posc401 midterm

How to Brief a Case (IRCA Method)

• Issue — The legal question the court must answer.

• Rule — Constitutional amendment, statute, or doctrine applied.

• Conclusion — Yes/No answer to the issue.

• Analysis — Why the court ruled that way.

 II. Fourth Amendment Overview

Two-Part Structure

• Reasonableness Clause — Protects people from unreasonable searches/seizures of persons, houses, papers, effects.

• Warrant Clause — Requires probable cause, oath/affirmation, and particularity.

 III. Federal vs. State Cases

• Federal: Defendant v. United States

• State: Defendant v. State (e.g., Smith v. Delaware)

 IV. Who Can Violate Constitutional Rights?

• Only government actors.

• Private actors → no violation unless acting with police → becomes state action.

 V. Fifth Amendment

 Key Protections

• Double Jeopardy

• Self‑Incrimination

Search and frisk:

a brief, non-instrusive police stop and limited outer-clothing pat-down of a person

PC to search:

police have enough trustworthy facts and evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that a specific crime happened and that specific evidence of that crime is located in the exact place they want to search

What do you need for an arrest, search?

• PC or a standard search warrant

• Search: officers generally need a search warrant backed by probable cause to search a home or private property. Exceptions include consent, search incident to arrest, and plain view

 Is a protective sweep meeting probable cause?

• Does not require PC

• Officers may automatically look in the immediate area and spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest w/o any suspicion

• Extended area: to sweep the rest of a home, officers need reasonable suspicion - supported by articulable facts- that the area harbors an individual posing a danger

• Scope: the sweep must be a quick, cursory visual inspection limited to places where a person can hide, and it cannot last longer than necessary to dispel the threat

 Palko v. Connecticut

Double Jeopardy not incorporated at the time; later incorporated in Benton v. Maryland.

 Adamson v. California

Self‑incrimination not incorporated at the time; later incorporated in Malloy v. Hogan.

 VI. Sixth Amendment — Jury Trial

 Duncan v. Louisiana

Jury trial is fundamental → incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

 VII. Rochin v. California

Forced stomach pumping violates Due Process → “shocks the conscience” standard.

 VIII. Probable Cause (PC)

• Reasonable belief based on facts.

• Required for arrests, full searches, warrants.

• Corroboration strengthens suspicion.

• Reasonable belief must be objective.

 IX. Motion to Suppress

Grounds include:

• Fourth Amendment violations

• Fifth/Sixth Amendment violations

• Chain of custody problems

• Improper identification

• Hearsay (inadmissible at trial but can support PC)

 X. Hard vs. Soft Evidence

• Hard: DNA, fingerprints, video.

• Soft: Witness testimony, expert opinions.

 XI. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Illegally obtained evidence → excluded.

XII. Search & Seizure Basics

• ^{General rule: Warrant required unless exception applies.}

  • ^{danger/threat}

  • ^{Evidence can be tainted} 

• Pretextual stops allowed (Whren).

• Totality of circumstances governs PC.

  • T.C: a judge or police officer must look at all available facts and context together, rather than focusing on any single piece of evidence in isolation, to determine if probable cause (PC) exists

• Running alone ≠ PC.

• Dropped items may be seized.

 XIII. Exigent Circumstances

• Danger to life

• Hot pursuit

• Destruction of evidence

 XIV. Payton Rule

Police cannot enter a home to arrest without a warrant.

 XV. Search Incident to Arrest

• No warrant needed after lawful arrest.

• Purpose: safety + evidence preservation.

• Scope: immediate control area.

 XVI. Protective Sweep

• Requires reasonable suspicion.

• Limited to spaces where a person could hide.

 XVII. Hot Pursuit

Active chase → no warrant needed.

XVIII. Castle Doctrine

Home = highest privacy protection.

 XIX. Arrest vs. Search Requirements

Action	Requirement
Public arrest	Probable cause
Home arrest	Arrest warrant + PC
Search	Search warrant + PC
Search incident to arrest	No warrant, no PC (after arrest)
Protective sweep	Reasonable suspicion
Hot pursuit entry	No warrant

Palko v. Connecticut

Palko asks whether the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Under selective incorporation, the Court held double jeopardy was not fundamental and therefore not binding on states. Connecticut could retry Palko. Later, Benton v. Maryland overruled Palko and incorporated Double Jeopardy.

 Adamson v. California

Adamson asks whether the 5th Amendment self‑incrimination privilege applies to states. The Court said no under selective incorporation, allowing jury comment on silence. Later overturned by Malloy v. Hogan, which incorporated the privilege.

Rochin v. California

Rochin asks whether forced stomach pumping violates Due Process. The Court held yes — the conduct “shocks the conscience.” This case established the modern police‑misconduct standard.

 Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold asks whether banning contraceptive counseling for married couples violates privacy. The Court held yes, grounding privacy in constitutional penumbras. This case became the foundation for Roe, Eisenstadt, and modern privacy doctrine.

 Duncan v. Louisiana

Duncan asks whether the 6th Amendment jury trial right applies to states. The Court held yes — jury trials are fundamental and incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

Draper v. United States

Draper asks whether corroborated informant predictions create probable cause. The Court held yes — detailed predictive accuracy makes a tip reliable.

 United States v. Watson

Watson asks whether officers need a warrant for a public felony arrest when they have time to get one. The Court held no — warrantless public felony arrests with probable cause are reasonable.

 Virginia v. Moore

Moore asks whether violating state arrest law makes an arrest unconstitutional. The Court held no — Fourth Amendment reasonableness is governed by federal standards, not state law.

 Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

Atwater asks whether custodial arrest for a minor offense violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court held no — probable cause for any offense allows arrest.

 Whren v. United States

Whren asks whether pretextual stops violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held no — analysis is objective; motives don’t matter.

 Ornelas v. United States

Ornelas asks what standard appellate courts use for reviewing probable cause. The Court held de novo review applies to PC and reasonable suspicion.

 California v. Hodari D.

Hodari D. asks when a seizure occurs. The Court held seizure requires physical force or submission; fleeing suspects are not seized. Hodari D. held that a seizure requires physical force or submission to authority.

 Payton v. New York

Payton asks whether police can enter a home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest. The Court held no — home entry requires a warrant absent exigency.

 Illinois v. Gates

Gates asks whether an anonymous tip + corroboration establishes probable cause. The Court held yes under the totality of the circumstances test.

 Wilson v. Arkansas

Wilson asks whether knock‑and‑announce is part of the Fourth Amendment. The Court held yes, though exceptions exist.

 Chimel v. California

Chimel asks whether police can search an entire home incident to arrest. The Court held no — search incident is limited to immediate control.

 Maryland v. Buie

Buie asks whether police can conduct a protective sweep during an in‑home arrest. The Court held yes with reasonable suspicion.

 Chambers v. Maroney

Chambers asks whether police can search a car later at the station if probable cause existed at the stop. The Court held yes — automobile exception applies.

 South Dakota v. Opperman

Opperman asks whether inventory searches of impounded vehicles require warrants. The Court held no — standardized inventory procedures are reasonable. Opperman upheld inventory searches based on standardized procedures and caretaking needs.

 Knowles v. Iowa

Knowles asks whether police can conduct a full search when issuing only a citation. The Court held no — citation alone is insufficient.

 United States v. Chadwick

Chadwick asks whether police can open seized luggage without a warrant. The Court held no — once secured, containers require warrants. Chadwick held that once the footlocker was seized and immobilized, a warrant was required to open it.

 California v. Acevedo

Acevedo asks whether police can search a container in a car without a warrant when probable cause is only for the container. The Court held yes — automobile exception applies to all containers.

 United States v. Edwards

Edwards asks whether police need a warrant to seize and examine clothing 10 hours after arrest. The Court held no — post‑arrest administrative seizure of items already in custody is valid.

 Cupp v. Murphy

Cupp asks whether police may scrape fingernails without a warrant or arrest when evidence is evanescent. The Court held yes — limited intrusion + probable cause + risk of destruction = reasonable.

 1. Standing

Who can challenge a search?

Only someone with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 2. Consent Searches

Voluntary consent → no warrant needed.

Third‑party consent → depends on authority.

3. Plain View Doctrine

If officers are lawfully present and see contraband → they may seize it.

 4. Terry Stops & Frisks

Reasonable suspicion → stop

Reasonable suspicion of danger → frisk

 5. Automobile Exception Nuances

You already have Chambers, Acevedo, Opperman, but some exams ask:

• Mobility rationale

• Reduced expectation of privacy

 6. Administrative / Special Needs Searches

Examples:

• School searches

• Border searches

• Checkpoints

• Probation/parole searches

7. Miranda (Fifth Amendment)

The warnings police must give you before questioning you in custody, protecting your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination

2. FOURTH AMENDMENT BASICS

The Fourth Amendment has a two-part structure that balances personal privacy against government power.

• Reasonableness Clause: protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government involving their persons, houses,

papers, and effects.

• Warrant Clause: warrants require probable cause, an oath/affirmation, and particularity about the place to search and the persons/items to

seize.

Protected categories: persons, houses, papers, effects.

Government action: the constitutional protection is against government action, not ordinary private actors. Example from class: a Target security

guard is generally not a government actor, so the Fourth Amendment does not apply just because the guard searched someone; other

civil/statutory remedies may exist. If police are involved in the search, the Fourth Amendment can apply.

3. OTHER AMENDMENTS IN THE NOTES

Fifth Amendment: double jeopardy and protection against self-incrimination.

• Palko v. Connecticut: the notes use Palko to explain the historical incorporation question. Palko was later overruled by Benton v. Maryland,

which held that the Fifth Amendment's double-jeopardy protection applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Adamson v. California: the prosecution must prove every element of the charge. A defendant has the right to remain silent, and the jury cannot

use that silence against the defendant.

Sixth Amendment: right to a criminal jury trial.

• Duncan v. Louisiana: the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Rochin v. California: stomach pumping to obtain evidence was treated as a due-process violation because the conduct “shocked the

conscience.”

4. PROBABLE CAUSE (PC)

Probable cause = enough facts/evidence to reasonably believe a crime happened or that a specific person committed it. The notes connect PC

to arrests, full searches, and obtaining warrants.

Reasonable belief: a justifiable, fact-based view that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to happen.

Corroborate: provide evidence that supports/strengthens a statement, theory, or finding.

Fact-pattern question: Would a reasonable person in the officer's shoes, based on reliable information and corroboration, believe there was

enough evidence for the police action?

Important: probable cause is not certainty. The class notes repeatedly emphasize reliable information and corroboration.

5. WARRANTS, SUPPRESSION, AND EVIDENCE

Motion to suppress: a defendant's formal request to prevent evidence from being used at trial, often because it was obtained through a

constitutional violation.

Evidence may be suppressed for: Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure; Fifth or Sixth Amendment violations involving statements;

chain-of-custody problems; improper witness identification.

Hearsay: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (“he said/she said”). The notes distinguish hearsay from its

possible use as information contributing to probable cause.

Fruit of the poisonous tree: secondary evidence may be excluded when it was discovered through an illegal search or other constitutional

violation.

Hard evidence: concrete/measurable evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, video, physical objects, and instrument readings; generally

objective/testable, but can still be mishandled or taken out of context.

Soft evidence: witness testimony, expert opinions, character references, personal experiences, etc.; useful for context but more subjective and

vulnerable to memory problems or bias.

Summons: an official court order requiring someone to appear before a judge at a specified time/place to answer a criminal charge.

6. SEARCH VS. SEIZURE / ARREST

Search and seizure: police inspect a person/property and take evidence. The general Fourth Amendment starting point is that a warrant is

required unless an exception applies.

Arrest: class notes emphasize probable cause as the key justification. A warrant is not automatically required for every arrest; the location and

circumstances matter.

Search incident to arrest: a lawful arrest can justify a limited search of the arrestee and the area within the arrestee's immediate control. The

purpose is officer safety and preventing destruction/disposal of evidence. It is not permission to search an entire home.

Protective sweep: a quick, limited safety check during an in-home arrest to determine whether a dangerous person may be hiding.

Exigent circumstances: emergency situations that can allow police to enter/search without a warrant.

Hot pursuit: when police are actively chasing a fleeing person, a warrant is not required under the class notes' hot-pursuit rule.

Key class distinction: do not automatically assume “arrest = search everything.” Ask what exception or justification actually permits the search.

7. ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA

Facts: Atwater was stopped because she and her children were not wearing seatbelts. The officer arrested her without a warrant, handcuffed

her, took her to the station, booked her, and held her briefly. She later pleaded no contest and paid a fine.

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a warrantless custodial arrest for a minor misdemeanor punishable only by a fine?

Rule: Police may make a warrantless arrest when they have probable cause to believe a person committed a criminal offense, even a minor

misdemeanor punishable only by a fine.

Holding: No. The arrest was constitutional because the officer had probable cause.

Why: The Court found no clear historical rule prohibiting warrantless misdemeanor arrests and rejected a case-by-case balancing test that

would be difficult for officers to apply consistently.

EXAM POINT: Minor offense + PC can still support a warrantless custodial arrest.

8. WHREN v. UNITED STATES

Facts: Officers saw Whren and Brown sitting at a stop sign unusually long, then turn without signaling and drive at an unreasonable speed.

Officers stopped the vehicle and saw drugs.Issue: Is a traffic stop unconstitutional if the officers' real motivation was investigating another crime, when they had PC for a traffic violation?

Rule: A traffic stop is reasonable when police have PC to believe a traffic violation occurred, regardless of subjective motivation/pretext.

Holding: No. The stop was constitutional.

Why: Fourth Amendment analysis focuses on objective reasonableness, not the officer's subjective intent. The Court noted that discriminatory

enforcement could raise a separate Equal Protection issue, but that is separate from the Fourth Amendment analysis.

EXAM POINT: Pretext does not invalidate a stop when there is objective PC for an actual traffic violation. Subjective motives are irrelevant if probable cause for traffic violation exists. 

9. ORNELAS v. UNITED STATES

Facts: Police became suspicious of Ornelas's older California-plated car in a Milwaukee motel lot, partly based on drug-courier patterns and

database information. A consented search and drug-detection observations led officers to a loose panel where cocaine was found.

Issue: How should appellate courts review reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations?

Rule: Reasonable suspicion and PC are reviewed de novo because they are mixed questions of law and fact. Historical facts are reviewed for

clear error, while reasonable inferences receive appropriate deference.

Holding: De novo review.

Why: Consistent application of flexible Fourth Amendment standards requires independent appellate review of whether established facts

amount to reasonable suspicion or PC.

EXAM POINT: Ornelas = standard of appellate review; de novo for RS/PC.

10. CALIFORNIA v. HODARI D.

Facts: Police pursued Hodari after a group of youths ran from officers. While still running, Hodari discarded crack cocaine. He was tackled

afterward.

Issue: Was Hodari seized when he discarded the cocaine while fleeing?

Rule: A seizure occurs when police physically apply force or when a person submits to a show of police authority.

Holding: No. Hodari was not seized when he discarded the cocaine.

Why: He continued fleeing and had not submitted or been physically restrained. The cocaine was abandoned before the seizure.

EXAM POINT: Flight/pursuit alone ≠ seizure. Physical force or submission is required.

11. PAYTON v. NEW YORK

Facts: Police had PC to believe Payton committed murder and Riddick committed armed robbery. Police entered their homes without arrest

warrants and without exigent circumstances.

Issue: Can police enter a suspect's home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest when there are no exigent circumstances?

Rule: Police generally cannot make a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a person's home to make a routine felony arrest unless exigent

circumstances exist.

Holding: No. The entries violated the Fourth Amendment.

Why: The home receives especially strong Fourth Amendment protection. PC alone was not enough; police generally needed an arrest warrant

(assuming they were entering the suspect's own home and there was no consent/exigency).

EXAM POINT: Arrest in a home = arrest warrant + PC, unless an exception such as exigency applies.

12. ILLINOIS v. GATES

Facts: Police received an anonymous letter accusing the Gateses of selling drugs and predicting their trip to Florida and return. Police

independently corroborated many details. A judge issued a search warrant, and drugs/weapons were found.

Issue: Can a partially corroborated anonymous tip establish PC for a search warrant?

Rule: PC is determined by the totality of the circumstances. Courts consider reliability, veracity, basis of knowledge, and police corroboration

together rather than using a rigid checklist.

Holding: Yes. The warrant was supported by PC.

Why: Although the anonymous tip alone was insufficient, police corroborated specific predictions, making the remaining allegations more

believable.

EXAM POINT: Gates = totality of the circumstances + corroboration; replaced rigid Aguilar/Spinelli approach.

13. WILSON v. ARKANSAS

Facts: Police had warrants to arrest Wilson and search her home. They entered without first knocking and announcing, although they identified

themselves as police and stated they had a warrant while entering.

Issue: Is knock-and-announce part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness?

Rule: Yes. Police generally should knock and announce their presence and authority before entering a home, but the rule has exceptions.

Holding: Yes, it is part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry.

Why: The Court relied on common-law principles existing when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Exceptions can exist when announcement

would create danger, allow escape, or risk destruction of evidence.

EXAM POINT: Knock-and-announce is a Fourth Amendment reasonableness principle, not an absolute rule.

14. CHIMEL v. CALIFORNIA

Facts: Police arrested Chimel at home with an arrest warrant, then searched the entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, garage,

workshop, and drawers, without a search warrant or consent.

Issue: Can police search an entire home incident to a lawful arrest?

Rule: A search incident to arrest is limited to the arrested person and the area within the person's immediate control—the area from which the

person could reach a weapon or destroy evidence.

Holding: No. The whole-house search was unconstitutional.

Why: Officer-safety and evidence-preservation justifications only extend to the arrestee and nearby reachable areas, not the entire home.

EXAM POINT: Search incident to arrest ≠ search the whole house.

15. MARYLAND v. BUIE

Facts: Police had an arrest warrant for Buie and arrested him inside his home. Afterward, an officer checked the basement for another person

and saw a red running suit in plain view.

Issue: What justification is required for a protective sweep during an in-home arrest?

Rule: Spaces immediately adjoining the arrest location may be checked where a person could hide. For areas beyond that, police need specific

and articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that the area harbors a person who poses a danger.

Holding: No PC is required for the protective sweep; reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts is enough beyond immediately

adjoining areas.

Why: Officer safety justifies a limited sweep, but it must remain limited to places where a person could hide and last only as long as needed to

address the safety concern.

EXAM POINT: Protective sweep = safety, limited scope, reasonable suspicion—not a full evidentiary search.

16. CHAMBERS v. MARONEY

Facts: Police stopped a matching station wagon after a robbery description and arrested the occupants. At the police station, officers searched

the car without a warrant and found guns, stolen money, and other evidence.

Issue: Can police search a vehicle without a warrant after taking it to the station when they have PC that it contains evidence?

Rule: Under the automobile exception, PC that a vehicle contains evidence/contraband allows a warrantless vehicle search because of the

vehicle's mobility.

Holding: Yes. The search was constitutional.

Why: The search was not justified as a search incident to arrest because it occurred at the station after the occupants were in custody, but the

automobile exception independently justified it.

EXAM POINT: Automobile exception = PC can allow warrantless vehicle search; Chambers says the search can occur after the vehicle is taken

to the station.

17. QUICK RULES TO MEMORIZE

• Arrest: think PC.

• Arrest inside a home: generally arrest warrant + PC, unless consent/exigent circumstances.

• Search: generally PC + warrant, unless an exception applies.

• Search incident to arrest: arrestee + immediate control area; not the whole home.

• Protective sweep: limited safety check; adjoining spaces may be checked; beyond that = specific/articulable facts supporting reasonable

suspicion.

• Hot pursuit: warrant not required under the class rule.

• Traffic stop: PC for traffic violation is enough even if the officer has another subjective motive.

• Seizure: physical force or submission; running away alone is not a seizure.

• Vehicle: PC can trigger automobile exception.

• Anonymous tip: look at totality of circumstances and corroboration.

• Knock-and-announce: part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness, with exceptions.

• Fruit of poisonous tree: downstream evidence can be affected by an unlawful constitutional search/seizure.

• Motion to suppress: asks the court to keep unlawfully obtained evidence out.

• Case names are not required according to the class notes, but know the rule each case represents.

Double Jeopardy

• Rule: Double Jeopardy applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

• Exam Trigger: Government tries to prosecute someone twice for the same offense.

• Remember: Originally not incorporated, but later incorporated.

Self-Incrimination

• Rule: The 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies to the states.

• Exam Trigger: Defendant's silence or compelled statements are used against them.

• Remember: States cannot penalize someone for exercising the right to remain silent.

"Shocks the Conscience" Test

• Rule: Police conduct violates Due Process when it is so outrageous that it shocks the conscience.

• Exam Trigger: Brutal or extreme police behavior to obtain evidence.

• Remember: Focus on fairness, not just search-and-seizure rules.

Constitutional Right to Privacy

• Rule: The Constitution protects certain privacy interests.

• Exam Trigger: Government interference with intimate personal decisions.

• Remember: Foundation of modern privacy doctrine.

Jury Trial

• Rule: The right to a jury trial in serious criminal cases applies to the states.

• Exam Trigger: Defendant denied a jury trial in a state prosecution.

• Remember: Jury trials are considered a fundamental right.

Reliable Informant Tip

• Rule: An informant's tip can establish probable cause when police corroborate detailed predictive information.

• Exam Trigger: Informant accurately predicts future behavior.

Totality of the Circumstances

• Rule: Probable cause is based on all facts viewed together.

• Exam Trigger: Anonymous tip plus police corroboration.

• Remember: No rigid checklist.

Reviewing Probable Cause

• Rule: Appellate courts review probable cause and reasonable suspicion independently (de novo).

• Exam Trigger: Appeal challenging whether officers had sufficient justification.

Public Felony Arrests

• Rule: Police may make a warrantless felony arrest in public if probable cause exists.

• Exam Trigger: Officer arrests suspect in public without obtaining a warrant.

State Law Violations Do Not Automatically Create Fourth Amendment Violations

• Rule: Federal constitutional reasonableness controls, not state arrest procedures.

• Exam Trigger: Officer violates a state arrest statute.

Arrest for Minor Crimes

• Rule: Probable cause for any criminal offense permits a custodial arrest.

• Exam Trigger: Arrest for a very minor offense (seatbelt violation, traffic offense, etc.).

Pretextual Stops

• Rule: Officer motives do not matter if an objective legal basis exists.

• Exam Trigger: Traffic stop used to investigate unrelated criminal activity.

Home Arrests

• Rule: Police generally need an arrest warrant to enter a home and make a routine felony arrest.

• Exam Trigger: Officers enter a home without a warrant.

• Exception: Exigent circumstances.

When Does a Seizure Occur?

• 
  

• Rule: A seizure requires:

  1. Physical force, OR

  2. Submission to authority.

• Exam Trigger: Suspect runs from police.

• Remember: Running away is not a seizure.

Knock-and-Announce

• Rule: Knock-and-announce is part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.

• Exam Trigger: Officers execute a warrant without announcing.

• Remember: Exceptions exist.

Immediate Control Rule

• Rule: Police may search only the arrestee and areas within immediate reach.

• Exam Trigger: Search incident to arrest.

• Remember: Cannot automatically search the entire home.

Protective Sweep

• Rule: Officers may perform a quick protective sweep during an in-home arrest when they reasonably suspect danger.

• Exam Trigger: Officers fear another person may be hiding nearby.

Delayed Clothing Seizure

• Rule: Police may seize and examine clothing already in lawful custody after arrest.

• Exam Trigger: Evidence removed from an arrestee hours later at the station.

Automobile Exception

• Rule: If probable cause exists, officers may search a vehicle without a warrant.

• Exam Trigger: Vehicle contains evidence or contraband.

Search Later at the Station

• Rule: If probable cause justified a roadside search, officers can instead search the vehicle later at the station.

• Exam Trigger: Car impounded and searched after the stop.

Container in a Vehicle

• Rule: If probable cause exists for a container inside a vehicle, police may search it without a warrant.

• Exam Trigger: Officers believe drugs are in a specific package, bag, or box within a car.

Inventory Search

• Rule: Police may inventory impounded vehicles according to standardized procedures.

• Exam Trigger: Vehicle lawfully impounded.

• Purpose: Caretaking, not investigation.

Automobile Exception Rationales

• Vehicle mobility.

• Reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles.

Secured Container Rule

• Rule: Once luggage or another container is seized and secured, a warrant is generally required to open it.

• Exam Trigger: Police have exclusive control over the container and no exigency exists.

Evanescent Evidence

• Rule: Police may conduct a limited search when:

  • Probable cause exists, and

  • Evidence is likely to disappear.

• Exam Trigger: Fingernail scrapings, blood evidence, residue that can be destroyed.

Citation Only

• Rule: Issuing a citation alone does not justify a full search.

• Exam Trigger: Driver receives a ticket but is not arrested.

• Remember: No arrest = no full search incident to arrest.

Standing

• Must have a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge a search.

Ask:

• Was it their home?

• Their car?

• Their belongings?

• Their phone?

If not, they often lack standing.

Consent Searches

• Voluntary consent = no warrant required.

• Third-party consent depends on actual/apparent authority.