may access the compartment at the time of the search then they may perform a search.
scalia concurrence: brings back the evidence sweep in robinawicz. police can do a general sweep for evidence of crime.
scalia concurrence: brings back the evidence sweep in robinawicz. police can do a general sweep for evidence of crime.
Thornton
if police wait till suspect is out of car, then arrest, still valid per Belton.
Knowles
no search incident traffic citation (if arrestable offense, hard to square with an Atwater, Belton/Robinson interplay)
Buie
following arrest, officers may conduct a protective sweep of adjoining areas to search for third parties that could be a danger to the officers (obviously not containers)
Simmons
no requirement to leave a copy of the warrant/items to be seized if they aren't there
Pringle
common enterprise- PC to arrest any/all passengers and driver for drugs found in back seat
Horton
plain-view doctrine of warrant exception; need 1) lawful vantage point 2) right of access 3) must be immediately apparent that item is subject to seizure b/c of its association with the crime
Opperman/Lafayette
Inventory searches are constitutional; policy rationales 1) false claims of property loss 2) police safety 3) protect property 4) need to ID person; must have 1) good faith 2) limited discretion 3) SOP 4) incarceration (for persons- Lafayette) Opperman is vehicle.
Sitz
Sobriety checkpoints ok; must have 1) SOP 2) balance level of intrusion w/ state interests
Prouse
no roving roadblocks- much higher level of intrusion than Sitz where motorists are put on notice
TLO
special needs search- school agents simply need 1) reasonable suspicion at time search undertaken and 2) search is limited in scope
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
consent searches; reasonable when voluntary- totality of circumstances test; cannot be the product of coercion or submission to authority
Robinette
no "you are free to go" per se rule needed; consent searches during traffic stops ok
Jimino
scope of consent search- "would officer reasonably believe D consented to search of ?"
Rodriguez
standing to give consent: "police must reasonably believe that the person had the authority to consent"
Terry v. Ohio (Stop & Frisk)
stop and frisk that does not rise to the level of a full custodial arrest, but is a search and seizure anyway; creates the reasonable suspicion standard; officer may stop and frisk for weapons if there are specific and articulatable facts that lead the officer to believe crime is afoot and the suspect is armed and dangerous
Wardlow
reasonable suspicion is a totality analysis- fleeing is not totally conclusive about wrongdoing but certainly indicative of such.
Alabama v. White
tips in a Terry context- example of the bottom level of reliability to give rise to reasonable suspicion
Florida v. J.L.
crosses the line- all innocent details any member of the public could have given.
Sharpe
distinguishes Terry from full custodial arrest based on duration- reasonableness
Dunaway
distinguishes Terry from full custodial arrest based on spatial dimension- interrogation room, for instance
Michigan v. Long
basically Terry with a car; officers are allowed to search automobile for weapons if they have RS suspect is armed and dangerous
Rawlings
must have privacy interest to contest a search (Katz) must have possessory interest to contest seizure (Jacobson)
Ybarra
while executing search warrant on business, officers may not search all patrons; need individual suspicion for each person
Hiibel
officers may demand identification during the course of a Terry stop if state law says refusal is arrestable
Rakas
turns 4th Amendment rights analysis from a standing/agency/"legitimately on premises" test into a Katzian legitimate expectation of privacy one. 4th amd. rights are personal rights.
Silverthorne
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine introduced; derivative and primary evidence excluded
Murray
independent source doctrine (exception to the FoPT based on severance of but for causation);
Policy Rationale - prosecutors, investigators should be put in no worse/better position than before violation;
must show:
1) info from illegal source did not aid in probable cause determination and
2) motivation for search 2 did not come from search 1
Policy Rationale - prosecutors, investigators should be put in no worse/better position than before violation;
must show:
1) info from illegal source did not aid in probable cause determination and
2) motivation for search 2 did not come from search 1
Nix v. Williams
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
- also known as Hypothetical Independent Discovery Doctrine
- ("But For" severance exception)
Police must show that evidence would have been obtained by an independent line of investigation anyway; then the illegal method is irrelevant.
Policy: Do not want to put the police in no worse position absent the illegality when suppressing evidence (don't really understand this)
(Case: Dead Body was being searched for and Police violated Murderer's 6th Amend rights and he told them where the body was. Search was called off and body found. Search would have uncovered the body within 3 hours)
- also known as Hypothetical Independent Discovery Doctrine
- ("But For" severance exception)
Police must show that evidence would have been obtained by an independent line of investigation anyway; then the illegal method is irrelevant.
Policy: Do not want to put the police in no worse position absent the illegality when suppressing evidence (don't really understand this)
(Case: Dead Body was being searched for and Police violated Murderer's 6th Amend rights and he told them where the body was. Search was called off and body found. Search would have uncovered the body within 3 hours)
Brown/Wong Sun
"Attenuation" Doctrine attenuation of the taint
Mulit-Factor Test Includes:
(1) Remoteness in time b/n evidence and illegality
(2) Remoteness in chain of events b/n evidence and illegality
(3) Intervening Acts of Free Will
(4) Flagrancy of the Police Violation (Purposeful?)
(5) Nature of the Evidence
Blackmun in Brown Not ready to say the Miranda warnings and rights which cause a voluntary confession are per se an intervening act of free will. Then Police would use that techinque all the time.
Mulit-Factor Test Includes:
(1) Remoteness in time b/n evidence and illegality
(2) Remoteness in chain of events b/n evidence and illegality
(3) Intervening Acts of Free Will
(4) Flagrancy of the Police Violation (Purposeful?)
(5) Nature of the Evidence
Blackmun in Brown Not ready to say the Miranda warnings and rights which cause a voluntary confession are per se an intervening act of free will. Then Police would use that techinque all the time.
Ceccolini
Testimonial/Witnesses evidence attenuates much faster than physical evidence
Hudson v. Michigan
New Attenuation Doctrine based on type of violation, not remoteness; protection guarded by original interest violated should reasonably match up.
"Knock and Announce" Case
- Had violated SW
- Violated K&A (Wilson v. Arkansas)
- Executed a valid SW and found evidence
Court Held -- Do NOT suppress evidence found as a result of a valid search warrant. Even though K&A was violated.
What is Policy of K&A
(1) Narrow invasion of privacy (naked, sex, etc)
(2) Property (destruction of)
(3) Safety (you startle me without warning, i'll blow your head off)
What is Policy of SW?
(1) General Privacy in the Home
"Knock and Announce" Case
- Had violated SW
- Violated K&A (Wilson v. Arkansas)
- Executed a valid SW and found evidence
Court Held -- Do NOT suppress evidence found as a result of a valid search warrant. Even though K&A was violated.
What is Policy of K&A
(1) Narrow invasion of privacy (naked, sex, etc)
(2) Property (destruction of)
(3) Safety (you startle me without warning, i'll blow your head off)
What is Policy of SW?
(1) General Privacy in the Home
Segura
no right to destroy evidence; if that is the sole reason, attenuation is automatic
Leon
Good-Faith exception- if a warrant is found to be invalid after served and relied upon in good faith, then the evidence is ok. NOT valid if, 1) magistrate = rubber stamp 2) false info in affidavit 3) bare bones 4) lacks particularity
Walder
impeachment exception 1) ok if statement is on direct 2) only used collaterally (other crimes) 3) only for D, not D's witnesses
Harris
eviscerates Walder #2: jury instruction, then tainted evidence can be used to impeach testimony for actual crime D is on trial for!
Kartensatzinfo:
Autor: tjkoger
Oberthema: Law
Thema: Criminal Law
Schule / Uni: University of Mississippi
Ort: Oxford
Veröffentlicht: 11.09.2009
Schlagwörter Karten:
Alle Karten (130)
keine Schlagwörter
