L11: Searches, Seizures, and Privacy

What is the context for Searches and Seizure Rights?

-They were created as a direct response to British abuses of power

-”Writs of Assistance”- a general British warrant that allowed British agents to indiscriminately search ships and houses to end smuggling.

• This gave the agents complete power to make search and seizure decisions

• Ordinary search warrants must identify the things and areas to be searched, but the Writs of Assistance went far beyond that

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and to require warrants to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Trespass Doctrine

This legal principle (traditional approach) says that the 4th Amendment. protects individuals against physical intrusions upon their persons, real property, or possessions. 

Olmstead v US (1928)

Court Case involving Trespass Doctrine: Olmstead v US (1928):

Facts: 

-addressed wiretapping and suggested that privacy was not infringed without physical trespass.

Court Ruling:

-warrantless wiretapping allowed because the 4th Amendment only protects against physical searches and intrusions by the government.

Court Case involving Katz Test

Katz v United States (1967):

Facts:
-Police recorded Charles Katz’ phone conversation he had in public telephone booth

-There was a listening device attached to the outside of the phone booth

-Ordinally, the trespass doctrine would only apply to invasions or physical intrusions into an enclosure/home

Court Ruling:
- The 4th amendment protects “people, not places”

-If a person reasonably expects his words or actions to be private, then they are protected against government intrusion 

-AKA Katz was right, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy he had.

What is the Katz Test

Requires that:

1. An individual has a subjective expectation of privacy

2. There is an objective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable.

*A physical trespass is not necessary to activate the 4th Amendment protections

Exceptions to the Katz Test

1. Third-party exception: an individual doesn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information turned over to third parties EX: sharing info with a friend

2. General Public Use Doctrine: individuals have a limited expectation of privacy for information that is generally accessible to the public, such as phone numbers or email addresses.

Court Case involving Trespass Doctrine: Kyllo v. United States (2001)

Facts:

-Thermal imaging device that can scan a house'

Court ruling:

-Violation of the 4th Amendment because it was a trespass into the privacy of the home 

Court Case involving Unreasonable Search and Seizure: Florida v. Jardines (2013)

Facts:

-Drug-sniffing dog brought onto a porch alerted police to the presence of drugs in the house and the officers returned with a warrant to find marijuana

Court ruling:

-Dog sniff constituted an unreasonable, warrantless search that violated the 4th Amendment

-Trespass doctrine + reasonable expectation of privacy= violation

-Curtilage= areas immediately surrounding and adjaent to the home is protected

Court Case involving Where you DONT have Expectation of Privacy: Morrison v Olson

An overnight guest staying in another’s residence has a legitimate expectation of privacy

Court Case involving Where you DONT have Expectation of Privacy: Minnesota v Carter

Visitors to a home who were bagging cocaine did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy (police had a warrant)

• The visitors were merely present in a home for a few hours and it does not give them a right to privacy

What does the 4th Amendment mainly protect against?

-Unreasonable searches and seizures

What are the two requirements for a defendant to claim a violation of the 4th Amendment?

1. The defendant must show government conduct (government or police involvement in the search and seizure)

2. And a reasonable expectation of privacy (defendant had an ownership or possesory interest in the places searched or items seized)

The government must have a valid _____ for a search and seizure to be proper

warrant

The 4 Warrant requirements

1. Must be probable cause for issuing the warrant

2. Supported by oath or affirmation

3. Must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

4. Must be issued by a neutral magistrate

Probable Cause in Warrants

-Higher standard

-Exists when a reasonable person has sufficient facts to deduce it was more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that the defendant did it

Reasonable Suspicion in Warrants

-Lower standard

-Police must have specific articulable facts that suggest criminal activity is afoot

Exclusionary rule in Warrants 

A legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures in court.

-Any evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment is inadmissible

-Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine 

• Not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also any subsequent evidence derived from it.

-Good Faith Exception

• Evidence obtained through the execution of a defective warrant will not be excluded if the police have good faith belief the warrant was valid and reasonably relied on it being a valid warrant

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also any subsequent evidence derived from it.

Good Faith Exception

Evidence obtained through the execution of a defective warrant will not be excluded if the police have good faith belief the warrant was valid and reasonably relied on it being a valid warrant

What does the Exclusionary Rule apply to?

Violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments in the context of searches, seizures, and the use of evidence in court.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

1. Confessions obtained through Miranda violations can be used for impeachment purposes on cross-examination

2. Independent source- the prosecution has an independent source other than the illegal search

3. Inevitable discovery- Police would have discovered the evidence whether or not the illegal search occurred.

4. Defendant’s Intervening Act of Free Will a defendant returns to the police after

Exceptions to Warrant Requirements

• Search incident to a lawful arrest

• Hot pursuit

• Evanescent evidence

• Consent

• Search incident to incarceration and booking

• Stop and Frisk (Terry Stop)

• Plain View

• Exigent Circumstances

• Automobile exception

• Inventory or impound search 

Consent and it’s requirements:

• A warrantless search is valid if police have voluntary and intelligent consent 

• Police do not need to inform you of your ability to refuse consent 

• The search based on consent must be within the scope of the consent given 

• Consent is valid if the person giving consent has actual and apparent authority to consent 

Search incident to a lawful request and requirements:

• If a lawful arrest, police may subsequently search a person and areas within his/her “immediate control” where he/she might reach to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence

• Police can also conduct a protective sweep of the area if they believe accomplices are present

• Police can search a person’s car if the defendant is unsecured or the officer has a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime is in the car

Hot pursuit (exception to warrant requirements)

Police in a hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure and may even pursue the suspect into a home

Evanescent evidence (exception to warrant requirements)

Police may seize evidence without a warrant if the evidence is likely to disappear before a warrant can be obtained

Search incident to incarceration and booking (exception to warrant requirements)

Police can conduct an inventory search of arrestees upon booking according to the police department procedure

Stop and Frisk/ Terry Stop (exception to warrant requirements)

• Police can stop a person WITHOUT probable cause for an arrest if the police have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot

• If the officer reasonably believes the person may be armed and presently dangerous, he may conduct a protective frisk of the outer clothing

• The officer can reach into the person’s clothing if he reasonably believes the person has a weapon or contraband after feeling

• Officer may also check the glove box for weapons if the person has not been placed under arrest

“Plain view” (exception to warrant requirements)

Police can make a warrantless seizure when they:

1. Are legitimately on the premises

2. Discover evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of a crime or contraband

3. Seen evidence in plain view

4. Have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime

• Exigent circumstances- police may enter a premises without a warrant to address emergencies that could affect health or safety

Automobile Exception (exception to warrant requirements)

• If police have probable cause to believe a vehicle is contraband or contains evidence of a crime, they can search the whole vehicle and any container that might reasonably contain items for which they have probable cause to search 

• Does not include carry-on luggage or mass transit situations 

• Police can use a drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle during a routine traffic stop and can use the evidence they find in court 

• ***Police must have reasonable suspicion before using a drug-sniffing dog 

Inventory or Impound Search (exception to warrant requirements)

• Police are allowed to do an inventory search of arrestee’s vehicle once impounded pursuant to established department procedures

Police Checkpoint (exception to warrant requirements)

-Police can set up roadblocks to stop cars without individualized suspicion that the driver has violated some law

-A valid checkpoint requires that roadblocks must:

1. Stop cars on some neutral, articulable standard

2. Be designed to serve purposes closely related to a specific issue related to automobiles or their mobility

Border Searches (exception to warrant requirements)

• Reasonable suspicion standard applies because national security reasons give Border Patrol agents the ability to conduct a warrantless search 

• Permanent checkpoints by border patrol agencies are constitutional

• ***Location of a checkpoint is within the agency’s discretion