Sources and Rationales for the ExclusionaryRules

II. Sources and Rationales for the Exclusionary Rules a. Exclusionary Rules i. What is an exclusionary rule? 1. A judge-made rule that requires the exclusion of evidence from the trial of a defendant whose constitutional rights have been violated by law enforcement authorities in obtaining the evidence ii. 4th Amendment (Illegal Searches & Seizures) 1. If evidence being presented at trial or being discussed at pre-trial has been obtained contrary to the 4th Amendment, the court would suppress the evidence (attorney needs to file a motion to suppress) iv. 2. The 4th Amend. states that the gov't shall not violate the amend. 3. The exclusionary rules are judge made rules iii. Weeks v. United States (Federal Case) 1. Facts: Weeks was charged w/ and convicted of use of the mails for transporting coupons or tickets representing chances in a lottery, in violation of a federal criminal statute. On appeal, he claims the court erred in admitÝng in evidence papers taken from his room by government ofÏcials during illegal warrantless searches 2. Trial court granted D's petition partially by requiring part of the evidence not important to the case while keeping evidence that were important w/ the case 3. Supreme court ruled that the evidence obtained contrary to the 4th Amend. should be thrown out (conviction reversed by unanimous opinion) a. Items taken by a federal ofÏcial from an individual's home when no warrant has been issued are seized in violation of the 4th Amendment and must be excluded from evidence 4. Supreme court does not want to be in cahoots w/ the police by allowing the evidence to be used, thus tainting the court 5. Also, the court states that there is a privacy right that is being violated since ofÏcers are effectively trespassing 6. All a justices agreed w/ the decision Mapp v. Ohio (State Case) 1. Facts: Cleveland police ofÏcers entered Mapp's house claiming authority under a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the "warrant" and the police struggled with her to retrieve it. Having retrieved the paper, the police placed Mapp under arrest and commenced their search of the entire house. The police found certain materials which they seized and used at trial to prosecute Mapp for possession of obscene materials. At trial no search warrant was produced. Mapp was convicted and appealed. 2. The state charged her according to state law 3. In a prior case, Wolf, the Supreme Court held that the states and federal courts need to be uniform and all adopt the exclusionary rules a. States were not stopping the use of evidence illegally obtained b. Court also wanted the state and federal courts to be uniformed based on the law, to deter ofÏcers from illegal searches and seizures, protect integrity of court, and protect the right to privacy 4. Court held that evidence obtained illegally by state ofÏcials is inadmissible in state court 5. Dissent a. The issue has never been about the 4th Amend., but about the state law b. Also, the court should not have been legislating from the bench by imposing the federal standard to the states 6. Notes of Mapp case a. The Calandra case points more to the use of the exclusionary rules as a deterrent i. Looking at the exclusionary rules as evidentiary rules instead of constitutional rules since the evidentiary view gives a better basis to why courts need to adopt the exclusionary rules ii. The exclusionary rules apply to ALL evidence obtained illegally, thus there is some retrenchment or refinement of the law b. 1995 proposed legislation is to make illegal searches and seizures only a civil suit, thus providing a civil remedy i. ii. b. Need to show actual damages Also, agents/ofÏcers would only be disciplined if they lacked a good faith belief that the search and seizure was constitutional 7. What justified the extension of the exclusionary rule a. Exclusion is an essential part of the right to privacy and an important constitutional privilege. An individual who has suffered an unreasonable search or seizure has a 14th Amendment right to exclusion b. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter-to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effective available wayby removing the incentive to disregard it. In other words, the rule is also a future-oriented deterrent sanction c. There is another consideration-the imperative of judicial integrity. Judges should not taint the courts by allowing the fruits of ofÏcial violations of privacy to be used to convict d. Recognition of an exclusionary rule that is applicable to the states creates desirable symmetry between the federal state systems e. The right to privacy ought to be treated like other constitutional guarantees-specifically, like the due process right not to be convicted on the basis of a coerced confession. If the products of coercion are excluded confession. If the products of coercion are excluded, the product of unreasonable searches and seizures should also be excluded. The "Threshold" of the 4th Amendment Right to be Secure against Searches i. Exclusionary rule is the remedy of a violation of the 4th Amendment 1. Before we get to a remedy, we need to figure out what constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment ii. The threshold question is whether the conduct of police ofÏcials constitutes a 4th Amendment search iii. The framers of the constitution in drafting the 4th Amend. were concerned with illegal searches due to what they had to go through (i.e. intrusion of the home or ofÏce, physical intrusion, and non-physical) 1. Property concept iv. Physical intrusions w/o permission or warrants enter premises, listening devices requires penetration into a private space, false friends (i.e. undercover agents, those who are friends that turn on you) v. vi. 1. This is what occurred based on Olmstead 2. For false friends, courts did not find the evidence illegally obtained Not all searches fall w/in the confines of the 4th Amendment 1. If searches do fall w/in the 4th Amend., warrantless searches are deemed illegal unless there is an exception Cases 1. Katz v. US a. Facts: Katz was convicted of transmitÝng wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston in violation of a federal law. At trial, the government offered Katz's end of telephone conversations overheard by FBI agents who had attached a listening device to the outside of the public telephone booth where Katz placed his calls b. Court held: The 4th Amend. protects people, not places c. The court of appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the 4th Amend. b/c there was no physical entrance into the area occupied d. The Supreme Court stated that the 4th Amendment protects people, not places i. Pg. 6 --> Highlighted phases in 1st paragraph ii. Pg. 6 --> Bottom of pg. highlighted phrase e. Supreme Court also stated that penetration is a non-factor f. Harlan's concurrence i. Coins the phrase: "Reasonable expectation of privacy" ii. He creates a two-part test for "reasonable expectations" that the Court majority later adopts: 1. An actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, that 2. Society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable" 2. US v. White a. This case deals w/ false friends and the court says that this practice of using under cover ofÏcials is okay b. Facts: White was convicted on two charges involving illegal narcotics. At trial, over White's objections, government informant. The government agents had overheard these conversations through a wire-tap the informant had been wearing, allowing them to hear every word in real time. The court of appeals reversed the conviction holding that the testimony was inadmissible at trial c. Issue: Whether the 4th Amendment prohibits gov't agents from testifying to what they overheard over a wire-tap worn by a gov't informant d. Court says that simultaneous transmissions is the same as writing down conversations for ofÏcial use e. Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit government agents from testifying to what they heard over a wiretap worn by an informant f. Rule of Law: The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures does not protect people from their misplaced expectations of trust and therefore there is no Fourth Amendment search and seizure when the person the defendant is speaking with is secretly a government agent or an informant wearing a wire and recording what is being said g. The court has held that police can write down notes about a conversation they have with a defendant while undercover and testify to those transactions h. For constitutional purposes, there is no distinction between immediately writing down these transactions and simultaneously recording or relaying the conversation to agents through electronic devices i. Electronic surveillance that allows agents to listen in real time is admissible provided the agent is not otherwise violating the defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy 3. Smith v. Maryland a. Facts: Smith was convicted of robbery. Over Smith's objection, a pen register tape that showed he had called the woman he had robbed was introduced at trial. Smith appealed his conviction. b. Issue: Whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dials from the privacy of his home c. Court held a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dials and evidence obtained through the use of a pen register is admissible in trial d. Rule of Law: The 4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures where a person exhibits a reasonable and subjective expectation of privacy e. It is public knowledge that the phone company keeps records of people's outgoing calls so when people make a call they are voluntarily making public who they call f. While Smith made the phone call in the privacy of his home, he only had a reasonable expectation that his conversation would remain private, not that the number he called would remain out of the public record i. Therefore, even if Smith believed he had an expectation of privacy in the number he dialed, this expectation was not reasonable and the use of a pen register does not constitute a search 4. California v. Ciraolo a. Facts: An ofÏcer obtained a private plane and flew over defendant's house at an altitude of 1000 ft. w/in navigable airspace. From that vantage point, the police readily identified marijuana plants growing in a plot in defendant's yard. They photographed the area w/ a standard 35mm camera and obtained a search warrant. Based on the evidence seized, the defendant was charged and convicted. b. Open fields do not give a person a reasonable expectation of privacy since anyone can use the field despite having a trespassing sign c. In order to get a search warrant, you need to have probable cause i. Requires some evidence and testimony/afÏdavits from ofÏcers d. Court held that when a person knowingly exposes something to the public, even though it is part of your curtilage, the person is not protected under the 4th Amendment i. However, the Defendant constructed a 6 ft. fence and then a 10 ft. fence to obstruct what he was doing 1. Thus, he has a reasonable expectation that someone on-ground level would not look into his yard w/ a ladder e. What is acceptable is that ofÏcers were flying in public air space and they spotted the illegal activity w/ the naked eye through the use of a regular camera f. Dissent: What ofÏcers did is a violation of the 4th Amendment 5. Florida v. Giardines a. Facts: Based on "an unverified tip" about in-home marijuana growing, detectives took a trained canine to Jardines' front porch. The dog alerted, indicating the presence of narcotics. Marijuana plants were found during a search of the home pursuant to a warrant issued on the basis of what had been learned from the dog sniff. b. Issue: Whether using a drug-snifÏng dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of a home is a 'search' w/in the meaning of the 4th Amend c. The majority opinion states that the police ofÏcer was at the house under an ofÏcial capacity w/ the intent to find contraband substances, thus the search was deemed unreasonable under the 4th Amend. i. Majority of the Court concluded that the initial investigation w/ the dog was a 4th Amendment search d. The ofÏcer was w/in the curtilage of the home, thus his search was done w/in an area where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy 6. Bond v. US a. Facts: Agent Cantu, having boarded a bus, started to squeeze the soft luggage in the overhead bins because he was searching for drugs on board. In the overhead bin at the back of the bus, where Bond (defendant) was seated, Cantu felt a green canvas bag and noticed that it contained a “brick-like” object. Bond said that the bag was his and allowed Cantu to search it. Cantu discovered, wrapped in duct tape, in an oval shape, a certain amount of methamphetamine, which was rolled up in a pair of pants. Bond moved to suppress the evidence, but the motion was denied and he was convicted. b. Issue: Whether the physical manipulation of a bag on a public bus is a type of search that violates the 4th Amendment c. Despite giving consent to search the bag, what is at contention is the initial search of squeezing the bag which led to the agent to ask the petitioner to search the bag d. The dissent focuses on how other people can touch the bag, thus there should be no expectation of privacy e. The majority states that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy i. Majority draws a distinction between this case and Ciarolo by pointing to the purpose of the search as well as stating that tactile searches (i.e. squeezing bags) seems more intrusive than visual searches f. Consent is not an issue since the illegal search was done before consent was given 7. Kyllo v. US a. Facts: A neighbor tipped off the ofÏcers that Kyllo may be growing marijuana. The police then went to the home and conducted thermal imager search from across the street and saw that one part of the house was significantly hotter than other parts b. Issue: Whether the use of thermal imaging devices to detect levels of heat in a private home constitutes a 4th Amend search c. Court held that the info of the thermal is deemed to be intrusive, thus it violates the 4th Amend. d. Rule of Law: While an unwarranted search of a private home is generally presumed to be unconstitutional, home owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the things freely observable by the public and therefore there is no 4th Amend search and seizure if police gain info by observing things in public view e. The thermal imaging was done from across the street of the home (on the public wall) f. The device is not something that is available to the public, thus there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from having thermal imaging devices used on homes g. Dissent i. The dissent makes a distinction between through-the-wall and off-the-wall surveillance 1. Thermal imaging does not look through-the-wall to get info, only obtains info from off-the-wall i. Info obtained should not/is not private vii. Summary of Threshold of 4th Amendment Searches (Reasonableness) 1. Need to make an attempt to safeguard what you intend to keep private 2. Society needs to have an interest in protecting the supposed illegal search 3. Conversations to third parties do not have protection under the 4th Amendment since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy c. Unreasonableness and Probable Cause Requirement i. Katz: Government activity that violates a citizen reasonable expectation of privacy 1. Subjective expectation of the actor 2. Society is ready to accept that as reasonable 3. **Don't forget to take precaution 4. **Society has an interest in what is being searched ii. 4th Amendment 1. Probable Cause a. The facts and circumstances w/in the ofÏcers' knowledge and of which they have reasonable trustworthy information are sufÏcient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched 2. Search Warrant a. Application b. AfÏdavit i. Signed by an ofÏcer who knows or believes to be true information he has personal knowledge of ii. Must be explicit for the information they are relying on that is not from another police personnel c. Warrant language/searches i. Minor inconsistencies/errors in warrant language cannot invalidate a warrant, but major errors can ii. Warrants need to be particular enough for what is being searched in order to prevent someone else from interpreting the warrant a different way or cause confusion (cannot leave it to the discretion of the magistrate or other ofÏcers to determine what should be searched for) 1. There is some flexibility when dealing w/ narcotics iii. Good Faith exception 1. When the warrant is made in error by the magistrate that is not obvious to the ofÏcer executing the warrant, then the exception applies 3. Probable Cause to Search a. Probable cause to search an area demands that there be sufÏcient likelihood that: i. Something that is subject to seizure by the government (contraband or fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime) ii. Is presently iii. In the specific place to be searched 4. Informants a. No accountability b. AfÏdavit i. Signed by ofÏcers under pains and penalties of perjury (accountability) c. Hearsay: non-first hard knowledge 5. Cases a. Draper v. US i. Facts: A known informant, Hereford, told a narcotics agent that Draper had gone to Chicago by train on Sept. 6 and would be returning to Denver with three ounces of heroin on the morning of Sept 8 or 9 by train. Hereford provided a detained description of Draper and his clothing, said that he would be carrying a tan bag, and “walked real fast.” The agent saw a man meeting the description in all respects arrive on the morning train from Chicago on Sept 9. Draper was arrested and searched. Heroin was found on him. ii. The informant (known to the police) is not publicly known iii. This was before the test, but this is like the totality of the circumstances test 1. Taking all the circumstances together iv. What is the Court concerned about? 1. Unidentified informants i. Known to the police, but not to the magistrate ii. Unknown to the police 2. Hearsay information i. Information conveyed to the magistrate not based on the personal knowledge of the police ii. Reliability of the information b. Spinelli v. US i. Facts: Spinelli was convicted of traveling across state lines to conduct unlawful gambling activities. At every stage in the proceedings in the lower courts, Spinelli challenged the constitutionality of the warrant under which the FBI searched and seized the evidence necessary for his conviction. Dissatisfied with the Draper approach to hearsay-based findings of probable cause and wanting to underscore the principles stated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 US 108 (1964), the court granted certiorari and heard the Spinelli case ii. Issue: Whether information from an informant establishes the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant when the afÏdavit fails to contain details as to why the informant is reliable or explain how he came to the conclusions he did iii. Court held that information from an informant does not establish the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant when the afÏdavit fails iv. The court in Aguilar held that a warrant must set forth the underlying circumstances necessary for the magistrate to judge the validity of an informant's conclusions, and it must establish that the informant is credible and the information is reliable v. Court needs to go farther than Aguilar 1. An afÏdavit that lacks sufÏcient detail to explain why an informant is reliable and how he came to his conclusion does not provide the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant vi. Court says that only paragraph 4 is important to probable cause 1. The search warrant was not proper since the afÏdavit does not establish probable cause i. The FBI failed to show that its informant was trustworthy, or that he obtained his info in a reliable way, or that his conclusions were even valid ii. While FBI did corroborate some of the informant's info, it was unable to corroborate sufÏcient detail so as to arise to the level of probable cause vii. When an afÏdavit contains an informant's tip plus additional information and the tip is an essential part of the probable cause showing: 1. The neutral magistrate should first apply the twopronged test (veracity and basis of knowledge inquiry) to the tip alone, 2. If that yields a finding of probable cause the inquiry can end, 3. If not, the magistrate should proceed to the second stage 4. In the second stage, the magistrate should evaluate the tip in light of the corroborating information also contained in the afÏdavit viii. Totality of Circumstances (AC) --> too broad ix. Want fact centered for magistrate can follow x. Aguilar - Spinelli Two Prong Test for use of Hearsay 1. Informant must declare either i. That he has himself seen or perceived the fact or facts asserted (Basis of Personal Knowledge); OR ii. That information is hearsay, but there is a good reason for believing it (Veracity) 2. State own constitutions 3. Some states still follow this test (MA being one) xi. Rule of Law: An afÏdavit that lacks sufÏcient detail to explain why an informant is reliable and how he came to his conclusions does not provide the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant c. Illinois v. Gates i. Facts: An anonymous letter is sent to the police accusing the Gateses of selling drugs. The letter details their travels to Florida and back to Bloomingdale, Ill. where they live. The writer says their drug buys are done in Florida when Sue drives the family car there and Lance flies there a few days later and drives the car back. Sue flies back. He claimed that Lance brings back over $100,000.00 in drugs. He says Sue will make a trip to Florida on a certain date. The police pursue the tip, perform an investigation and obtain a search warrant. When they return home at the expected time the police are waiting for them with the search warrant. A large quantity of marijuana and other contraband were seized ii. Issue: Whether a warrant application based on partially corroborated evidence from an unknown informant satisfies the probable cause requirement of the 4th Amend. iii. Illinois Supreme Court: 1. Applying the Aguilar-Spinelli test the warrant fails. The afÏdavit did not contain sufÏcient information to support probable cause. The letter, as supplemented by the police afÏdavit did not reveal the basis of knowledge of the writer and did not provide facts sufÏciently establishing the veracity of the writer iv. US Supreme Court: Reversed 1. Court held that corroborated statements by an unknown informant can amount to probable cause i. Veracity and basis of knowledge are highly relevant considerations in the "totality of the circumstances analysis." A deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indicia of reliability v. Rule of Law: A warrant application satisfies the 4th Amendment probable cause requirement so long as it establishes a substantial basis for concluding that a search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing vi. Totality of the Circumstances Test 1. Makes it easier for the police and the magistrates look at 4 corners of the application afÏdavit and there was probable cause vii. Totality of the Circumstances Analysis 1. Given all the circumstances set forth in the afÏdavit, the persons supplying hearsay info must have i. Veracity; AND ii. Basis of Knowledge d. Unreasonableness and the Warrant Requirement i. Searches 1. Probable Cause to Search a. Probable cause to search an area demands that there be sufÏcient likelihood that: i. Something that is subject to seizure by the government (contraband or fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime) ii. Is presently iii. In the specific place to be searched 2. Cases a. Johnson v. US i. Facts: Based on information from a confidential informant, the police went to the Europe Hotel where they immediately recognized a strong odor of burning opium. The odor led to Room 1. The police knocked and said they wanted to talk to the woman who answered the door. She acquiesced to police authority and admitted them. When the room was searched the police found opium. ii. Issue: Whether it is necessary to secure a warrant prior to searching an area when the police know there is probable cause iii. Even though the woman opened the door for the police, the court says that she did not invite them in. She just acquiesced to police authority iv. It is necessary for police get a warrant before searching an area 1. A third party needs to decide whether there is probable cause before granting a warrant (i.e. third party needs to oversee acts of police) b. US v. Grubbs i. Facts: OfÏcers arranged for the controlled delivery of a package containing a child pornography videotape purchased by Grubb. The afÏdavit supporting the search warrant for the videotape stated: “Execution of this search warrant will not occur unless and until the parcel has been received by a person(s) and has been physically taken into the residence.” The warrant was issued as requested. The package was delivered and taken inside Grubb’s residence. As Grubbs was leaving the house a few minutes later, ofÏcers detained him, executed the warrant and seized the videotape. ii. There was a triggering condition iii. Grubbs was provided w/ a copy of the warrant, which included both attachments, but not the supporting afÏdavit that explained when the warrant would be executed iv. The warrant was an anticipatory one 1. Anticipatory warrants are warrants based upon an afÏdavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at specific place 2. For the most part all warrants could be considered anticipatory since there is some sort of guessing that to contraband will be and remain at the location v. If an ofÏcer lies, then you can attack the warrant 1. If it can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the ofÏcer lied in the afÏdavit, then a Frank's hearing is granted (must prove that the lie is w/in the four corners of the afÏdavit) 2. At the Frank's hearing, if D proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the lie is w/in the four corners of the afÏdavit and the case cannot be held w/o the info, then the case must be dropped c. Andreson v. Maryland i. Facts: Andresen was under investigation for his real estate settlement activities. Investigators were granted search warrants which included a list of “particularly described” documents and the phrase “together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this [time] unknown.” ii. Issue: Whether a warrant can be overbroad even though it contains highly specific descriptions of the items sought iii. Language of the Warrant 1. Most impt. Language: "together w/ other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown" iv. Court does not view the sentence alone, but views it as part of the whole paragraph 1. Thus, a warrant can be overbroad, but only to a certain extent v. Context matters in whether a warrant is too broad or not vi. 3 Reasons Why to Have a Detailed/Particular AfÏdavit Requirement 1. Particularized description of what and where the police is searching limits privacy invasion 2. Protects possessory interest and prevents seizure of any item in the home 3. Ensures that warrants are based probable cause i. The more particular/specific a warrant is, the more the deficiencies may be apparent (allows D to attack the probable cause d. Wilson v. Arkansas i. Facts: The police obtained a warrant to search for narcotics at defendant’s home. OfÏcers found the main door to her home open. While opening an unlocked screen door and entering the residence, they identified themselves as police ofÏcers and said they had a warrant. Once inside the home, the police seized narcotics, a gun and ammunition. They also found the defendant in the bathroom flushing marijuana down the toilet. ii. Issue: Whether the 4th Amendment requires that ofÏcers knock and announce themselves before executing a warrant to search a home iii. Court held that the "knock and announce" principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the 4th Amend. iv. No knock searches may be considered unreasonable (needs to be at least 20-30 seconds), unless a no knock warrant is obtained v. OfÏcer MUST knock and announce ii. Arrests 1. Probable Cause to Arrest a. Probable cause to arrest a person requires that there be a certain quantum of likelihood that: i. The particular individual ii. Has committed or is commitÝng a particular offense 2. Whren v. US a. Facts: Plainclothes ofÏcers on patrol in a high drug area in an unmarked car notice a dark truck with youthful occupants at a stop sign. The driver was looking down into the lap of the passenger at his right and the truck remained stopped at the intersection for more than 20 seconds. The truck then turned right without signaling and took off speeding. The ofÏcers stopped the truck. After noticing two large plastic bags of what appeared to crack cocaine in the defendant passenger’s hands, he was arrested b. Issue: Whether the temporary detention of a motorist who the police have probable cause to believe has committed a civil trafÏc violation is inconsistent w/ the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures unless a reasonable ofÏcer would have been motivated to stop the car by a desire to enforce the trafÏc laws c. D argues that use of a trafÏc violation as a pretense to stop and search/seize does not amount to probable cause d. However, the court says that it could amount to probable cause, thus the stop is reasonable under the 4th Amendment e. Court held that when there is probable cause that a trafÏc offense has occurred, the ofÏcer's subjective motives for detaining the motorist do not invalidate the ofÏcer's actions under the 4th Amendement f. Rule of Law: Except the inventory searches and administrative inspections, when probable cause of illegal conduct exists, an ofÏcer's true motive for searching or detaining a person does not negate the constitutionality of the search or seizure 3. US v. Watson a. Facts: A signal was given by a reliable informant that Watson had stolen credit cards and he was arrested. A search revealed that Watson had no cards on him. When asked if the inspector could look inside his car, Watson said “Go ahead.” The inspector entered the car and found two credit cards. Watson was arrested. b. Issue: Whether a warrantless arrest violates the 4th Amendment if there was probable cause to believe that the person had committed a felony c. If the arrest was invalid, then everything after the arrest is also invalid i. The arrest is being questioned here d. Arrest warrants are similar to search warrants where there is enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant i. If you commit a crime in the presence of a police ofÏcer, then an arrest warrant is not needed e. The agency that made the arrest only needs to have reasonable grounds that a crime is being committed in order to make an arrest f. Court held that a warrantless arrest does not violate the 4th Amend if there was probable cause to believe that the person had committed a felony i. Watson's arrest is valid of an arrest warrant since state statute permitted the arrest g. This case reaches the Supreme Court since there is a dispute of whether the standard needs to be reasonable grounds of probable cause h. OfÏcers did not get a warrant b/c there was not enough time i. The concurrence states that there were exigent circumstances and the majority could have decided this way ii. However, the majority decided that history has allowed ofÏcers to make warrantless arrest under the circumstances of the case (court falls back on common law, history, and practice) i. Arrest warrants never go stale, they can last for a while (usually), while search warrants can go stale j. Felons in public places are more mobile than goods, thus warrantless arrest may take place 4. Atwater v. Lago Vista a. Facts: This is a civil action under 42 USC sec. 1983. Atwater was driving her pickup truck in Lago Vista with her two small children in the front seat. None of them was wearing a seatbelt. A police ofÏcer observed the seatbelt violation and pulled Atwater over. The ofÏcer yelled at her and said “you’re going to jail.” She was arrested. A seatbelt violation carries no jail sentence and a maximum fine of $50 b. Issue: Whether the 4th Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine c. Under the Texas statute, an ofÏcer may cite or arrest, w/o a warrant, a person found commitÝng a violation of the seatbelt laws d. Ms. Atwater filed a §1983 suit for civil rights violation i. She was arrested, booked into jail and she had to wait to be brought in front of a magistrate for an unreasonable period of time before she was allowed to be released on bond e. Court held that Ms. Atwater's arrest is constitutional i. The standard of probable cause applies to all arrests w/o the need to 'balance' the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations f. Rule of Law: The 4th Amendment does NOT prohibit a warrantless arrest for a minor offense g. The dissent says that what occurred was an unreasonable seizure i. Dissent makes a proportionality analysis that the arrest was not proportionate to the crime committed, but only in this circumstance h. A stop requires a reasonable suspicion or probable cause while an arrest requires probable cause and sometimes a warrant 5. Summary a. Whren i. Arrests or seizures pursuant to a temporary stop are legal ii. TrafÏc offenses that are used as pretext to stop a vehicle are legal b. Watson i. Police may arrest a person who is commitÝng a crime in the presence of an ofÏcer w/o a warrant c. Atwater i. There needs to be a determination that the arrest was made pursuant to probable cause in front of a magistrate 1. This must occur w/in 48 hours e. Reasonable Searches w/o Warrants: Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement i. Introduction 1. Reasonable Searches w/o Warrants a. Searches that arise due to exigent circumstances (emergency situations) fall w/in the exception b. Automobile doctrines and inventory searches fall w/in the exception c. Also, searches incident to arrest, consent searches, and plain view seizures are w/in the exception i. Consent search: Police may ask property owner to search the area and property owner can say yes or no (need to give reasonable and informed consent) ii. Searches Incident to Arrest 1. Introduction a. These types of searches are allowed since ofÏcers fear for their safety and do not want evidence to be destroyed b. OfÏcers can search the person arrested and the immediate area around the person arrested c. Police can enter the home of the suspect just based on the arrest warrant i. However, the police cannot enter a third-party's home unless the police have a search warrant for the third-party's home (this happens if the suspect is hiding from the police and not at his home) 1. The search warrant only allows the police to search for the person on the arrest warrant 2. The third-party can refuse to let the police search the home (Stegall case) i. Payton Case -- non-exigent and non-consensual (need to have some reason to believe the arrestee is there) 2. Chimel v. California a. Facts: Police ofÏcers arrived at Chimel’s home with a warrant authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. When Chimel came home, he was handed the arrest warrant. Over his objection, the police then conducted a search through the entire threebedroom house. They directed Chimel’s wife to open drawers and to move contents of the drawers so they could view any items that would have come from the burglary. They seized numerous items —primarily coins. The search took between 45minutes and an hour b. Issue: Whether a warrantless search of an entire home permissible when search is incident to a lawful arrest that takes place in the home c. The Rabinowitz case has evolved from the holding of the Weeks case in holding that a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest may generally extend to the area that is considered to be in the "possession" or under the "control" of the person arrested d. When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting ofÏcer 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 e. It is entirely reasonable for the arresting ofÏcer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction f. It is also reasonable for the arresting ofÏcer to search the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items g. Chimel limits the scope of where searches are acceptable h. Court held that the search performed was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment i. Rule of Law: Incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search of the area in possession and control of the person under arrest is permissible under the 4th Amendment 3. US v. Robinson a. Facts: OfÏcer Jenks observed Robinson driving a Cadillac and determined that Robinson was operating a motor vehicle after the revocation of his operator’s license. This is an offense which carried a mandatory minimum jail term. Jenks stopped the car and effected a full custody arrest. In accordance with procedures prescribed in police department instructions, Jenks searched Robinson thoroughly. Jenks felt something in his breast pocket, reached in and found a cigarette pack. He felt the pack and knew the objects inside were not cigarettes. He then opened the pack and found capsules containing heroin b. Issue: Whether is it reasonable to conduct a full search of the person being arrested during a lawful arrest c. The traditional exception to the warrant requirement i. A search may be made of the person of the arrestee by virtue of the lawful arrest ii. A search may be made of the area w/in the control of the arrestee d. The ofÏcer had the right to stop and search the arrestee (lawful custodial arrest) i. The first thing we must consider is the ofÏcers' safety e. Court held that the search was permissible i. The authority to search an arrestee arises when the police make a custodial arrest f. Dissent i. The reason of a search must be balanced w/ the offense a person is being arrested for 1. In this case, an ofÏcer may not fear for his safety in arresting someone for the trafÏc stop g. Nevertheless, the majority held that it does not matter what the offense is b/c there is a chance that a person arrested for a trafÏc violation has a weapon and may use it against the ofÏcer h. Note 3: Constitutionality to Search a Person for a Citation i. Court in the Knowles case does not extend the holding of the Robinson case to the case in hand i. Rationale for Search Incident to Arrest Exception i. Need to disarm suspect for ofÏcers' safety ii. Need to preserve evidence for later use at trial 4. NY v. Belton a. Facts: When Belton and other occupants were stopped for speeding, the ofÏcer smelled burnt marijuana and saw an envelope with a mark associated with marijuana. The men were ordered out of the car and arrested for unlawful possession of marijuana. The ofÏcer picked up the envelope and found marijuana inside. He then searched the passenger compartment of the car where on the back seat was Belton’s jacket. The ofÏcer unzipped a pocket of the jacket and found cocaine. Belton was charged and convicted of another narcotics crime arising out of this find. b. Issue: Whether the passenger compartment of the car within the arrestee's immediate control is subject to search where an ofÏcer has instructed the occupant of a car to step out of the automobile and has placed the occupant under arrest c. The court held that the passenger area of the car is under the immediate control of a recent occupant now under arrest and is subject to lawful search by the arresting ofÏcer i. The ofÏcer's search of Belton's jacket was lawful and the cocaine evidence was properly admitted at trial d. Rule of Law: Incident to a lawful arrest, the police may search the area w/in the arrestee's immediate control e. If the passenger area can be reached by the arrestee then so can those containers in the area and therefore, containers in the passenger area are subject to search as well 5. Arizona v. Gant a. Facts: Outside Gant’s house, ofÏcers arrested two other people and charged them with drug offenses. When Gant returned home, he was immediately arrest for driving without a license and handcuffed. When other ofÏcers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle and searched Gant’s car. A gun was found and a bag of cocaine was discovered in the pocket of a jacket in the backseat b. Issue: Whether police may undertake a search of an individual's vehicle when the arrestee is not w/in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search c. This follows Belton that when policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search of the passenger compartment of that automobile d. The court held that the police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is w/in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that crime-related evidence is located in the vehicle e. Police may also examine the contents of any containers found w/in the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is w/in reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be w/in his reach f. Grant was arrested for driving w/ a suspended license, and he was securely handcuffed and placed in a squad car before ofÏcers undertook a search of his car 6. Payton v. NY a. Facts: NY detectives had probable cause to believe that Payton had murdered a gas station attendant. At 7:30 a.m. ofÏcers went to Payton’s apartment intending to arrest him without a warrant. No one responded to their knocks, so they broke into the apartment. No one was present, however, the police seized a .30 caliber shell casing found in plain view. The shell casing was admitted in evidence at Payton’s murder trial b. Issue: Whether the police can enter a suspect's home w/o a warrant to make a routine felony arrest c. The NY statutes are deemed to be invalid since the 4th Amendment trumps any state statute d. The search/entry into a private residence to make an arrest requires the police to have warrants i. W/o warrants, entering the home would be a violation of a person's 4th Amend right e. In this case, it would be better to get a search warrant instead of an arrest warrant since people move and the arrest warrant would be broad to allow any ofÏcer to arrest the person if seen f. Need to prove two things to have probable cause for a search warrant, while you need to prove only one thing to have probable cause for an arrest warrant 7. Stegald v. US a. Facts: DEA agents, armed with an arrest warrant for Lyons, went to an address where they expected to find him. The agents, with guns drawn, approached two men standing outside the house. After identifying the men, they proceeded to the house where a woman answered the door and stated that she was alone in the house. The agents guarded her while they searched the house for Lyons. Agents didn’t find Lyons but ultimately recovered 43 pounds of cocaine from the house. Steagald, one of the men outside the house, was prosecuted iii. i. The first search was made warrantless b. The arrest warrant was made for Lyons and the police did not necessarily know if Lyons owned the house c. Police had no authority to enter and search Stegald's home to look for Lyons d. A search based on an arrest warrant does not allow the police to enter the home of a third-party to search the home e. Must have a warrant to enter the home, but cannot use the warrant to enter someone else's home f. Note 3 i. You can arrest w/o a warrant in a public place ii. If you are outside in public areas, outside the curtilage of the home, you may be arrested w/o the warrant g. In these circumstances, the third-party resident's rights are prioritized above those of the arrestee 8. Summary a. Chimel: A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest may generally extend to the area that is considered to be in the possession or under the control of the person arrested. However, the search in Chimel went far beyond Chimel's person and the area from w/in which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him. Thus, a search incident to arrest if limited to the suspect and his "grabbing area" b. Robinson: A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the 4th Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search Exigent Circumstances 1. Introduction a. The exception to the warrant requirement is probably both the simplest and vaguest of the exceptions b. Requires gov't to show: i. Probable cause to believe that items sought would be found at the location; and ii. Some exigency or need to act w/o securing a warrant [hot pursuit, imminent evidence destruction, a need to prevent escape, and a risk of danger to police or others] 2. Warden v. Hayden a. Facts: An armed robber took money from a cab company and ran. Cab drivers followed him to a specific address and gave a description of the man that was relayed to the police. The suspect had entered the address less than five minutes before police arrived. They entered the house and began to search for the suspect and for weapons. The man was found in a bedroom while weapons and his clothing were found in other locations in the house b. Issue: Weather items must be seized during a lawful search w/ only evidential value be excluded from evidence in a criminal trial c. The police were searching the premises on different floors and they did not know whether the assailant was found or whether the weapons were found d. This is a situation where the police have an interest of clearing the home of weapons in order to protect the public and in the interest of safety e. The basis for the "exigency" finding in this case is hot pursuit f. Court held that items seized during a lawful search may be constitutionally admitted in a criminal trial, even if those items have only evidential value g. Rule of Law: Under the 4th Amendment, items seized during a lawful search w/ only evidential value may be admitted in a criminal trial h. The entire search was justified since the ofÏcers did not know when the other ofÏcers found the weapons or the suspect i. It wouldn't have made a difference if the police knew the name of the suspect and knew where he lived since the suspect committed an armed robbery i. If it was an unarmed robbery, the police would have to get a warrant 3. Vale v. Louisiana a. Facts: OfÏcers having two warrants for Vale’s arrest set up surveillance of the house. They observed Vale engaged in narcotics sales outside his house. After the last sale, they arrested Vale outside and informed him they were going to search his house. After entering the house and making a cursory inspection to ascertain if anyone else was present, Vale’s mother and brother returned home. They were informed of the arrest and the impending search. The search of a rear bedroom revealed a quantity of narcotics b. Issue: Whether an arrest on the street generally provides justification for a warrantless search of the arrestee's house c. The search of the home was warrantless, despite having an arrest warrant for Vale, since Vale was arrested outside the home, thus not in the vicinity of the home in order to hide the drugs (there was no exigent circumstance) d. The court held that the search was not justified and a warrant needed to be obtained e. Rule of Law: An arrest on the street, without more, does not provide justification for a warrantless search of the arrestee's house f. The Louisiana Supreme Court was mainly concerned w/ the fact that narcotics were involved and could be easily disposed, thus that court upheld the search as reasonable for the preservation of evidence iv. g. There may have been alternative measures that might have preserved the evidence w/o invading the home's privacy by telling the family to not touch the drugs and get a search warrant h. Sometimes police ofÏcers can create exigent circumstances and that is sufÏcient in the eye of the court Vehicle and Container Searches 1. Introduction a. Why motor vehicles are different i. Motor vehicles are mobile and can easily move from one jurisdiction to another before an ofÏcer can obtain a warrant ii. Owners and occupants of motor vehicles are thought to have a reduced expectation of privacy: 1. Extensive government regulation of motor vehicles, 2. Police routinely interact w/ motor vehicles, 3. Occupants and some belongings are subject to public view, 4. Primarily used as means of transportation and not as homes or repositories of valuables iii. Motor vehicles have been closely associated w/ criminal activity b. **You lose some of your rights when you enter a car 2. Chambers v. Maroney a. Facts: A service station was robbed by two men, each carrying a gun. Witnesses who saw the get-away car told police that four men were in blue station wagon and one was wearing a green sweater. The police stopped a station wagon meeting the description and carrying four men, two of whom were dressed as described by witnesses. The occupants were placed under arrest and the car was driven to the police station. A search of the car disclosed to revolvers, coins from the robbery and evidence from an earlier robbery b. Issue: Whether the warrantless search of a car made at a police station is constitutional if the ofÏcers have probable cause that the car contains evidence of a crime just committed c. As long as you have probable cause, a full search of a vehicle w/o a warrant is acceptable d. The court held that the search of the automobile was constitutional i. The police may search a car at the police station w/o a warrant if they have probable cause e. Rule of Law: A warrantless search of a car is constitutional so long as the police have probable cause that the car contains items that they are entitled to seize f. A warrantless seizure is as intrusive as a warrantless search g. The automobile exception allows ofÏcers to search the vehicle on the highway or even get towed to the station and search w/o a warrant i. There is no difference between seizing and holding a car pending a search warrant and carrying out an immediate search w/o a warrant h. The constitutional difference between houses and cars is made w/ reference to Carroll which highlights what makes a car different from a home and that probable cause is needed in order to have an immediate search i. The probable cause needed is probable cause to search (this is what you need in order to get a search warrant) 3. US v. Chadwick (Overruled by Acevado) a. Facts: Amtrak ofÏcials reasonably suspected that a man and a woman were traveling from California to Massachusetts with a trunk full of marijuana and notified the police, who in turn notified the ofÏcials in Boston. Federal ofÏcials greeted the train upon its arrival in Boston and released a police dog who indicated that there were in fact drugs in the trunk. Chadwick (defendant) arrived at the train station to pick up the trunk, and he and the two traveling with the trunk were arrested as they were placing the trunk in the back of Chadwick’s car. The trunk was brought back to the federal building where it was searched without a warrant one hour and a half after the arrests had been made b. Issue: Whether a warrantless search of a locked trunk is unreasonable where probable cause exists that the trunk contains drugs and the trunk was seized during a lawful arrest, but the police have the trunk in their control for over an hour before they search it c. The gov't had many opportunities to obtain a search warrant before opening the foot locker i. There was no emergency and the vehicle was in the control of federal agents d. The court held that the search was illegal and the evidence may suppressed i. A warrantless search of a locked trunk that is not searched until the police have exclusive control of the container is unconstitutional e. Rule of Law: The 4th Amendment protects a person's reasonable expectations of privacy and requires that the police obtain a warrant before executing a search unless a relevant exception applies f. The dissent noted that the opening of the foot locker was a search incident to arrest since it was w/in the immediate control of the suspects i. Dissent also states that the locker was in the public view and the search would be lawful if done immediately or waited (This does not make much sense) 4. California v. Acevedo (Valid law pertaining to closed containers) a. Facts: An ofÏcer received a package meant for Daza containing Marijuana from a DEA agent in Hawaii and took the package to a v. Fed Ex ofÏce. Daza claimed the package and took it to his apartment. Acevedo arrived at Daza’s apartment and left carrying a paper bag the size of one of the wrapped marijuana packages sent from Hawaii. He walked to a Honda, placed the bag in the trunk and started to drive away. An ofÏcer stopped the Honda, opened the trunk and the bag finding marijuana b. Issue: Whether the police must obtain a warrant to open a container in a moving vehicle where they have probable cause that the container, but not the car, contains contraband under the 4th Amendment c. This case sets the rule regarding searches of closed containers i. Court held that the 4th Amendment allows the warrantless search of a container in the car when the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband (can search the vehicle and the closed container) ii. There must be probable cause that there is contraband in the vehicle which allows ofÏcers to stop and search the vehicle if there is a closed container in the vehicle, ofÏcers have a right to search the bag w/o a warrant d. Rule of Law: The 4th Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles, provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband e. This case differs from Chadwick since Acevedo allows the search of closed containers as long as there is probable cause i. There is a limit to this search (i.e. dimensions and location of what you are looking for) ii. The police need probable cause to believe that there is contraband in the vehicle Inventory Searches 1. Introduction a. Government Interests in Doing This i. Securing personal property to prevent liability ii. Public safety iii. Prevent false claims of theft 2. South Dakota v. Opperman a. Facts: After observing Opperman’s unoccupied car illegally parked overnight and during the next morning, OfÏcer Vermillion reported the matter to police headquarters and had the car towed to the city impound lot. From outside the car, an ofÏcer noticed a watch on the dashboard and other items of personal property on the back seat. The car was then unlocked and the ofÏcer inventoried the contents of the car, including the contents of the unlocked glove compartment. He found marijuana in the glove compartment b. Issue: Whether the police may perform an inventory search of the contents of a vehicle lawfully in police possession under the 4th Amendment c. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents d. Procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: i. The protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody ii. The protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property iii. The protection of the police from potential danger e. Procedures are important since the search is warrantless and the procedures ensures that the police are held in check while conducting their search i. This gives police some basis for the search if contraband is found f. The needs for the procedures do not all have to be present g. The court has previously held that inventory searches where the process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and its contents is valid h. The court in this case now holds that police may conduct an inventory search of the contents of a vehicle lawfully held in police possession i. Police may constitutionally perform an inventory search of a vehicle lawfully in police possessions 3. Illinois v. Lafayette a. Facts: The defendant was arrested for disturbing the peace and taken to the police station. He carried a purse-type shoulder bag on the trip to the station. At the booking room, he was advised to place his bag on the counter where an ofÏcer removed the contents of the bag and found amphetamine pills. He was subsequently charged with violating the controlled substances act i. The arrest made is a custodial arrest that leads to the booking which has a set procedure b. Issue: Whether an inventory search of personal effects during the booking of an arrested person violates the 4th Amendment c. Government interests underlying a stationhouse search of the arrestee's person and possessions may in some circumstances be even greater than those supporting a search immediately following arrest i. Having booking procedures protects the owner's property ii. These searches just pass muster of the 4th Amendment since ofÏcers are not looking for evidence of a crime d. The court held that the search was constitutional i. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit an inventory search of an arrested person's effects during booking e. Rule of Law: Police may constitutionally perform an inventory search of the personal effects of an arrested person during booking f. The differences between this case and last case are minimal and do not really matter too much vi. 4. Colorado v. Bertine a. Facts: Bertine (defendant) was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting ofÏcer conducted an inventory search of Bertine's van and found drugs b. Issue: Whether reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the 4th Amendment c. The inventory search followed procedure, but the problem was that the police had the option of either impounding the car or leaving the car there d. Court held that reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfies the 4th Amendment (This is also the RULE OF LAW) i. As long as the procedures are followed and the search is conducted in good faith, pretext of the search does not matter and the search is lawful e. The dissent states that the police had too much discretion in towing and searching the vehicle (fear of abuse of discretion) The "Plain View" Doctrine 1. Introduction a. The doctrine allows ofÏcers to seize and arrest suspects upon seeing contraband w/o needing to search for it i. OfÏcers need to be called/have a legal reason or probable cause to be at a certain place or to stop a person 2. Horton v. California a. Facts: The police, investigating an armed robbery, obtained a search warrant for Horton’s home. They were authorized under the warrant to search for the proceeds of the robbery, including three rings. Although the afÏdavit described weapons, the warrant did not include any weapons as the subject of the search, only rings (justification for the intrusion). During the search, the police discovered weapons in plain view and seized them. The ofÏcer testified that while he was searching for the rings, he was also interested in finding other evidence connection Horton to the crime b. Issue: Whether discovery of an item must be inadvertent for police to make a warrantless seizure of the item under the plain view doctrine c. The subject intent of the ofÏcer does not matter since the ofÏcer is lawfully there to search i. The seizure in plain view does not have to be inadvertent, but it has to be logical that you would stumble upon it while looking for what you are authorized under the warrant d. Can ofÏcers enter and seize evidence that is in plain view from outside? i. No since ofÏcers need to be at a location lawfully due to curtilage and a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home e. What is the policy justification for plain view seizures? i. It is in the interest of the police to describe the smaller items in order to search in more places 1. Allows police to make a broader search f. Dissent: Any other objects obtained outside of the warrant is a per se unreasonable search g. Court held that the search was lawful and the seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine i. The police can seize an item that is in plain view w/o a warrant, even if finding the item was not inadvertent, so long as the police have the legal right to be where the item is found ii. Rule of Law: When the police have a legal right to be where they are and they find incriminating evidence and the incriminating character is immediately apparent, the police may seize the evidence without a warrant under the plain view doctrine 3. Arizona v. Hicks a. Facts: A bullet was shot through the floor of Hick’s (defendant) apartment and injured a man living below. While police were lawfully searching the apartment as part of the investigation, one of the ofÏcers noticed some expensive stereo equipment. Suspecting the equipment had been stolen, the ofÏcer moved the equipment so he could see the serial numbers. He reported the serial numbers to another ofÏcer at headquarters and learned that a certain piece of equipment had in fact been stolen. The ofÏcer seized the stolen equipment immediately. Based on the serial numbers, it was later determined that some of the other equipment had been stolen as well and a warrant was issued to obtain the equipment b. Issue: Whether probable cause is necessary for an ofÏcer to invoke the plain view doctrine i. Whether the search was "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment c. The police were lawfully on the premises under exigent circumstances (investigating gun shots) d. The police move the equipment to find the serial # of the turn table that were out of place in the apartment i. This act is a search that leads to trying to find out if the turn table was stolen ii. OfÏcers find that the turn tables were stolen, then seized them e. OfÏcers did not have probable cause that the turn tables were stolen, only a reasonable suspicion f. The court held that the plain view doctrine demands that probable cause exist before an ofÏcer may search or seize a piece of evidence i. The search was reasonable under the 4th Amendment vii. g. Rule of Law: For a warrantless search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the plain view doctrine can only be invoked to search or seize evidence if the police have probable cause of the evidence's incriminating character Consent Searches 1. Introduction a. These are the most type of searches performed by ofÏcers i. Warrant searches are the least type of searches b. The consent must be "voluntarily" given (cannot support this w/ just a signature) c. The consent to search form is prima facie evidence that consent was given (These forms are not as useful as what they used to be) i. But the form is not important, what is important is what the motivation of the consent was d. If consent is voluntarily given, then a warrant or probable cause is not needed to search various locations e. The scope of the search is designated by the consenter and if consent is given, the scope is limited by words f. How to Determine Whether the Consent is Voluntary i. Court will look at the totality of the circumstances and make a decision on that ii. Need to show lack of coercion 2. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte a. Facts: In the early morning hours the police stopped a car because it had only one headlight and its license plate light was burned out. Six men were in the vehicle. Only Alcala, a passenger, produced a license and he said the car belonged to his absent brother. When the police asked Alcala if they could search the car, he replied, “Sure, go ahead.” Under the left rear seat, the police found stolen checks b. Issue: Whether consent was "voluntarily" given c. The court held that when ofÏcers conduct a warrantless search of a subject not in custody, the prosecution can meet its burden of proving that consent to the search was freely and voluntarily given by looking at the totality of the circumstances d. The court made a narrow holding that when the subject of a search, the 4th and 14th Amendments require that prosecution demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied e. In this holding, the court does not want to make it more difÏcult for ofÏcers to conduct searches i. It is in the public's interest for law enforcement to conduct investigations 3. US v. Matlock a. Facts: Matlock was arrested for robbery while in the yard of the home where he lived with several other people. While Matlock waited in the cruiser, the police went to the front door and asked a woman there if they could search for money and a gun. The woman consent voluntarily to allow the search of the house, including the bedroom she shared with the defendant. The police found cash in a diaper bag in the closet in that bedroom b. Issue: Whether the Gov't made the requisite showing in this case c. Court held that the evidence was admissible since the Gov't sustained its burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Graff's voluntary consent to search the east bedroom was legally sufÏcient d. When you share something w/ someone else, you assume the risk that something may be discovered i. Sharing of property makes each occupant equal in rights, then consent may be given such as what occurred in this case e. The evidence Mrs. Graff was authorized to consent to a search of the bedroom are the fact that she opened the door w/ a child on her hip implying that she lived there, she was dressed in a robe, etc. f. There is no other evidence that Mrs. Griff knew she was not required to consent besides how the question is posed, "May I enter the home to search?" g. The scope of the consent given by Mrs. Graff is to search the bedroom and other areas she shared w/ Mr. Matlock 4. Georgia v. Randolph a. Facts: Janet called the police when Randolph took their son away from home. She told police that he was a cocaine user. Randolph returned while the police were still present and they quarreled. Janet then told police about drug evidence in the house. When the police asked Randolph for permission to search the house, he refused. However Janet readily gave her consent and led ofÏcers upstairs to their bedroom where the police noticed a straw with a powdery residue suspected to be cocaine. Janet then withdrew her consent and the police stopped the search, but seized the straw and left the house to obtain a search warrant. Armed with a search warrant, they seized further evidence of drug use and Randolph was indicted for possession of cocaine. The trial court denied his motion to suppress b. Issue: Whether one occupant may give law enforcement effective consent to search shared premises, as against a co-tenant who is present and states a refusal to permit the search c. The line drawn is a very fine line since the court makes the distinction that if two people who are sharing a living space and one says no and the other says yes while both are there, then the no wins i. If only one person is there and says yes while the other person was not there and says no, the yes wins d. As a co-occupant, you need to be present and assert your opinion viii. e. According to Randolph, police would be unable to protect victims of domestic violence since one of the co-occupants would not allow the police to enter i. Police would be able to search if some kind of arrest may be made ii. This is a concern that the dissent has on the majority decision 5. Illinois v. Rodriguez a. Facts: Gail, then at her mother’s house, told police she was assaulted by Rodriguez earlier in the day. She agreed to take police to “our” apartment where she said Rodriguez was sleeping. When they arrived at the apartment, Gail unlocked the door with her key and gave ofÏcers permission to enter. In the living room they observed in plain view containers filled with white powder. They found Rodriguez asleep in the bedroom where they discovered more white powder in containers in open attaché cases. Rodriguez was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The trial court allowed his motion to suppress b. Issue: Whether the warrantless entry into a home and subsequent search is constitutional where the police reasonably believe that the person consenting to their presence has the authority to do so but the person in fact does not possess such authority c. In this case, the person who gave consent only had apparent authority and not actual authority to give consent i. She was not in a position to let the police into the apartment d. From the police perspective she has authority to consent i. However, she did not have an interest in the property e. The court held that a warrantless entry and the subsequent search are valid under the 4th Amendment provided the police reasonably believe that the person giving consent has the authority to do so, even though they may later learn no such authority exists f. According to the dissent, the search was unreasonable while the majority holds that the mistake of the police could be forgiven, thus the search was reasonable g. The court is creating legal fiction since no consent was actually given h. RULE OF LAW: Under the 4th Amendment, the police may enter a home w/o a warrant if they reasonably believe the person who consents to their presence has the authority to do so 6. Questions Raised by Consent Searches a. Was the consent voluntary? b. Did the ofÏcers' actions exceed the scope of the consent granted? c. May a third person grant consent? d. What if a police ofÏcer receives consent but the person is not authorized give consent? Summary 1. Inventory Searches a. Gov't interests to support these searches 2. Plain View Doctrine a. Inadvertent discovery of contraband is not required 3. Consent searches a. The consent must be voluntarily