Download Criminal Procedure Outline and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Criminal Procedure – Police Practice Outline Professor Stinneford, Fall 2010
I. The Criminal Process: Failures, Choices, and Legitimacy
A. Failures A.I. Powell v. Alabama A.1. Facts: 9 young black boys were accused of raping 2 white woman. The boys were riding the rails and threw off white kids from the train. The train was stopped and the black kids were taken into custody by the lynch mob because they beat up the white kids. The boys were also charged with rape while in custody. The public wanted to lynch the boys and the National Guard had to be called into protect them. A.a. During the time period there were almost 5000 lynching’s A.2. Issue: Whether the defendants were in substance denied the right of counsel, and if so, whether such denial infringes on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment A.3. Holding: In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance's, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of due process of law; and that duty is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case. To hold otherwise would be to ignore the fundamental postulate, “ that there are certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government which no members of the Union may disregard ." A.b. This Holding was very narrow. The court said in capital cases, with out of state poor defendants and the mob after them, they should have been appointed counsel. A.II. Brown v. Mississippi A.4. Facts: A white guy was murdered and the sheriff round up 3 men and tortured one of them until he confessed to a crime. They did mock hangings and whipped him in jail. The first D was fed the details and he just said yes and then tortured him until he could repeat those details. They then arrested 2 others and did the same thing and made sure their stories matched. Once they all had it down they brought them into the sheriff who was not there during the torture and they relayed the story to him. A.5. Issue: Whether convictions, which rest solely upon confessions shown to have been extorted by officers of the State by brutality and violence, are consistent with the due process of law required by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. A.6. Holding: The Court says the conduct of the police and introduction of confession was a wrong so fundamental that it made the whole proceeding a mere pretense of a trial and rendered the conviction and sentence wholly void. They were denied due process because they were convicted in a fundamentally wrongful manor and the trial was not really a trial but a sham A.c. Like Powell this Holding is narrow because there the only evidence against them was the confession, but what if there was other evidence? B. Seeking Legitimacy in the Fourteenth Amendment A.III. Duncan v. Louisiana A.7. Facts: man was charged with assault and wanted a jury trial but the state contended they are only for capital cases or when hard labor can be imposed. He was convicted by a judge and had to do 60 days in jail. A.8. Holding: Because a trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, the court held that the 14th Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which – were they to be tried in federal court – would come within the 6th Amendment’s guarantee A.d. The court talks about the functional reason which is – reduces the risk of government oppression. You have a layer of citizens between the government and the citizens. Juries provide a layer of protection when the government is trying to oppress. A.9. Dissents
A.e. Justice Harlan: Believes that the states have always had the primary responsibility for the operation of the criminal justice system within their borders, and adapting it to their particular circumstance is their choice. This ruling eliminates the ability for states to figure out what is best for them. A.f. Justice Black: He wants total incorporation because he believes that anything that is in the bill of rights was put there because it is fundamental and its easier to fully incorporate than doing it piece meal. A.g. Justice Fortas: he is willing to say that trial by jury is fundament enough to apply to the states but not everything needs to apply like 12 jurors B.i. Believes in selective incorporation.
II. Fourth Amendments: An Overview
A. The Text and its Mysteries A.I.The Fourth Amendment (1791) : “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched.” A.II. The two parts: A.1. The Reasonableness Clause A.2. The Warrant Clause A.III. Textual questions A.3. Who are the people? A.a. The people are according to Verdugo-Urquidez , “ a class of persons who are part of a national community or have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community .” A.i. In that case the person wasn’t part of what is considered the people, because he was involuntary brought to the U.S. He was brought against his will and the search happened in Mexico so it was not enough to fall under the amendment. The court doesn’t say what is really part of the community. There is a lot of ambiguity. We have an example of who is not but not who is. A.4. What is an unreasonable search or seizure? A.5. What is a search? A.6. Which searchers are covered by the 4 th^ amendment? By whom? By anyone such as a 12 year old kid? A.b. The Court has said that only governmental searches get 4th Amendment protection. A private party can bring evidence of their own search to the police and that search will not get the protection of the Amendment. However, if there was state sanction such as the party doing it at the polices instruction, than that party is viewed to be an agent of the police and the search will be protected by the 4th. A.7. What is a seizure? A.8. What is the relationship between the two clauses? A.c. Meaning that searches conducted without warrants are unreasonable and, consequently, in violation of the reasonableness requirement? Or did the drafters of the 4th Amendment mean only that when a warrant is issued it must meet the requirements of probable cause, oath or affirmation, and particularity, but that there is no warrant requirement? A.9. To be secured in their person, houses, papers, and effects…is this a restricted list? B. The Reach of the Fourth Amendment A.IV. In the Courts opinion in Verdugo-Urquidez , a search or seizure of property located in a foreign country, which is owned by a nonresident alien who is only briefly on U.S. soil, is not covered by the Amendment, even if the search is conducted by U.S. law enforcement agents. A.10. Accordingly, the people refers “to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
A.ii. vindication of rights – 4th Amendment would otherwise be an empty right A.iii. Deterrence for police misconduct A.iv. Judicial integrity – the government needs to set an example and not condone constitutional violations A.22. Harlan Dissent: A.n. There are other ways to vindicate rights. What works for one state, may not work for another. A.o. Believes this is going to far because the Courts job is not to supervise other state courts A.23. Class Hypo : What if the police just want to hassle you and not actually bring charges. Does the exclusionary rule help? A.p. No it does not but you can always bring a tort or criminal action against the police. However with qualified immunity, the only people who really get protection are the guilty criminals
III. Passing the Threshold of the Fourth Amendment
A. What is a “Search”? A.I. General Principles A.1. Katz v. United States A.a. Facts: FBI agents placed an electronic listening and recording devise to the outside of the public phone booth from which Katz had placed calls. Katz was charged with book making based on the calls. A.b. Issue: Whether the private conversations obtained by the government’s use of an electronic wiretap to a public enclosed telephone booth without a warrant, violated the 4th Amendment? And whether a telephone booth is granted the protection of the 4th Amendment A.c. Holding: The governments activities in electronically listening to and recording Katz’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a “search and seizure” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. A.d. Reasoning: The 4 th^ Amendment protects people, not places , and that what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not subject of 4 th^ Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Because Katz went into a booth, shut the door behind him, and paid the toll that permits him to place a call, he is fully entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world. A.e. Harlan Concurrence: Adopted in the future A.i. Harlan breaks down the rule into two factor requirement
- First , that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy ; and
- Second , that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Augmented by US v Jones – trespass on person, home or their effects can be a search if it is for the purpose of obtaining information will be considered a search. Alito – depth of the info they can obtain – does it violate the 4th^ amendment by GPS tracking for 24 hours a day. Majority doesn’t deal with this issue. Long term investigation ok only in extraordinary crime. A.II. The Katz Doctrine in Application A.2. United States v. White A.f. Facts: The government used an informant to transmit a conversation between him and the defendant through a wire in regard to illegal narcotics sales. Conversations took place in the home, his car and at a restaurant. During the course of these conversations, federal agents would monitor and record them. These conversations were admitted into evidence despite the fact that Jackson was unable to be located. A.g. Issue: whether the electronic transmission of the conversion violated defendants 4 th^ Amendment rights. A.h. Argument for a violation:
A.ii. Subjective expectation of privacy?
- He believed that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy because it was in a house and he trusted the informant. He would not have discussed the things he did if he did not have an expectation of privacy. A.iii. Society believes it to be reasonable?
- We all have things we would share with others who we think will keep it safe and not share.
- Moreover, the government here acted very similar to Katz and violated his expectation of privacy A.i. Holding: court says that his trust in his person is his own risk. When you have a conversation with a person you are running the risk that that person is a government agent so you knowingly run the risk of this. Therefore when they do betray you, there is no search involved. Assumption of risk A.j. Issue: Whether the use of the transmitter violates the 4 th^ Amendment A.iv. The majority said that if listening in is allowed then the recording should also be allowed cause it is actually more accurate than just relying on the informant relaying information A.3. Smith v. Maryland A.k. Facts: Police with the assistance of the phone company, installed a pen register device in the phone company offices; the register recorded all numbers called by D from his home, but did not monitor the conversations A.l. Issue: whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a “search” A.m. Reasoning: A.v. This was a limited nature of information since comparing to Katz, they didn’t hear the conversation A.vi. The court doubts that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must " convey" phone numbers to the telephone company , since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed A.vii. Most phone books tell subscribers, on a page entitled "Consumer Information," that the company "can frequently help in identifying to the authorities the origin of unwelcome and troublesome calls." A.viii. A person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntary turns over to third parties. A.n. Holding: the analysis dictates that petitioner can claim no legitimate expectation of privacy. When he used his phone, he voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, petitioner assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed. Therefore, the court concludes that petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and that, even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." A.o. Stinneford's thoughts: A.ix. Say what you want about the reasonableness prong but he showed a subjective expectation of privacy. He did this from his own home which shows he thought big brother wasn’t watching A.x. Revealing information to third parties, even from your home, will allow the police to obtain it without a warrant. Phone companies, banks, travel planes… A.xi. The court says if the overall use of these gets out of control by the government and they do this to harass and abuse the system the court will do a normative inquiry. A.p. Justice Marshall Dissent: Normally when we talk about assumption of risk, people are choosing to share the information. Here, if they want to make a phone call, they have no choice A.4. Note Cases: A.q. United States v. Knotts A.xii. Facts: Federal agents installed a beeper which emitted periodic signals in a five gallon drum purchased by defendant to make illegal drugs. By use of the beeper, the police monitored the suspect's movements from the point of purchase, along public roads, to a secluded cabin.
- The significance of the publicly navigable airspace is that anyone could have done it so D assumed the risk. The court says public airspace is like a public road
- Florida v. Riley
- Facts: Police use a helicopter to find pot on someone. They were down to 400 feet.
- The plurality said that this is directly controlled by Ciraolo and since it was public airspace and non-intrusive, not looking at the intimate details of the home it was OK akin to the Dog Sniffing Cases and Maryland vs Smith.
- California v. Greenwood – Police went dumpster diving to look for evidence against the defendant. The Court says “it is common knowledge that plastic bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. So if you leave it out, you are showing that you no longer have any reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash
- What happens if you left it by the side of your house? That will depend on the circumstances to see if you could display a subjective expectation of privacy. A.w. Kyllo v. United States A.xxiv. Facts: Police used thermal imaging to see if parts of the house were hotter than others (showed that a side wall and the roof was) because he received a tip that they were growing pot with heat lamps. Officer uses this along with informants tip and utility bills (showing a lot of energy usage) to get a warrant. A.xxv. Issue: whether the use of the thermal imaging at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitutes a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment A.xxvi. Governments Argument: others could notice the heat coming from the house because snow was melting faster on that side of the roof and water was evaporating faster. Also the government says its not a search, it is just surveillance. A.xxvii. Holding: obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area” constitutes a search – at least where the technology in question is not in general public use. On the basis of this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search A.xxviii. Take Away: Standard that comes from Majority
- The court says when you have (1) sensory enhancing technology (2) that allows you to see what would have previously required a physical intrusion (3) and technology that is not in general use (4) which applies to a persons’ home – it is presumptively unreasonable A.x. Note Cases: A.xxix. Bond v. United States : Border Patrol agents walked through a Greyhound bus stopped at a checkpoint and routinely squeezed the soft luggage that passengers had placed in the overhead storage bins. The court held that it constituted a search. The court reasoned that while you may expect this when traveling through an airport giving the passenger no expectation of privacy, on a bus, that passenger has a subjective expectation of privacy the society recognizes as reasonable. B. What is a “Seizure”? A.III. United States v. Karo A.6. Facts: DEA agents installed a beeper equipment in a can with the consent of the owner which was later sold to respondents with 50 gallons of ether. The can moved around a lot and ultimately, the DEA agents used to beeper equipment to determine that the can was inside of one of respondents home and obtained a search warrant and arrested the respondents. A.7. Issue: whether installation of a beeper in a container of chemicals with the consent of the original owner constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the 4th^ amendment
A.8. Holding: A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property. Although the can contained a beeper, it cannot be said that anyone’s possessory interest was interfered with in a meaningful way. A.9. Take Away: the government seizes things when they take it but not when they just interfere with your right to exclude. A.10. Dissent: Property is a bundle of rights but another right is the right to exclude. Here the government is trampling this right because it’s an intrusion onto your property rights. A.IV. Government has the right to seize an item only if they have probable cause. They can seize: A.11. Contraband A.y. No one has the authority to have it A.12. Fruits of a crime A.z. Money from the drug dealing A.13. Instrumentalities used in the commission of an offense A.aa. Guns or cars A.14. Evidence of a crime A.bb. Bloody t-shirt C. Conclusion A.V. When working through a 4th^ amendment problem you have to start with A.15. Is it a search? A.cc. Reasonable subjective expectation of privacy subjective and an objective expectation that society will recognize as reasonable A.16. Is it a seizure A.dd. Meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.
IV. The Substance of the Fourth Amendment
A. Probable Cause A.I.Probable cause to arrest: “exists where ‘the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed ” by the person to be arrested A.II. Probable cause to search: exists where ‘the facts and circumstances with the officers’ knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a mean of reasonable caution in the belief that evidence subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched .” A.III. No admissibility limitation: Any trustworthy information may be considered in determining whether probable cause to search or arrest exists, even if the information would not be admissible at trial A.IV. Particular Information Establishing Probable Cause A.1. Physical clues (evidence) A.2. Suspicious conduct A.3. Voluntary admissions A.V. Probable cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances. So while one piece of information may not lead to probable cause, multiple pieces of information/evidence can lead to the finding of it. A.VI. Spinelli v. United States A.4. Facts: FBI informant told them that Spinelli was a bookie and disseminating wagering information by means of the telephone which have been assigned specific given numbers. In support of a search warrant, FBI affidavit stated that they kept tract of Spinelli for 5 days and observed him traveling to an apartment between states. Also, a check with the phone company revealed that he had two numbers which matched those given by the informant. Furthermore, Spinelli is a known to federal law enforcement agents and local law enforcement agents as a bookmaker, an associate of bookmakers, a gambler, and an associate of gamblers
A.viii. Prediction of future conduct A.ix. Richness of detail A.x. Suspicious nature of corroborated facts A.xi. Correct information in the past A.j. Question is always did the magistrate have enough information to determine if the informant was telling the truth or not. Did they do the right thing with the information they had at the time. A.VIII. Maryland v. Pringle : an officer lawfully stopped a speeding car occupied by 3 men. As a result of a lawful search, the officer discovered a large amount of money in the glove compartment, and 5 bags of cocaine hidden in the back seat. After trying to ascertain who the owner of the drugs through questioning, the officer arrested all 3 men. After being arrested, Pringle, the front seat passenger, admitted the drugs were his but then challenged his arrest. The Supreme Court upheld the arrest saying that at the time of arrest it was reasonable for the officer to infer a common enterprise among the three men. B. Arrest Warrants A.IX. Payton v. New York A.11. Facts: After two days of investigation NY detectives had probable cause to believe Payton murdered the manager of a gas station. They did not get a warrant but after hearing music and no one answering the door, police broke it down and entered. It was empty but in plain view there was a .30 caliber shell casing that was seized and later admitted into evidence. A.12. Issue: under what circumstances an officer may enter a suspect’s home to make a warrantless arrest. A.13. Holding: For 4th Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. Because no arrest warrant was obtained in either of these cases, the judgments must be reversed and the cases remanded to the NY Courts A.14. Dissent: The Amendment preserved common-law rules of arrest. Because it was not considered generally unreasonable at common law for officers to break doors to effect a warrantless felony arrest, White does not believe that the 4th^ Amendment was intended to outlaw the types of police conduct at issue in the present cases. At common law, absent exigent circumstances, entries to arrest could be made only for felony. The felony requirement guards against abusive or arbitrary enforcement and ensures that invasions of the home occur only in case of the most serious crimes A.15. Take Away: An arrest warrant allows police to enter arrestee's home despite not having a search warrant. A.X. A warrantless arrest, but one made with probable cause, is reasonable if done in public. A.XI. A warrantless arrest of someone must then be brought in front of a magistrate to determine whether there was probable cause to arrest the suspect the defendant within 48 hours. Need affidavit under oath that there was probable cause to determine whether arrest was valid. A.XII. An arrest, even one based on probable cause, constitutes an unreasonable seizure of the person if method for making the arrest is unreasonable A.XIII. Use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is unreasonable, unless the officer has “probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others,” if the suspect is not immediately taken into custody. A.XIV. Exigent Circumstances : A warrantless intrusion may be justified by: A.16. Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or A.17. Imminent destruction of evidence, or A.18. The need to prevent a suspect’s escape, or A.19. The risk of danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling, or A.20. Public safety, or A.21. Officer safety A.XV. Steagold v. United States:
A.22. Facts: Police got an arrest warrant for a man named Lyons and were told he was in Steagold’s home. When they went to that home to arrest him he was not there but they found cocaine belonging to Steagold. Steagold was then arrested for the cocaine and brought up on charges A.23. Defendants Argument: Steagold contends that if police wanted to enter his home to search for/ arrest Lyons, then police needed a search warrant of Steagold’s home. A.24. Holding: The court agreed because Police did nothing to protect Steagolds rights. If police want to go into a 3rd^ party’s home, they need not an arrest warrant but a search warrant of that 3rd^ party place. A.25. Take Away: To arrest a person in a 3 rd^ party’s home, police either need consent to enter and search or a search warrant for that 3 rd^ party’s home along with an arrest warrant. If police are arresting a person in their own home, they only need an arrest warrant because that implicitly gives police the right to enter the subjects house to make an arrest. A.XVI. U.S. v. Santana : Police followed someone into their home without a warrant. When they drove up they saw her in the doorway but then went into her home. The court draws the line at the threshold. If you are on the threshold you are in a public place and if you enter your home than police can enter (hot pursuit). Threshold is public. If the subject is in the home but police can see them, they cannot go in. The line is the threshold. C. Search Warrants A.XVII. Over View A.26. Reasonableness clause A.k. First half of the amendment A.27. Warrant clause A.28. Traditional view – searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the 4th Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions A.29. Competing view is that the proper 4th Amendment test “is not whether it is reasonable [or practicable] to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable. A.30. These two views of the relationship of warrant clause to the reasonableness clause have co- existed uneasily for many years A.XVIII. Elements of a Valid Search Warrant A.31. Warrant elements (same for searches and arrests): A.l. It must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. A.m. There must be presented to the magistrate an adequate showing of probable cause (either to search or arrest) supported by oath or affirmation. This is usually in the form of an affidavit from a police officer A.n. The warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized A.xii. general description is tolerated if the nature of the object to be seized could not be realistically be described more specifically A.xiii. greater generality is allowed in the case of contraband A.xiv. greater specificity is demanded if the objects of the same general classifications are likely to be found at the search site
- Looking for stolen clothes in a warehouse that has non stolen clothes A.xv. Scrupulous exactitude is demanded when the search encroaches on First Amendment concerns such as in Lo-Ji Sales A.32. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York A.o. Facts: Upon viewing film from an adult bookstore, an investigator concluded the films violated NY’s obscenity laws. Based upon an affidavit of the investigator subscribed before the Town Justice, after his viewing in the entirety, a warrant issued authorizing the search of petitioner’s store and the seizure of other copies of the two films. Affidavit also contained an assertion that similar films could be found on the premises and requested that the Town Justice accompany the investigator to allow him to determine independently if any other items at the store were possessed in violation. The rest of the
A.37. The police can reasonably detain someone if they are waiting to get a warrant or even just watch him to make sure he does not destroy evidence like not allowing him to go into him home without police supervision. A.38. A search warrant only gives police authority to search places within the home that could contain the item that you are can only look in areas where it might be found. A.39. If police see something not listed in the warrant but have probable cause to believe its seizeable (contraband or evidence of a crime) then police can seize it. A.40. To search a person who is within a place that police have a warrant to search, probable cause is needed to search that person and authorization in the form of a warrant or consent. A.41. “A warrant to search a residence for contraband founded on probable cause, implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” A.aa. This includes not letting people leave, and even handcuffing them. A.42. Police can arrest a person without a warrant if they are searching a place and see someone they have probable cause is a bank robber because he is in plain view D. Warrant Clause: When are Warrants Required? A.XX. Exigent Circumstances A.43. Warden v. Hayden A.bb. Facts: police upon information that a person suspected of an armed robbery had entered a house a few minutes before, gained a warrantless entry into the dwelling; whereby, the search revealed the D and the evidence that was subsequently used in his conviction. This evidence included a shotgun found in the bathroom of the dwelling, a small caliber handgun and clip and clothing resembling the robbers in the washing machine. A.cc. Holding: neither the entry without a warrant to search for the robber, nor the search for him without warrant was invalid. Under the circumstances, the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative. A.xviii. The scope of a search is limited by the exigencies that allowed police to enter. Therefore, this search was limited to the effect that they were looking for the suspect or guns. We look at the objective reasons based on the circumstances and do not concern ourselves with the subjective intent of the officer. A.dd. Class Notes: Supreme Court says you cannot follow in hot pursuit of someone who was drunk driving. Those circumstances do not warrant a valid threat. A.44. The burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries A.45. It is a basic principle of 4th Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Nevertheless, because the ultimate touchstone of the 4th Amendment is reasonableness, the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. A.ee. One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. – Others are hot pursuit (really only applies when police are chasing, not based on hearsay), worry about destruction of evidence, safety of public, safety of police, possibility of escape. A.xix. Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury Once you secure the people, then police need to get a warrant because the exigent circumstances are now gone. Brennan gets around this in regards to the money found in the washing machine by stating that the ct doesn’t know that he wasn’t looking for weapons so not going to invalidate (doesn’t really follow the doctrine), or that everyone had been found. Ct – won’t look inside the mind of the police, just whether there is an objective that is reasonable for the search, scope determined by objective reason, not subjective reason. A.XXI. Searches Incident to an Arrest A.46. General Principles A.ff. Chimel v. California
A.xx. Facts: 3 cops arrived at a home of D with an arrest warrant for the burglary of a coin shop. Police asked to look around but when D refused consent, police looked around anyway because of the arrest warrant. The wife went around the house with them and they found evidence in the drawers A.xxi. Issue: whether the warrantless search of the entire house can be justified as incident to that arrest A.xxii. Holding: when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Also safety might well be endangered and the arrest itself frustrated. It is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items. Grab zone. A.xxiii. Class Notes: this is a very fuzzy line because whether something is within reach or defendants control will have to be litigated. If police seek to justify a warrantless search, the burden is on them to demonstrate the existence of a justification for the warrantless conduct A.xxiv. Take Away: After arrest the suspect, the police may search the arrestee’s person as well as the arrestees grab zone.
A.gg. United States v. Robinson A.xxv. Facts: Police observed D and determined there was reason to believe that he was operating a car without a license and he was put under arrest pursuant to DC law. The officer frisked D and felt an object in the left breast pocket of a heavy coat. Officer testified that he couldn’t tell what it was and also that he couldn’t actually tell the size of it. It turned out to be a crumpled up cigarette package. The officer then opened the package and found 13 gelatin capsules of white powder which was heroin A.xxvi. Issue: whether or not the officer can search incident to arrest based on a traffic offense A.xxvii. Reasoning: A well recognized exception to the warrant requirement is that a search may be conducted incident to arrest. That search is formulated into two distinct propositions. The first is that a search may be made of the person of the arrestee by virtue of the lawful arrest. The second is that a search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee. A.xxviii. Holding: in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that amendment. Because officer safety is a driving force behind this exception, since arrests are inherently dangerous, searches of containers found on the person are also permissible. Bright line rule A.xxix. Take Away: Searches of containers found on a person during a search incident to a lawful arrest are permissible without a warrant. A.47. Arrests of Automobile Occupants A.hh. New York v. Belton – old vehicle rule but still valid under these facts A.xxx. Facts: An unmarked car was passed by another car that was speeding. The officer made the driver pull over. The officer found that none of the men in the car actually owned it and also smelled burnt marihuana and an envelope on the floor. He frisked each of the four, and split them up on the side of the road. None of the occupants were arrested and the officer was alone with the four occupants. Then conducted a search of the passenger compartment of the car. A.xxxi. Issue: Proper scope of a search of the interior of a car incident to a lawful arrest of its occupants. Holding: a cop has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile. It follows that police may also examine the contents of any containers found within
A.xl. Facts: Police were patrolling (vice squad plain clothes), and see a car stopped for too long at a light and then made a U-turn and then the car made a fast right turn and sped off. They pull the car over on a traffic violation and the officer sees 2 large bags in the lap of Whren that has crack cocaine A.xli. Issue: does the 4th Amendment bar pretextual police conduct A.xlii. Argument: In this case a reasonable police officer in their situation wouldn’t have pulled over the car since they were plain clothes vice squad who do not do traffic stops unless there was a grave threat to public safety. Here they admitted they suspected them of drugs and pulled them over for a pretextual traffic stop. ONLY INVENTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES need a showing of no bad faith. A.xliii. Holding: The court does not care about the subjective motivations of the officers. It is valid as long as the circumstances justifies probable cause for an arrest or seizure of the contraband. Racial profiling has no cause of action under the 4th Amendment. A.XXII. Cars and Containers A.49. Carroll v. United States : The Court held that automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. A.mm. This is because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. A.50. Chambers v. Maroney A.nn. Facts: 2 guys robbed a gas station and the attendant told police that one wore a green sweater and the other a trench coat. Two teenagers also saw a blue car speed away with one of them wearing a green sweater and 4 people inside. Police eventually found them, pulled the car over, arrested the drivers, and towed the car back to the station. Police then searched the car and found 2 guns, a glove filled with change, and other evidence. A.oo. Issue: Is a search made at another place without a warrant incident to that arrest? A.pp. Holding: If an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search. For constitutional purposes, there is no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is reasonable under the 4th Amendment. Therefore, under Carroll , they could also searched the car A.xliv. Thus, ordinarily, the search must have occurred contemporaneously with the arrest. However, since in this case the police had separate probable cause that the car contained evidence, under Carroll , they could also seize the car and search it at the police station (not on the side of the road) because there is no greater intrusion. A.qq. Take Away: If police have probable cause that evidence will be found within a car, they may after the arrest of its occupants, tow it to the police station and conduct a search incident to arrest. A.51. Coolidge v. New A.52. Hampshire : police investigating a murder arrested Coolidge and at the time he had two cars parked on the driveway. More than two hours after Coolidge was taken into custody, the cars were seized without a warrant. One of the cars was searched and vacuumed for microscopic evidence two days later, again a year later, and a third time five months after the later search. The Court ruled that the warrantless car searches were unconstitutional, notwithstanding probable cause. The police could have very easily applied for a warrant and unlike Carroll where the car was on the side of a public highway, this was on his driveway. Furthermore, a search can become unreasonable if its duration is extended long after the exigency A.53. California v. Carney A.rr. Facts: DEA agent watches a youth go to D and into his mobile home which they then close all the blinds. The agent had an uncorroborated report that D was exchanging drugs for sex. Police
ask the person who comes out and they say yes that’s what happen. Police then go and knock on his door enter without a warrant after he opens and they see drugs and drug stuff around. They tow it and search more A.ss. Issue: whether law enforcement agents violated the 4th Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search, based on probable cause, of a fully mobile "motor home" located in a public place. A.tt. Argument against the search: It is used as a home; there is a bed fridge and blinds in it. He had an expectation of privacy which is exhibited by closing the blinds and doing intimate acts inside. Also, he was not on a public highway but in a lot off the road. A.uu. Holding: The Court says just like in Carroll , the mobile home can be moved. Also, since the government imposes a lot of regulations and inspections on automobiles, there is a lesser expectation of privacy. Therefore, since absent the prompt search and seizure, it could readily have been moved beyond the reach of the police it falls squarely under the Carroll exception. The Court fails to distinguish between worthy and unworthy vehicles which are either on the public roads and highways or situated such that it is reasonable to conclude that the vehicle is not being used as a residence. A.54. Automobile Inventories : another warrant exception : A.vv. Probable cause and warrant requirement do not apply to routine inventory searches. The routine procedure is developed in response to the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody, the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and the protection of the police from potential danger. A.xlv. The police are not permitted to open locked suitcase they discover during an inventory search unless the police have a general policy of doing so. A.ww. Requirements for inventory searches A.xlvi. Must have a policy already in place A.xlvii. Cannot be pretextual since the search does not require probable cause
- Court will look subjectively at police conduct to see if it's an attempt to get around probable cause A.55. United States v. Chadwick – Overruled by Acevedo. This is no longer good law, holding doesn’t apply A.xx. Facts: Railroad officials observed two men load a footlocker suspected of containing drugs onto a train. DEA in Boston two days later had with them a police dog which altered the officers to the presence of drugs. From this moment they had probable cause. After that respondent then joined the two men with the footlocker with his car. The two men and an attendant put the trunk in the trunk of the car and while the trunk was still open police arrested the men. They towed the car back and brought the footlocker back to the federal building then searched about 2 hours later A.yy. Issue: whether a warrantless search in these circumstances was unreasonable to search the footlocker A.zz. Holding: the initial seizure and detention of the footlocker, the validity of which respondents do not contest, were sufficient to guard against any risk that evidence might be lost. With the footlocker safely immobilized, it was unreasonable to undertake the additional and greater intrusion of a search without a warrant A.xlviii. It is ok to tow the car back to the impound lot and then search it because cars are heavily regulated and used for transportation not to keep things private, but footlockers are not regulated and are meant to keep things private. There is a higher expectation of privacy in the footlocker than the car. A.aaa. Reasoning: "warrantless searches of luggage or other property seized at the time of an arrest cannot be justified as incident to that arrest either if the search is remote in time or place from the arrest or no exigency exists." A.56. United States v. Ross: The Court held that a warrant to search a vehicle would support a search of every part of that vehicle - including containers therein - that might contain the object of the search. Therefore, when the police have probable cause to search a car without a warrant under the Carroll -
determined they were stolen in an armed robbery, they were seized. When other serial numbers came back stolen a warrant was obtained and executed to seize that equipment. A.mmm. Issue: Whether recording and moving components of the stereo constituted a search and seizure and if so whether it was reasonable under the 4th Amendment. A.nnn. Holding: The mere recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a seizure because it did not meaningfully interfere with respondent's possessor interest. However, the moving of the equipment to reveal serial numbers that the officer could not see did constitute a search. Merely inspecting those parts of the turntable that came into view during the latter search would not have constituted an independent search, because it would have produced no additional invasion of respondent's privacy interest. But taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion, which exposed to view concealed portions of the apartment or its contents, did produce a new invasion of respondent's privacy unjustified by the exigent circumstances that validated the entry. Therefore, the moving of the equipment violated his 4th Amendment rights because the police did not have probable cause to search the equipment. A.lii. The distinction between looking at a suspicious object in plain view and moving it even a few inches is much more than trivial for purposes of the 4th Amendment A.ooo. Take Away: Moving an object, revealing something that was otherwise hidden constitutes a search. And that taking action unrelated to the objectives of the authorization to be in a place produces a new invasion of privacy unjustified by the exigent circumstances that validated the entry. A.XXIV. Consent A.61. Consent: A.ppp. Most be voluntary A.qqq. Police do not have to inform suspect of their rights (does not have to be knowing) A.rrr. Can be limited by scope or time restrictions A.sss. Cannot be obtained by coercion either explicit or implicit means A.ttt. Can be given by a 3rd^ party based on assumption of risk to common areas that they share with the suspect A.62. Court Examines: A.uuu. The objective conduct of the police to make sure it was voluntary; and A.vvv. The subjective attributes of the consenter. A.63. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte A.www. Facts: Police stopped a car with 6 people in it because he observed that one headlight and the car's license plate light were burned out. One of the passengers claimed to be the brother of the owner and told police they could search the car. No one was threatened with arrest prior to this time, and the brother of the owner actually helped police search the car by opening the trunk and glove box. Under the rear seat, the police found three stolen checks which were later linked to Bustamonte. A.xxx. Issue: What must the prosecution prove to demonstrate that the consent was voluntarily given A.yyy. Holding: when the subject of a search is not in custody and the state attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the 4th and 14th Amendments require that the state demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances and while the subjects knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into consideration, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing voluntary consent. A.zzz. Take Away: Valid consent comes down to whether under the totally of the circumstances the consent can be viewed as voluntary A.64. Ohio v. Robinette : Here an officer lawfully detained Robinette for seeding to issue a citation. The officer also asked if he had anything illegal and then if he could search the car (which turned up a small amount of pot). The Court held that there is no requirement that police officers inform detainees that they are free to go before consent to search may be deemed voluntary.
A.65. Bumper v. North Carolina : 4 white officers went to the house of a 66 year old African American widow, which was also located in a rural area at the end of a long dirt road. One officer claimed he had a search warrant sp the woman said "go ahead" and opened the door. At trial the government claimed she consented to the search. The Court held that the burden of proving consent "cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. The situation is instant coercion." A.66. Scope and time restrictions can be given for a consented search. Consent can also be withdrawn; however, this can be dangerous because the police may be able to obtain probable cause during the consented search which could lead to a more extensive search. A.67. Third Party Consent A.aaaa. Matlock: "the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent non-consenting person with whom the authority is shared." A.liii. This rests on the mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants have the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of the members might permit the common area to be searched
- Since relying on assumption of risk, a landlord or hotel manager calls up no customary understanding of authority to admit guests without the consent of the current occupant.
- There will also be instances when a person clearly belonging on the premises as an occupant (for example a 5 year old) but may lack any perceived authority to give consent (to his parents dresser). A.bbbb. Minnesota v. Olson: Court held that overnight houseguests have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their temporary quarters because it is unlikely that the host would admit someone to see the guest against his express objection. Court relies on social conventions A.68. Georgia v. Randolph A.cccc. Facts: Respondents wife complained to the police after a domestic dispute that her husband took their son away. She also told them that he was a cocaine user. Shortly after this, respondent Randolph, retuned and explained that he removed the child to a neighbor's house so his wife couldn’t take him out of the country again. He also denied cocaine use and countered that his wife was the user. Police asked respondent for permission to search the house which he refused and then asked the wife which she consented. She led the police to his separate bedroom where there was a straw with cocaine residue. A.dddd. Issue: whether one occupant may give law enforcement effective consent to search shared premises, as against a co-tenant who is present and states an express refusal to permit the search A.eeee. Holding: a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident. The potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, such as a napping potential objector, loses out. A.liv. Furthermore, so long as there is no evidence that the police have removed the potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of avoiding a possible objection. this part is dicta
- Argument 1: Regardless of motivation, if it’s a valid arrest it is the line we draw, therefore objectively reasonable to remove the defendant. They will not look at pre-text.
- Argument 2: Or can be looked at still a removal of a defendant and bright line illegal search A.lv. Also, if police are called for an instance such as a domestic dispute, so long as there is good reason to believe a threat exists, it is silly to suggest that the police would not be allowed to enter to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely. A.ffff. Class Notes & Hypos: A.lvi. Court based a lot of their reasoning in this situation on social convention. They believe a person would not enter another person’s home if a co-resident objected to the entry.
- This reasoning is flawed. There are many situation such as a birthday party, weather, long distance trip and so on that a visitor would enter despite the express objection of a co-resident.
