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
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
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!
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 . . .
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
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
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
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.
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
Flashcard set info:
Author: tjkoger
Main topic: Law
Topic: Criminal Law
School / Univ.: University of Mississippi
City: Oxford
Published: 11.09.2009
Card tags:
All cards (130)
no tags
