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.

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

-Scope is what differentiates between Smith v. Maryland

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.