Criminal Civil Procedure 25'

4th Amendment

-Prohibition of unreasonable search & seizure

5th Amendment

-Right against compelled self incrimination

6th Amendment

-Right to counsel in the context of pre-trial interrogations

Exclusionary Rule

-Requires exclusion of illegally obtained evidence at trial

Arrest

-seizure of person suspected of breaking law

-must be based on probable cause

Types of arrest

-warrantless - Officer’s Probable Cause

-pursuant to an arrest warrant - magistrate’s probable cause

Has a search occurred?

Katz Test:

-Did the D have an actual subjective expectation of privacy?

-Is the expectation of privacy one that society will be willing to recognize as objectively reasonable?

Third Party Doctrine

-There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties.

Open Fields Doctrine

Curtilage is protected but “open fields” are not

4 Factors Courts consider to distinguish open fields from curtilage?

-Proximity to home

-Whether it’s within an enclosure surrounding the home

-Nature of use

-Steps taken to protect area from observation

Katz v. US

-Federal agents attached an electronic-eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth used by Charles Katz to collect evidence for wire fraud without a warrant.

-Court held that Fourth Amendment guarantees apply no matter where a search or seizure takes place, protecting people, not property.

• Key: Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion establishes the two part test for determining whether a person's expectation of privacy is reasonable.

Florida v. Riley

-Officer investigated anonymous tip about marijuana being grown on Riley's property by flying a helicopter at 400 feet and observing marijuana plants in a greenhouse resulting in D being arrested.

-Court held that aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home from a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet is not a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Plurality opinion holds that aerial observation is not a search if in compliance w/ FAA regs and Justice O’Connor emphasized Defendant must prove flights not frequent enough to eliminate expectation of privacy.

Smith v. Maryland

-Lady robbed and then called by robber afterwards. Police use pen register from phone company as evidence to arrest robber.

-Court held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties.

• Key: expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed on a phone not reasonable, and the use of a pen register does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.

California v. Greenwood

-Police suspected Greenwood of illegal drug transactions and used evidence from his trash, left on the curb and provided by the trash company, to obtain a search warrant for his home and arrest him.

-The court held that the warrantless search of trash left outside on the curb does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: A person loses their expectation of privacy for trash bags placed on the curb for pick-up and the Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless searches of such trash.

US v. Jones

-Jones suspected of drug trafficking and FBI agents placed a GPS device on his vehicle without warrant, tracking his movements for 28 days. Jones was convicted.

-Court held that the warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Holds that a vehicle is an "effect" under the Fourth Amendment, and placing a GPS device on it without a warrant is a search. The decision incorporated both the Katz test and the property-based trespass test.

US v. White

-White was convicted on narcotics charges based on conversations overheard by government agents through a wire-tap worn by an informant.

-Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit government agents from testifying to what they heard over a wire-tap worn by an informant.

• Key: Permits police officers to listen to a suspect's conversations with a police informant wearing a wire.

Kyllo v. US

-Kyllo was arrested for growing marijuana in his home after police used a thermal-imaging device to detect heat from lamps used to grow the plants.

-Court held that using sense-enhancing technology to see details of a private home that would be undiscoverable without physically entering the home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

• Key: Highlights the need to balance privacy with evolving technology holding that the use of a thermal-imaging device, which is not publicly available, to detect details inside a home without physical entry is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Carpenter v. US

-Police suspected Carpenter in a series of robberies and obtained cell-site location information (CSLI) from his wireless carriers under the Stored Communications Act.

-Court held that compelling wireless carriers to turn over data that tracks users’ movements for long periods of time requires a warrant, absent exigent circumstances.

• Key: Scope of third party doctrine from Smith v. Maryland is limited holding that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical movements, and accessing CSLI without a warrant invades that privacy. The third-party doctrine does not apply because users do not voluntarily share comprehensive location data with carriers.

Florida v. Jardines

-Detective used a drug-sniffing dog on Jardines's porch, leading to a search warrant and Jardines's arrest.

-Court held that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Expands reasonable expectation of privacy within curtilage holding the use of the dog in Jardine’s curtilage constituted a physical intrusion on his property and required a warrant.

Spinelli v. US

-FBI obtained a search warrant based on a confidential informant's tip and surveillance, leading to William Spinelli's conviction for illegal gambling

-Court held that an affidavit lacking sufficient 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

• Key: Established two-prong test for probable cause evaluating the basis of knowledge officer relied upon and veracity/ reliability of informant or source.

Illinois v. Gates

-Police received an anonymous letter implicating the Gates in a drug scheme. After corroborating parts of the tip, police obtained a search warrant and found drugs and weapons.

-Court held that corroborated statements by an unknown informant can amount to probable cause under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach.

• Key: Establishes totality of circumstances test for evaluating probable cause.

Reasonable Search Requirements

-Warrant Authorization

-Probable Cause

-Specificity

Probable Cause for a Search Requires:

-Specific evidence of a crime will be found

AND

-Evidence will be found in the place to be searched

Probable Cause for an Arrest Requires:

-Crime has been committed

AND

-Person arrested committed the crime

Maryland v. Garrison

-Police obtained a warrant to search McWebb’s apartment based on probable cause. They mistakenly searched Harold Garrison’s apartment on the same floor, found drugs, and Garrison was convicted.

-Court held that a search made under an otherwise valid warrant containing a mistake does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the police acted reasonably.

• Key: Validity of a warrant must be assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover and to disclose, to the issuing Magistrate.

Richards v. Wisconsin

-Police obtain search warrant, do not announce themselves and burst into apartment after D tried to run.

-Court held that there is no blanket exception to the knock and announce rule for felony drug offenses; the necessity of compliance must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

• Key: Holds that there is no blanket exception to the knock and announce rule for felony drug offenses; the necessity of compliance must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Exceptions to Knock & Announce Requirement= No-Knock Warrant

-Threat of physical violence

-Hot pursuit

-Likely destruction of evidence

Policy justifications for No-Knock Warrants

-Officer safety

-Solve crimes by preventing destruction of evidence

Policy justifications for knock and announce requirement

-Protects human life

-Protects property

-Protects dignity and privacy

Fourth Amendment Analysis Steps

1) Is there a search or seizure?

2)If yes, did Government have proper justification?

Search Warrant Requirements

-Based on probable cause

-Sworn Affidavit/ Oath - Magistrate Authorization

-Describes particular area/ items to be searched

-Executed reasonably (Knock&Announce Rule + Pros/ Cons no-knock warrants)

Maryland v. Pringle

-Officer stopped a car for speeding and found $763 and five baggies of cocaine inside. The officer arrested all three occupants, including Pringle, who later confessed. Pringle's motion to suppress his confession was denied, and he was convicted.

-Court held that the presence of drugs in a car gives rise to probable cause to arrest any occupant who had knowledge about the drugs and exercised dominion and control over them.

• Key: Clarifies the lower threshold of evidence required to establish probable cause compared to that needed for a criminal conviction.

US v. Watson

-A reliable informant told a postal inspector that Watson had a stolen credit card. Watson was arrested, and stolen credit cards were found in his car after he consented to a search.

-Court held that police may arrest a suspect without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a felony.

• Key: Affirms that police may make a warrantless arrest in a public place if they have probable cause to believe a felony has been committed, reinforcing the balance between law enforcement authority and Fourth Amendment protections.

Payton v. New York

-Police believed they had probable cause that Payton was guilty of murder and without obtaining warrants, they entered his home to arrest him and seized evidence.

-Court held that, absent exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a person’s home to make an arrest without a warrant.

• Key: Established a firm line at the entrance of a suspect’s home, requiring a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement for police to enter and make an arrest.

When is a person siezed?

-When they are not free to leave or terminate an interaction with law enforcement

Requirements for an arrest to be lawful

1) Probable Cause that a crime has been committed and that the person arrested committed the crime

2) Warrant is required at the home but not in public

Chimel v. California

-Police arrested Chimel at his home for burglary and conducted a warrantless search of his entire home, finding stolen items.

-Court held that a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest can only cover the area in possession or control of the person being arrested.

• Key: Limits Scope of SIA exception to exclude homes and allows officers to search only the arrested person and the area within their immediate control.

Search Incident to Arrest Exception

-No probable cause or warrant needed when exception applies

-Key requirement is that there MUST be a lawful arrest

-Allows officers to search a suspect’s person or immediate surrounding area during a lawful arrest

US v. Robinson

-Robinson was arrested for driving with a revoked license and during the arrest, an officer searched Robinson's pocket and found heroin in a cigarette pack leading to his conviction.

-Court held that during a lawful arrest, an officer may conduct a full warrantless search of the arrestee even if the officer lacks probable cause to believe that the search will yield either a weapon or evidence relating to the arrest offense.

• Key: Extended Vehicle SIA exception to allow for search of person and containers on person without a warrant or probable cause - based on lawful custodial arrest.

Vale v. Louisiana

-Police obtained arrest warrants for Vale and observed him conducting a suspected drug deal outside his house. After arresting him on his front steps, they searched his house without a warrant and found narcotics.

-Court held that an arrest on the street does not justify a warrantless search of the arrestee's house.

• Key: Clarifies that a search incident to arrest does not allow a warrantless search of a dwelling unless the arrest occurs inside the dwelling. It emphasizes the importance of obtaining a search warrant when feasible.

2 Policy Justifications for Search Incident to Arrest Doctrine

-Officer safety

-Prevention of destruction or concealment of evidence

Citation vs Arrest for Search Incident to Arrest Exception

-Citation only: officer CANNOT use exception

-Officer can choose to arrest rather than cite purely for the purpose of using the exception even if arrest is expressly prohibited under state law as long as there is probable cause supporting the arrest (Virginia v. Moore)

Under SIA exception a search can occur before an arrest when:

-Arrest follows quickly on heels of the search

AND

-Police have probable cause for the arrest

Scope of SIA Exception

-Limited to arrestee‘s body

-Limited to arrestee’s wingspan

What else in home can be searched under SIA Exception?

-Closets and other spaces immediately adjoining place of arrest from which an attack could be launched

-Can conduct limited protective sweep of house to look for people if there is reasonable suspicion of harm to officers or others

New York v. Belton

-Belton was in a car pulled over for speeding, and the officer smelled marijuana, leading to his arrest of Belton and the other occupants. The officer searched the car, found Belton's jacket, and discovered cocaine in the pocket and he was convicted of possession.

-Court held that the passenger compartment of a car is within the immediate control of an arrestee and subject to search incident to a lawful arrest.

• Key: Search-incident-to-arrest exception allows police to search the area within the immediate control of the arrestee to ensure officer safety and preserve evidence including the passenger compartment and containers within it.

Arizona v. Gant

-Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and placed in a police car. Officers then searched his vehicle and found drugs.

-Court held that police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within 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.

• Key: Narrowed the search incident to arrest interpretation of Belton to exclude restrained arrestees and changed police practices regarding vehicle searches following an arrest.

Atwater v. Lago Vista

-Atwater was arrested for a seatbelt violation and failing to secure her children, both minor offenses. She sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the arrest was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

-Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless arrests for minor offenses and emphasized that probable cause for any crime allows for arrest without violating the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Allows police officers significant discretion in arresting individuals for minor offenses when there is probable cause.

Automobile Exception

An exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement to obtain a search warrant that allows police to search an entire car and containers within it if:

• Vehicle must be readily operable (not on blocks or connected to utility lines) and not parked in private area like home or garage.

• No warrant required but must have probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence inside.

California v. Carney

-DEA agents received a tip that Carney was selling marijuana from his mobile home. After surveillance and questioning a man who exited the mobile home, the agents entered without a warrant and found drugs.

-Court held that a mobile home that can be quickly moved and is licensed as a vehicle can be searched without a warrant when probable cause exists.

• Key: Court extended the automobile exception to warrantless searches of motor homes, provided they are readily mobile and located in a public place.

California v. Acevedo

-Police observed Acevedo leaving a house with a bag they believed contained marijuana, placed it in his car, and drove away. They stopped him, searched the bag without a warrant, and found marijuana.

-Court held that under the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception, officers may search a closed container in a car without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.

• Key: Expanded the scope of the automobile exception, overruled previous decisions, allowing warrantless searches of closed containers in cars if probable cause exists.

Wyoming v. Houghton

-Officer stopped a car for speeding and saw a syringe in the driver's shirt pocket, leading to a search of the car and the discovery of methamphetamine in a passenger's purse.

-Court held that an officer with probable cause to search a car may search containers belonging to passengers if the containers could contain the object of the search.

• Key: Established a bright-line rule that officers with probable cause to search a car may search any property inside the car, including a passenger's closed container (can’t search passenger’s person), where contraband could be concealed.

Collins v. Virginia

-Collins was indicted for receiving stolen property after a police officer conducted a warrantless search of his motorcycle, which was parked in the curtilage of his home.

-Court held that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not allow a warrantless search of a vehicle located within a home or its curtilage.

• Key: Preserved the Fourth Amendment's protection of the sanctity of the home and its curtilage by refusing to expand the scope of the automobile exception.

Policy justifications for Automobile Exception

1. Vehicles can easily be moved before officers have time to secure a search warrant

2. Expectation of privacy in vehicles is reduced by extensive regulation

Riley v. California

-Police searched Riley's smartphone incident to his arrest and used the data found as evidence in his trial to convict him of shooting charges.

-Court held that the government may not conduct a warrantless search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest absent exigent circumstances.

• Key: Limits the SIA exception and protects personal data on cellphones because searching a cell phone does not advance officer safety or prevent evidence destruction, which are the justifications for warrantless searches incident to arrest.

Scope of Automobile Exception

Search Scope: Officers can search the vehicle and containers that might contain the subject of the search.

Limitations: General exploratory searches are not allowed without further justification.

Vehicle SIA Exception VS Automobile Exception

• Vehicle SIA: Useful when there is no probable cause for search

• Automobile: Useful for prosecution when there is no arrest

Container Doctrine

-If police have probable cause to believe that a container contains contraband or evidence of a crime, they can seize the container, but may not search it until they obtain a warrant.

-Container must not be in vehicle, otherwise, automobile exception applies.

Vehicle SIA exception allows search of passenger compartment when?

1. Arrestee unrestrained and within reaching distance of passenger compartment at time of search

AND/ OR

2. Officers have a reason to believe evidence relating to a crime is in the vehicle

Terry v. Ohio

-Officer observed two men acting suspiciously outside a store and suspected them of planning a robbery. The officer conducted a pat-down search and found guns on both men, leading to their conviction for carrying concealed weapons.

-Court held that when an officer observes suspicious conduct that reasonably leads him to believe that a crime is occurring or about to occur, the officer may conduct a limited search for weapons without probable cause.

• Key: First case allowing a warrantless search or seizure based on less than probable cause, introducing the concept of "reasonable suspicion" for stop and frisk situations.

Florida v. J.L.

-Police received an anonymous tip that J.L. had a gun at a bus stop. Officers stopped and frisked J.L., found a gun, and charged him with possessing a concealed firearm without a license and while under age 18.

-Court held that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun, without additional corroboration to ensure that the tip has "sufficient indicia of reliability," does not justify a stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Sets limit on reasonable suspicion that an anonymous tip alleging a person possesses a concealed firearm is insufficient by itself to justify a Terry stop and frisk. More information, such as a prediction of the suspect’s future activity that comes true, is necessary.

Illinois v. Wardlow

-Police officers in a high drug area saw Wardlow holding an opaque bag and running away upon seeing them. They chased and frisked him, finding a handgun. Wardlow was arrested, and the trial court allowed the gun as evidence.

-Court held that unprovoked flight in a high crime area can amount to reasonable suspicion justifying a stop and frisk.

• Key: extended the Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio by allowing Terry stops based solely on unprovoked flight in high crime areas.

Michigan v. Long

-Long was stopped by police after driving erratically and swerving into a ditch. Officers found marijuana in his car during a search for weapons and arrested him.

-Court held that a search of an automobile's passenger compartment is permissible if an officer reasonably believes the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.

• Key: Allows protective searches of a car's passenger compartment when there is reasonable suspicion of danger and the presence of weapons.

Terry Stops and Frisks

-Based on reasonable suspicion standard

-Limited in scope to a pat down of outer clothing to look for weapons

-Purely for purpose of officer safety and NOT to find evidence of a crime

-Cannot be used to conduct a full blown search without probable cause

Reasonable suspicion standard

-Less than probable cause and more than a mere hunch

-Requires specific articulable facts to justify intrusion

-Factors considered:

1. Inferences drawn based on officer’s own experience

2. Location of the stop

3. Unprovoked flight from police

-Reason to believe dealing with an armed/ dangerous individual

• Key: Issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances would be warranted in his belief that his safety or others was in danger.

Terry Stop & Frisk Doctrine

“Where an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the other clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”

Arizona v. Hicks

-Bullet was shot through the floor of Hick’s apartment, injuring a man below. While lawfully searching the apartment, an officer moved stereo equipment to check serial numbers, suspecting it was stolen. The officer seized the equipment after confirming it was stolen.

-Court held that an officer must possess probable cause before moving property in plain view to expose its incriminating nature.

• Key: Held the plain-view exception does not allow officers to move property without probable cause to determine if it is incriminating evidence, as even slight movements qualify as a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Minnesota v. Dickerson

-Police stopped Dickerson after he left a known crack house and performed a patdown search, finding no weapons but feeling a small object believed to be crack cocaine. The officer retrieved the object, confirmed it was cocaine, and arrested Dickerson.

-Court held that a police officer performing a patdown search for weapons may not seize other contraband detected during the search if the identity of that contraband is not immediately apparent.

• Key: Establishes Supreme Court's adoption of a plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement adding complexity to Terry stop analysis, particularly regarding when the incriminating nature of contraband is immediately apparent.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

-Officer made a routine traffic stop for a burnt-out headlight and asked for permission to search the car, which was granted by the brother of the car’s owner. The officer found stolen checks linked to Robert Bustamonte, leading to his conviction for theft.

-Court held that a person may voluntarily consent to a search even if the person did not know that consent was optional.

• Key: Held that the Fourth Amendment does not require officers to inform individuals of their right to refuse consent for the consent to be valid, emphasizing the totality of the circumstances in determining voluntariness.

Illinois v. Rodriguez

-A woman called the police after being beaten by Rodriguez and agreed to unlock his apartment door for the police, who then found drugs in plain view. The woman had previously lived with Rodriguez in his apartment. Rodriguez was arrested and charged with drug possession and intent to deliver.

-Court held that a warrantless entry and subsequent search are valid under the Fourth Amendment if the police reasonably believe the person giving consent has the authority to do so, even if that person does not actually have such authority.

• Key: Expanded the Supreme Court’s prior decisions by allowing warrantless searches based on a reasonable belief in a third party's authority to consent, even if that belief turns out to be incorrect. (Similar to Maryland v. Garrison).

Georgia v. Randolph

-Police responded to a domestic disturbance call at Randolph's house, where his wife accused him of using cocaine. Despite Randolph's refusal, his wife consented to a search, leading to the discovery of cocaine.

-Court held that police may not conduct a warrantless search of a home when one occupant consents but another present occupant expressly refuses consent.

• Key: Narrowed the Court's prior third-party consent cases by holding that police officers may not rely on one co-tenant's consent to search a residence when the other co-tenant is present and objects.

Plain View Exception

Officers may search or seize items in plain view if:

1. Lawful government intrusion

2. Incriminating nature of object immediately apparent

3. Probable cause item is contraband or evidence of a crime

Consent Exception

-With valid consent, an individual gives up their Fourth Amendment rights

-No government justification required for the search

—No probable cause or reasonable suspicion needed

3 Major Issues w/ Consent Exception

1. What qualifies as giving consent?

2. Who is authorized to give consent?

3. Consent must be voluntary in order to be valid.

Requirements of a valid waiver of consent

-Only requires voluntary action but NOT knowledge of right to refuse.

Scope of Consent Exception

-Only the location/ area consented to may be searched

-Test= What a reasonable person would understand the scope to be

-Consent given based on false claim of authority is NOT valid (ex. officer lies about having warrant, or says he’ll just go and get a warrant..)

Who can give consent for a search of a home?

-Target of the search

-A third party with common authority over the property

—others who live there

—NOT landlord/ housekeeper

—NOT if another person w/ actual/ apparent authority presently objects (Georgia v. Randolph)

-A third party with apparent authority over the property (Illinois v. Rodriguez)

Common Authority

-”mutual use of property” and “joint access or control for most purposes”

-Government bares burden of proving a party had common authority

Apparent Authority

-Officer’s reasonable belief that consent was given by common authority.

Exigent Circumstances Exception

“Plain Feel Doctrine”

1. Lawful position to feel “terry frisk”

2. Incriminating nature immediately apparent

3. Probable cause to believe the item is contraband required to seize it

Consent Exception Triggers

-Was lawful consent given only after an unlawful seizure?

-Was consent voluntary?

-Was search limited to scope of consent?

-Was consent given by the right person?

Test for determining if consent was voluntary?

Totality of the Circumstances

Factors courts consider:

-Manner of questioning (Must not be a command)

-State of mind of person giving consent

-Whether person knew of right to refuse

-Schooling & intelligence

-Use of weapons (weapons drawn?)

-Time of day

-Location

US v. Brignoni-Ponce

-Brignoni-Ponce was stopped by Border Patrol officers near the Mexican border based solely on the occupants' appearance of being of Mexican descent. He was charged with knowingly transporting illegal immigrants, and his motion to suppress the passengers' testimonies was denied at trial.

-Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not allow a roving law-enforcement patrol to stop a vehicle near the border and question its occupants based solely on the observation that the occupants appear to be of Mexican descent.

• Key: Recognizes the problem of racial profiling but leaves a door open by allowing race to be a partial consideration.

Whren v. US

-Officers pulled over a car for traffic violations after observing the driver make a turn without signaling and speed down the road. The officers suspected a drug deal was taking place and found plastic bags of cocaine in Whren's hands, leading to arrests and convictions in federal court, which were affirmed on appeal.

-Court held that when there is probable cause that a traffic offense has occurred, the officer's subjective motives for detaining the motorist do not invalidate the officer's actions under the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Held that officers' subjective motivation for stopping a car for a minor traffic infraction, even a racially biased motivation, is irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. So long as the officers have probable cause that a driver committed a traffic infraction, their stop of the car is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

US v. Montero-Camargo

-Montero-Camargo, a Mexican citizen, was arrested by Border Patrol agents near El Centro, California, after making a U-turn upon seeing a checkpoint sign.

-Court held that ethnicity cannot form a basis for particularized suspicion for an investigatory stop by law enforcement officers.

• Key: Tightens the leash on Brignoni-Ponce’s vague “race as one factor” rule and provides a more realistic and rights-protective interpretation, especially in regions with large Latinx populations.

“Free to leave” Test for seizure

-When an individual is "free to leave" and terminate an encounter, it is consensual (voluntary) and does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.

-When the person is no longer free to leave, the encounter becomes a seizure and thus falls under the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado

-Acting on lawfully-obtained warrants, the INS conducted searches at two garment factories, questioning employees about their citizenship status.

-Court held that a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when an officer, by physical force or show of authority, restrains a person's freedom of movement, even if briefly.

• Key: Permitted broad immigration questioning in workplaces; minimized the coercive effect of authority presence.

Florida v. Bostick

-Bostick was riding a bus when two sheriff’s officers boarded, asked for his identification, and requested to search his luggage after informing him of his right to refuse. Bostick consented, drugs were found, and he was convicted.

-Court held that a police request for identification and consent to search private belongings does not amount to a seizure when the police inform the subject of the right to refuse consent to questioning and search.

• Key: Modified the “free to leave” test to account for confined spaces; introduced “free to decline” as the standard instead.

Florida v. Royer

-DEA agents stopped Royer in an airport based on drug courier profile, took his ticket and ID, and led him to a small room without consent to interrogate and search his luggage.

-Court held that the detention went beyond a brief investigatory stop and became a de facto arrest without probable cause.

• Key 1: Clarified the limits of Terry stops—police actions that are too coercive or extended in time escalate a stop into a seizure requiring probable cause.

• Key 2: Held that consent to a search given while being illegally detained is not valid and renders the search unconstitutional.

Torres v. Madrid

-Police fired bullets at Torres while attempting to arrest someone else. Torres, who was hit but drove away, later sued for excessive force, arguing she had been seized.

-Court held that a seizure occurs when an officer applies physical force with intent to restrain, even if the person does not submit or get immediately captured.

• Key: Clarified that Fourth Amendment seizures of people are akin to common-law arrests, and a seizure is completed whenever officers use any amount of physical force with the objective intent to restrain a person.

Test for distinguishing Terry Stop from De Facto Arrest

Totality of the Circumstances

1. Length of detention

2. Whether less intrusive methods were available

3. Manner in which detention was effactuated

2 ways a seizure occurs

1. Submission to a show of authority

2. Physical force with intent to restrain

Tennessee v. Garner

-Officers responded to a nighttime home burglary. Officer Hymon shot and killed Edward Garner, an unarmed suspect, as he attempted to flee. Garner's father sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations.

-Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to stop an unarmed suspect from fleeing unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

• Key: Establishes that an officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing felon without probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical violence.

Graham v. Connor

-Graham, a diabetic, had an insulin reaction and was driven by his friend Berry to a store for juice. Officer Connor stopped them, suspecting a robbery. Graham was handcuffed and injured during the stop. Graham sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for excessive force.

-Court held that claims of excessive force during an investigatory stop, arrest, or other seizure should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.

• Key: Imports balancing test from Garner to apply to all claims of officers use of excessive force and not just cases involving deadly force.

Scott v. Harris

-Officers observed Harris speeding and attempted to pull him over, leading to a high-speed chase. Harris sued Deputy Scott for violating his Fourth Amendment rights after Scott's maneuver caused Harris to crash and become a quadriplegic.

-Court held that the use of deadly force to terminate a high-speed vehicle chase does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

• Key: Highlights the impact of video evidence on summary judgment decisions, showing how compelling footage can lead judges to bypass jury determinations of factual disputes.

Test for Reasonableness of Police Use of Force

Under Graham, force is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is not objectively justified from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. Factors that courts consider include:

1. The severity of the crime,

2. whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others,

3. and, whether the suspect was actively resisting or fleeing from arrest.

Use of deadly force to prevent escape may be used when

-Suspect threatens the officer with a weapon

OR

-Officer has probable cause to believe suspect committed a crime involving infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm

Inventory Search Exception

Allows the search of a vehicle, personal property and arrestees when they are booked, without a warrant or probable cause. Required conditions include:

1. Officer must be acting in accordance with standardized criteria that limit the officer’s discretion,

2. and, the officer must not have been acting in bad faith or using the inventory search for the sole purpose of investigation.

Public Policy Justification for Inventory Search Exception

-Protects an owner’s property while in custody of the police

-Insures against claims of lost, stolen or vandalized property

-Protects police from danger