criminal procedure

The Fourth Amendment:

Protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and mandates that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fifth Amendment:

Guarantees the privilege against compelled self-incrimination ("nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") and guarantees due process of law. Under Hurtado v. California, the Fifth Amendment Grand Jury Clause is the sole criminal procedure guarantee that has not been incorporated against the states.

The Sixth Amendment:

Guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, notice of charges, confrontation of adverse witnesses, compulsory process, and the assistance of counsel.

The Fourteenth Amendment:

Under the Due Process Clause, virtually all fundamental criminal procedure rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are incorporated and rendered enforceable against state actors. In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court formally incorporated the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court proceedings.

what are the Procedural Prerequisites to Fourth Amendment Challenges

1. state action: Was the search or seizure conducted by a government agent or a private party acting as an instrument/agent of the state?

2. voluntary Attachment: Does the claimant have a sufficient voluntary attachment to the United States to invoke constitutional rights?

3. standing: Did the governmental conduct violate the claimant's own personal expectation of privacy or possessory interest?

State action requirement: Private Parties as Government Instruments:

Under Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, private conduct constitutes state action when government regulations or encouragement demonstrate state participation. Conversely, as established in United States v. Jacobsen, an officer's visual inspection of package contents already exposed by private freight employees (e.g., Federal Express) does not constitute an independent government search.

State action requirement: Scope of Civil Authorities:

Under New Jersey v. T.L.O., Fourth Amendment restraints extend to civil state actors, including public school administrators, building inspectors, and fire officials.

what is the voluntary attachment rule to the United states

Under United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient voluntary attachment to the United States. Unregistered non-citizens residing abroad with no voluntary attachment cannot invoke Fourth Amendment protections for searches conducted outside U.S. territory.

Under Rakas v. Illinois, Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted. The standing inquiry requires establishing:

1. Injury in Fact: A concrete, personal injury resulting from the governmental intrusion.

2. Personal Violation: The defendant must demonstrate that their own legitimate expectation of privacy (for searches) or possessory interest (for seizures) was violated (Byrd v. United States).

what is a motion to suppress

is a formal written request asking the court to exclude unlawfully seized evidence under the Exclusionary Rule.

what is the evidentiary scope of a motion to suppress

Suppression hearings primarily rely on testimony from law enforcement officers, body-worn cameras, security footage, and physical exhibits.

what is the Burden of Proof & Equipoise for motion suppress

As illustrated in People v. McMurty, while the government bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement, the defendant carries the threshold procedural burden of proving that an unlawful search or seizure occurred. When officer and defendant testimony are in complete balance ("equipoise") without corroboration, the defendant fails to meet the burden of proof, and the motion to suppress must be denied.

Governmental investigative conduct constitutes a Fourth Amendment "search" if what?

it violates either the expectation-of-privacy framework or the physical trespass framework.

The Katz Expectation-of-Privacy Test:

• Subjective Prong: The individual has manifested an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the object or area. Abandoning property or denying ownership extinguishes this subjective expectation.

• Objective Prong: The expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable.

The Jones Physical Trespass Test

Re-established in United States v. Jones, the Katz standard is supplemented by a common-law trespass analysis: government physical intrusion upon a constitutionally protected area ("persons, houses, papers, or effects") for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a search per se, regardless of privacy expectations.

The home in relation to the level of Fourth Amendment protection

• First Among Equals (Highest Protection)

• Searches presumptively unreasonable without a warrant (Payton, Katz). Protection extends to renters and overnight guests (Minnesota v. Olson).

the curtilage in relation to the level of Fourth Amendment protection

• Constitutionally Protected Area

• Area immediately surrounding and intimately linked to the home (Oliver, Ciraolo, Collins v. Virginia). Governed by the 4-factor Dunn test.

open fields in relations to the level of Fourth Amendment protection

• Unprotected

• Property beyond curtilage; no reasonable expectation of privacy even if fenced or posted with "No Trespassing" signs (Oliver v. United States).

aerial surveillance in relation to the level of Fourth Amendment protection

• Permissible (No Search)

• Observation from navigable airspace in compliance with FAA regulations (California v. Ciraolo, Florida v. Riley).

public trash in relation to the level of Fourth Amendment protection

• Unprotected

• Discarded garbage placed on or near a public street is accessible to snoops and animals; no expectation of privacy (California v. Greenwood).

To determine whether an exterior structure or area falls within the protected curtilage, courts apply the factors set forth in United States v. Dunn:

1. Proximity: The closeness of the area to the primary dwelling.

2. Enclosure: Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home.

3. Nature of Use: The nature and character of the uses to which the area is put.

4. Protective Steps: Steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby.

thermal imaging in relation to the fourth Amendment

Under Kyllo v. United States, using sense-enhancing technology not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

Canine Sniffs and relation to the fourth Amendment

Under Illinois v. Caballes and United States v. Place, a dog sniff that reveals only the presence of illegal contraband does not infringe on legitimate privacy interests and is generally not a search during a lawful stop.

Presumption: Under Florida v. Harris, evidence of a dog's certification by a bona fide organization creates a presumption of probable cause.

Canine Sniffs restrictions

Under Florida v. Jardines, bringing a trained narcotics dog onto the curtilage of a home to conduct a sniff is a physical trespass and constitutes a search under Jones.

Chemical Field Tests:

Under United States v. Jacobsen, field tests that merely disclose whether a substance is cocaine do not compromise legitimate privacy interests.

Under the Third-Party Doctrine, an individual holds no reasonable expectation of privacy in information in what situations

1. voluntarily conveyed to third parties (Hoffa v. United States)

2. Financial records (United States v. Miller) and dialed telephone numbers (Smith v. Maryland) conveyed to banks and phone companies are unprotected business records.

what is the exception to the third party doctrine

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court established a major exception: due to the deeply revealing nature of location tracking, acquiring historical CSLI from wireless carriers constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.

what is the definition of probable cause Under Carroll v. United States and Beck v. Ohio, exits where

"the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed, or that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place."

probable cause

requires more than a mere hunch or reasonable suspicion, but less evidence than proof beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence. It requires a "fair probability" of criminal activity.

Evaluating probable cause requires assessing both the volume of facts (quantity) and the reliability of the source (quality):

Police officers in Evaluating probable cause

• Presumptively Reliable

• Direct personal observations and official police communications are inherently trustworthy.

identified citizens/victims in evaluating probable cause

• Presumptively Reliable

• Victims and bystanders are accountable for false reports; requires credible grounds and no material contradiction.

informants/tipsters in evaluating probable cause

• No Presumption (High Scrutiny)

• Governed by the Illinois v. Gates Totality of Circumstances test; evaluated on veracity, basis of knowledge, and predictive corroboration.

Key Principles Governing Probable Cause

• Non-Exclusion of Innocent Explanations: Under District of Columbia v. Wesby, officers are not required to rule out innocent explanations for suspicious conduct; the inquiry is whether the degree of suspicion creates a substantial chance of criminal activity.

• Objective Test: Under Devenpeck v. Alford, the validity of an arrest depends on whether objective probable cause existed for any offense, regardless of the specific crime cited by the officer at the time of arrest.

reasonable suspicion

is applicable encounters Terry Stops & Frisks (Terry v. Ohio), which are Brief detention to confirm/dispel suspicion; patdown for weapons.

what requires Specific, articulable facts indicating criminal activity is afoot. here there is a Lower threshold; can rest on less detailed or corroborated tips (Alabama v. White.

Under the Fourth Amendment and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a valid warrant must satisfy four essential elements:

1. Probable Cause: Supported by a sworn affidavit setting forth concrete facts.

2. Neutral and Detached Magistrate: Issued by an impartial judicial officer (Coolidge v. New Hampshire). Under Shadwick v. City of Tampa, states may allow lay clerks to issue warrants for minor traffic offenses.

3. Particularity of Place: Explicitly describes the location to be searched to prevent searching the wrong premises (Maryland v. Garrison).

4. Specificity of Items: Explicitly lists the items or persons to be seized (Groh v. Ramirez). Under Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, open-ended warrants filled in post-execution are unconstitutional. Under Warden v. Hayden, "mere evidence" is seizable alongside contraband and instrumentalities.

Warrant Execution Rules for Timing & Duration:

Under Rule 41 Fed. R. Crim. P., search warrants must be executed during daytime hours (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) unless good cause is shown, and within 10 days of issuance.

Warrant Execution Rules for scope and search

Defined by the physical dimensions of the listed items. Once specified items are found, search authority terminates.

Warrant Execution Rules for knock and announce

Officers must knock and announce authority before entry (Wilson v. Arkansas). No-knock entry requires reasonable suspicion of threat or evidence destruction (United States v. Banks). Under Hudson v. Michigan, knock-and-announce violations do not trigger evidence suppression.

Use of Force

Entry Force: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, officers may break open doors or windows if refused admittance.

occupant detention

Under Michigan v. Summers, officers executing a search warrant have categorical authority to detain occupants present within the immediate vicinity of the premises. Ybarra v. Illinois clarifies that a premises warrant does not authorize searching tavern patrons without independent probable cause.

when does a seizure of property occur

occurs when government conduct meaningfully interferes with an individual's possessory interest in that property (United States v. Mendenhall). Unlawfully seized property will be suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule if the claimant has standing.

when does a seizure of a person occur

when an officer restrains their freedom of movement through physical force or submission to authority (Tennessee v. Garner, California v. Hodari D.). Under Torres v. Madrid, applying physical force with intent to restrain constitutes a seizure even if the suspect temporarily eludes capture.

public arrest( the Watson rule)

officers may execute warrantless custodial arrests in public places for felonies or misdemeanors committed in their presence, provided probable cause exists.

Home Arrests (The Payton Rule):

officers must obtain an arrest warrant to enter a suspect's home to make a custodial arrest, absent exigency or consent. An arrest warrant carries limited authority to enter if there is reason to believe the suspect is inside.

overnight guest v. temporary commercial victors

• Overnight Guests: Under Minnesota v. Olson, overnight guests are protected under Payton.

• Temporary Commercial Visitors: Under Minnesota v. Carter, casual commercial visitors present for brief periods lack a reasonable expectation of privacy and cannot invoke Payton

Prompt Judicial Determination (48-Hour Rule):

Under Gerstein v. Pugh and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, individuals arrested without a warrant must receive a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest.

Minor Infractions rule

Under Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, warrantless custodial arrests for fine-only minor traffic infractions are constitutional. Under Virginia v. Moore, an arrest based on probable cause remains valid under the Fourth Amendment even if state law prohibits custodial arrest for the offense.

Constitutional Limits on Use of Deadly Force

Under Tennessee v. Garner, deadly force cannot be used to prevent escape unless officers have probable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to officers or others.

Constitutional Limits on NON deadly Force

Under Graham v. Connor, force is evaluated under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, balancing crime severity, immediate safety threats, and active resistance or flight.

what are the Three Levels of Police-Citizen Encounters

1. voluntary encounter

2. Investigatory Detention

3. custodial arrest

voluntary encounter of Police-Citizen Encounters

• None (No suspicion needed)

• Questioning, requesting ID/consent; citizen free to walk away at all times.

Investigatory Detention of Police-Citizen Encounters

• Reasonable Suspicion

• Temporary detention to confirm/dispel suspicion; patdown outer clothing if RS armed.

custodial arrest of Police-citizen Encounters

• Probable Cause

• Full physical restraint; comprehensive Search Incident to Arrest (SITA).

Terry Stop

• Standard: Requires specific, articulable reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

• Purpose: Brief, on-the-scene detention to confirm or dispel suspicion through questioning.

• Flight & Profiles: Under Illinois v. Wardlow, unprovoked flight in a high-crime area establishes reasonable suspicion. Matching a criminal profile alone is insufficient without independent individualized suspicion.

Terry Frisk

• Standard: Requires independent reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed and dangerous.

• Scope: A strictly limited patdown of outer clothing for weapons.

• Plain Touch Doctrine: Under Minnesota v. Dickerson, if an officer lawfully pats down outer clothing and immediately perceives an object's contraband identity by contour/mass without squeezing or prodding, the item may be seized. Squeezing or manipulating soft items exceeds the permissible scope of a frisk (Bond v. United States).

Forced movements of terry stop and frisk

Transporting a suspect to a police station house for interrogation (Dunaway v. New York) or fingerprinting (Hayes v. Florida) transforms a Terry stop into a full custodial arrest requiring probable cause.

duration of a terry stop and frisk

Detentions must be strictly limited in time to what is necessary to confirm or dispel suspicion (United States v. Sharpe). A 90-minute luggage detention is unconstitutionally excessive (United States v. Place).

traffic stop general rule

Under Whren v. United States, stopping an automobile is reasonable if supported by probable cause of a traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

traffic stop Permissible Routine Powers

Officers may order drivers and passengers out of the vehicle (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Maryland v. Wilson), inspect license/registration, run warrant checks, and question occupants without Miranda warnings (Berkemer v. McCarty).

traffic stops duration restrictions

Under Rodriguez v. United States, officers cannot extend the duration of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff without independent reasonable suspicion.

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest (SITA) General rule

United States v. Robinson, a lawful custodial arrest based on probable cause automatically authorizes a full, contemporaneous search of the arrestee's person without additional justification.

Wingspan Limitation:

Under Chimel v. California, the search area is strictly limited to the arrestee's person and the area within their immediate control ("wingspan") from which they might grab a weapon or evidence.

Vehicle SITA (The Gant Rule):

In Arizona v. Gant, officers may search a vehicle passenger compartment incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if:

1. The arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search; OR

2. It is reasonable to believe evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

Digital Data Exception:

Under Riley v. California, SITA does not extend to digital data stored on a cell phone seized during arrest. Police must obtain a warrant absent exigent circumstances.

BAC Testing

Under Birchfield v. North Dakota, officers may administer a warrantless breath test as a SITA, but cannot force a blood test without a warrant.

Protective Sweeps

Under Maryland v. Buie, officers executing an in-home arrest may conduct a cursory visual inspection of spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest, and can sweep broader areas if supported by reasonable suspicion that a dangerous individual is hiding.

Preventing Evidence Destruction where Warrantless searches/entries are permitted if

to prevent imminent destruction of evidence (Kentucky v. King, Illinois v. McArthur). However, natural metabolization of alcohol in blood does not create a per se exigency (Missouri v. McNeely), though unconscious drivers almost always justify blood draws (Mitchell v. Wisconsin).

Emergency Aid for Warrantless searches/entries are permitted

Under Brigham City v. Stuart, officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or protect someone from imminent injury. Under Caniglia v. Strom, the "community caretaking" doctrine does not justify warrantless home entries.

what is hot pursuit

Under United States v. Santana, officers in immediate "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon originating in a public place may make a warrantless entry into a private home (Lange v. California).

(plan view) Under Coolidge v. New Hampshire and Horton v. California, officers may seize evidence without a warrant if:

• The officer is lawfully present at the vantage point.

• The incriminating nature of the item is immediately apparent (supported by probable cause).

• The officer has a lawful right of physical access to the item.

general rule for The Automobile Exception (Carroll Doctrine)

Under Carroll v. United States, if officers possess probable cause to believe a mobile vehicle contains contraband or evidence, they may conduct a comprehensive search of the vehicle without a warrant.

scope of search for The Automobile Exception

Under United States v. Ross, the search extends to all containers within the vehicle that are capable of concealing the object of the search. Under Wyoming v. Houghton, passenger containers are subject to search regardless of ownership.

stationhouse searches for The Automobile Exception

Under Chambers v. Maroney, if probable cause exists on the scene, officers may tow the vehicle and execute the search later at the police station without obtaining a warrant.

Consent search of voluntariness

Under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, consent must be voluntary based on the totality of circumstances, but officers are not required to inform individuals of their right to refuse.

consent searches through Third-Party Authority:

• Actual Authority: A co-occupant with common authority / joint access can consent (United States v. Matlock).

• Physically Present Objection: Under Georgia v. Randolph, if two co-occupants are physically present and one consents while the other explicitly objects, the objection prevails. However, if the objecting tenant is lawfully removed, consent by the remaining co-occupant becomes valid (Fernandez v. California).

• Apparent Authority: Under Illinois v. Rodriguez, consent is valid if officers reasonably, though mistakenly, believe the consenting third party possesses authority.