Criminal Procedure

What happened in Weeks v. United States?

The defendant was arrested, without a warrant, for mailing lottery tickets. Officers entered his house after a neighbor told them where to find a key and collected several papers/articles that they later turned in to the US Marshal. The officers returned with the Marshal and took more letters and envelopes.

What was the holding in Weeks v. United States?

The taking of the letters from the defendant's house by the Marshal was in direct violation of the Constitution, thus the court should have returned those letters to the defendant as requested. However, the state officers were not acting under federal authority, so the Fourth Amendment does not apply to their actions–the Fourth Amendment is limited to the federal government and its agencies.

What happened in Mapp v. Ohio?

State officers arrived at the defendant's residence after receiving a tip about a bombing suspect and that there was gambling parapharnelia. The defendant refused entry but officers later forcibly opened the door. After the defendant asked to see the search warrant, the officer held up a piece of paper and arrested the defendant when she tried grabbing it. The officer searched the entire home, and the defendant was convicted of having lewd book/pictures based on what was found through the search.

What was the holding in Mapp v. Ohio?

Evidence from illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court. Since the right of privacy is enforceable against the state through the Due Process Clause, it is enforceable by exclusion just as it is against the federal government. If the Exclusionary Rule does not apply against the states, it grants the right to privacy but denies its privilege and enjoyment.

What was the rationale for the Exclusionary Rule in Weeks?

If private documents can be seized and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the Fourth Amendment is of no value

What was the rationale for extending the Exclusionary Rule to state actors in Mapp?

"Without that rule the freedom from state invasion of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus..."; there would be no meaningful right

What was the Tresspass Approach?

It relied on the definition of trespass to assess whether a search occurred; there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment unless there is a trespass to private property

What happened in Katz v. United States?

The defendant was convicted of "transmitting wagering information by telephone" in violation of federal law. The government was permitted to introduce evidence of the defendant's end of a conversation that was recorded because federal agents attached a listening device outside a telephone booth.

What was the holding in Katz v. United States?

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. The "trespass" doctrine can no longer be considered controlling. The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using a telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Rule: What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

What is the Katz test?

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy if:

(1) person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and
(2) the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

What happened in United States v. White?

The defendant was convicted for narcotics transactions based in part on conversations with an informant. Four conversations were in the informant's home, where one agent hid in the kitchen and one listened from outside through a transmitter. Four other conversations overheard using radio equipment occurred in the informant's car, the defendant's car, and a restaurant. Because the prosecution was unable to produce the informant at trial, agents who heard the conversation testified.

What was the holding in United States v. White?

No, the defendant has to accept the risk that those with whom he speaks will report to the police. "We are not prepared to hold that a defendant who has no constitutional right to exclude the informer's unaided testimony nevertheless has a Fourth Amendment privilege against a more accurate version of events in question."

What happened in Kyllo v. United States?

Suspecting that the defendant was growing marijuana in his home, a federal agent used a thermal imaging device to scan the home from his car. The roof over the garage and the side wall were significantly warmer, and a judge signed a warrant based on tips, utility bills, and thermal imaging.

What was the holding in Kyllo v. United States?

Where the government uses a device not in general public use to explore details of a home that would have previously been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search".

What happened in United States v. Jones?

The defendant was suspected of drug trafficking. Law enforcement obtained a warrant to install a GPS device within 10 days in DC, but they installed it on the 11th day outside of DC in a public lot. The Government used it to track movement over 28 days and once replaced the battery in a public parking lot in MD. The trial court only suppressed data from when the car was parked near the Jones residence because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads, but the Court of Appeals reversed because the evidence was from a warrantless use of a GPS device.

What was the holding in United States v. Jones?

A vehicle is an effect, and the installation of a GPS constitutes a search. Katz added to rather than substituted the common-law trespassory test (now, two tests).

What happened in Florida v. Jardines?

After receiving a tip about the defendant growing marijuana at her home, the local PD and DEA sent a joint surveillance team to her home, but they couldn't see inside. Two officers approached the home with a drug sniffing dog, and as the dog approached, it sensed drugs and sat at its strongest point. The officers received a warrant on the basis of what they discovered.

What was the holding in Florida v. Jardines?

It was a "search" because officers gathered information by physically entering and occupying area in the curtilage of the house, which has the same constitutional protection as the home itself. It would have been permitted if the defendant had given permission, but she did not; there is implicit permission to allow a visitor to approach, knock, wait for an answer, and leave if not accepted, but allowing the dog to sniff to find drugs goes beyond the traditional invitation.

The Court did not have to address whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy because the officers physically intruded–the Katz test added to the property-based understanding, so it was a clear violation.

What happened in United States v. Karo?

After learning the defendant had ordered 50 gal. of ether from a government informant, the DEA got the informant's consent to replace one of the ten cans with one that had a government beeper

What was the holding in United States v. Karo?

The transfer of the container did not constitute a seizure. A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.

What was the Aguilar-Spinelli test?

• veracity/reliability: consider the reliability of the underlying tip
• basis of knowledge: sufficient statement of underlying circumstances from which CI can reach his conclusion–if there is no information on how the information was gathered, the tip must describe in sufficient detail to know it is more than just a rumor

What happened in Illinois v. Gates?

The police received a detailed, anonymous letter about the defendants running a drug operation. The officer corroborated most of what the letter said through surveillance, and a judge issued a warrant. The search of the trunk of the car turned up marijuana, and the search of the home found marijuana, weapons, and contraband.

What was the holding in Illinois v. Gates?

An informant's veracity or reliability and the basis of knowledge "are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality of circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall reliability of a tip by a strong showing of the other, or some other indicia of reliability."

The corroboration of the letter's predictions indicated that the other assertions in the tip were true, even if the letter writer's reliability could not be confirmed.

What are the policy rationales for the totality or the circumstances approach in Illinois v. Gates?

• haste of criminal investigations
• other test is overly technical
• neutral magistrate

What happened in Carpenter v. United States?

Law enforcement obtained records from the defendant's cellular service provider showing the movements of his cell phone. From those records, they were able to track Carpenter’s whereabouts over a four-month period.

What was the holding in Carpenter v. United States?

It was a search implicating the Fourth Amendment because "[a] detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day, every moment, over several years implicates privacy concerns far beyond those the court has previously recognized"

When does probable cause exist?

"Where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief an offense has been or is being committed"

What happened in Lo-Ji Sales v. New York?

An officer took films purchased from the defendant's adult bookstore to the Town Justice to determine if a warrant was justified for violating obscenity laws, and a warrant was issued. The affidavit mentioned other materials portraying similar activities but were not listed or described. The Town Justice agreed to accompany the officers to the store to determine independently if other materials violated the law. The Town Justice viewed various items, ordered them seized, and they were subsequently listed on the search warrant. The warrant was two pages before the search was was 16 pages after the search.

What was the holding in Lo-Ji Sales v. New York?

The was not sufficient probable cause for a search beyond the additional copies of the films listed in the original affidavit.

(1) The Fourth Amendment does not allow for open-ended warrants that are completed while a search is conducted or after a seizure is carried out.

(2) There must be a neutral and detached judicial officer assessing whether to grant a search warrant. Here, the Town Justice allowed himself to become part of the investigation.

What happened in Richards v. Wisconsin?

After the no-knock portion of a warrant to search the defendant's room was denied, an officer knocked on his door dressed as a maintenance man. The defendant saw an officer in uniform behind him and slammed the door. The officer kicked the door in and identified themselves before catching the defendant just as he was trying to escape through the window. The officers found cash and cocaine in the bathroom. The defendant moved to suppress because the officers failed to announce their presence before forcing entry.

What was the holding in Richards v. Wisconsin?

The no-knock entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment. To justify a no-knock entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, could be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.

However, the Court was concerned with the Wisconsin Supreme Court creating a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule for drug investigations because of the "drug culture"–it is an overgeneralization.

What happened in Kentucky v. King?

Lexington PD set up a cocaine buy outside an apartment complex, and afterward, the UC officer radioed uniforms to move in on the suspect. Officers heard an apartment door shut but were unsure whether it was the one on the right or left. The UC officer said it was the right over the radio, but the other officers did not hear and approached the apartment on the left because of the smell of marijuana. Officers knocked and announced themselves, heard movement inside, then announced they were making entry and kicked in the door. They found the defendant, his girlfriend, a guest smoking marijuana, and cocaine in plain view. Officers later entered the other apartment and found the correct suspect.

What is the "police-created exigency" doctrine?

Police may not rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence when that exigency was created or manufactured by the conduct of police

What are the types of exigencies?

• "emergency aid" exception
• hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect
• to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence

What was the holding in Kentucky v. King?

Warrantless entry to prevent destruction is reasonable. The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Under what circumstances do police impermissibly create an exigency?

When they violate or attempt/threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment before entering the apartment

What is the exigency exception to the warrant requirement?

The exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable

What happened in Chimel v. California?

Officers waited at the defendant's home with a warrant for his arrest, and upon arresting him, asked for permission to search. The defendant denied their request, but the officers search on the basis of the arrest. After a 45 minute to hour-long search of various rooms in the house, the officers seized numerous items that were admitted into evidence at trial.

What was the holding in Chimel v. California?

A search incident to arrest justifies the search of the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control from which he can gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. The search was unreasonable because it went far beyond Chimel's person and the area within which he could obtain a weapon or evidence.

What happened in Warden v. Hayden? (incl. holding)

After entering a home immediately after a robbery to apprehend a suspect, officers search the home for the suspect and weapons. The officers discovered both, and the Court held that warrantless searches are permissible where the "exigencies of the situation" make the search necessary

What happened in Riley v. California?

The officer access information from a smartphone seized from the defendant, who was arrested for concealed possession of firearms. A detective later examined the phone further and found pictures connecting the defendant for another crime. This case was considered together with Wurie, in which officers seized two cell phone from the defendant and traced a number on the phone to an apartment building they proceeded to search.

What was the holding in Riley v. California?

Officers must secure a search warrant before conducting a search of data on a cell phone. It is proper to say that searching an arrestee's pockets is no more an intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest, but the can't be said for searching digital data. The risks that justified search incident to arrest in Robinson do not exist when the search is of digital data:

1) Digital data can't be used as a weapon against the officer or for escape
2) After officers secure the phone there is no risk that the arrestee will destroy evidence on the phone

What happened in New York v. Belton?

During a traffic stop, an officer noticed that none of the passengers owned or were related to the owner of the vehicle. The officer also notice an envelope labeled "Supergold" (assoc. w/ marijuana) on the floor of the car and instructed the occupants to exit the vehicle and physically separated them. The officer searched the car, finding marijuana in the envelope and a black leather jacket belonging to the defendant with cocaine in the pocket.

What was the holding in New York v. Belton?

The articles in the passenger compartment fall within the area into which an arrestee might reach to grab a weapon or evidence, so an officer may search it incident to arrest. The search of the jacket was a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest because the jacket was inside the passenger compartment of the car, in the arrestee's immediate control.

The officer may also search the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment.

What happened in Arizona v. Gant?

After the defendant was arrested, handcuffed, and secured in a patrol car, officers search his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the backseat.

What was the holding in Arizona v. Gant?

Police may only search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, or when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be discovered. Police could not reasonably have believed either that the defendant could have accessed his car during the search or that evidence of the offense of driving with a suspended license would be found during the search.

What happened in Whren v. United States?

Officers patrolling a high drug area approached a vehicle that had young occupants and was stopped for an unusually long time at a stop sign. The officer approached the driver's window during a red light and saw two plastic bags of what seemed to be cocaine in the defendant's (passenger) hands. The occupants were arrested and different types of drugs were seized from the truck. The defendants argued that the stop was not justified by probable cause, and the grounds for approaching were pretextual.

What was the holding in Whren v. United States?

The evidence discovered is admissible. The reasonableness of stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved. The officer's state of mind does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action.

What happened in Chambers v. Maroney?

Two teenagers saw a blue station wagon circling the block near a service station and speed away just before hearing that it had been robbed. They reported seeing four men inside the car with one in a green sweater and another in a trench coat. The car was stopped two miles away, and the occupants were arrested. The car was driven to the station and a subsequent search discovered evidence connected to the robbery.

What was the issue in Chambers v. Maroney?

Whether the warrantless search of the car after Chambers' arrest violated the Fourth Amendment

What was the holding in Chambers v. Maroney?

The search that produced the incriminating evidence cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest, but probable cause is grounds for the search. Cars may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that wouldn't justify a search of a house or office provided there is probable cause. It is permissible where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle would easily be moved out of the locality. It must happen immediately without a warrant or the car must be seized and held without a warrant until a search warrant is signed. Unless the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless seizure but not a search, a search was permitted.

What happened in California v. Carney?

A federal agent received information that the defendant used the motor home to provide marijuana in exchange for sex. The agent saw the defendant approach a youth and enter a motor home. The youth later confirmed the exchange and returned to the mobile home with the agent. After the defendant came outside and the agents identified themselves, they entered the home without a warrant or consent. The agents observed and seized evidence before arresting the defendant.

What was the holding in California v. Carney?

The overriding societal interests in effective law enforcement justify an immediate search before the vehicle and its occupants become unavailable. Application of the automobile exception has never turned on uses of the vehicle–it turns on the ready mobility, the lesser expectation of privacy, and the presence in a setting indicating transportation use.

What happened in United States v. Chadwick?

Federal agents in San Diego informed agents in Boston of passengers on a Boston-bound train with a footlocker leaking talcum powder, which is known to mask the odor of marijuana. Agents in Boston showed up with a drug dog and the dog signaled the presence of drugs when the passengers moved the footlocker from the baggage cart. The defendant told an attendant to move the footlocker into the trunk. After they place it into the trunk, the officers arrested all three while the trunk was still open, conducted a search of the car, and took the keys to the footlocker. They were arrested and agents followed with the defendant's car. A search was conducted more than an hour later.

What was the holding in United States v. Chadwick?

It was unreasonable to search without a warrant. Under the automobile exception, officers only needed probable cause to search the car, but they need a warrant to search any locked containers. A person's expectations of privacy with personal luggage are substantially greater than in an automobile, and the defendants manifested an expectation that the contents of the footlocker would be free from public examination.

What happened in California v. Acevedo?

While officers were procuring a warrant for a package known to contain marijuana that an individual picked up from FedEx and took to his home, the defendant arrived at that home and left with a paper bag the same size at the package. The defendant placed it in the trunk and drove away, but officers stopped him, concerned about losing evidence.

What was the holding in California v. Acevedo?

The police may search without a warrant if their search is supported by probable cause, but probable cause to search a container does not justify a search of the entire vehicle. The officers has probable cause for the bag, which allows for a warrantless search of the bag, but a search of the entire vehicle would have been unreasonable without probable cause.

What happened in Horton v. California?

The officer determined there was probable cause to search the defendant's home for weapons and stolen items from an armed robbery. The affidavit listed the proceeds and the weapons, but the issued warrant only authorized a search for the proceeds. While the officer was looking for the stolen items, he was also interested in finding other evidence connecting the defendant to the robbery, and seized the weapons when he discovered the weapons in plain view (not inadvertent).

What was the holding in Horton v. California?

The warrantless seizure of evidence that was not inadvertently discovered is not prohibited because no Fourth Amendment interest is served by requiring inadvertence. The seizure where the police have a warrant and come upon some other article of incriminating character or where there is a recognized exception is legitimate.

What happened in Arizona v. Hicks?

Officers (legally) entered and searched the defendant's apartment after a bullet was fired through the floor of the defendant's apartment. An officer noticed two sets of expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place. Suspecting theft, the officer moved the turntable to check the serial numbers. HQ advised him that they had been stolen in an armed robbery, and the officer immediately seized it.

What was the holding in Arizona v. Hicks?

Probable cause is required to invoke the plain view doctrine (in a sense, must be "immediately apparent"). The search would be valid if the plain view doctrine would have sustained a seizure, and the plain view doctrine would uphold the search if there was probable cause, but the officer only had reasonable suspicion. There is no reason to have a lesser standard than would be needed with a warrant

Minnesota v. Dickerson

• Announced a comparable "plain touch" doctrine
• If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect and feels an object whose contour/mass makes the identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of privacy
• If the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would have been justified by the same considerations as in the plain view doctrine

How were containers treated after Chadwick?

• If police had probable cause to search a car, they could search containers within the car
• If police only had probable cause to search the container, they needed a warrant to open the container

What are the elements of a plain view seizure?

• officers were lawfully present
• item is in plain view
• immediately apparent that the item is contraband or fruit of a crime
• allows for the seizure of the item

What is the Open Fields Doctrine?

After law enforcement trespassed on defendants' rural property, where they discovered fields of marijuana, the Court held that their actions did not implicate the Fourth Amendment because an open field is unoccupied/undeveloped land outside the curtilage of the home and is not an "effect" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

What are the four factors for determining curtilage?

• proximity of the area to the home
• whether the area is in an enclosure near the home
• the nature of the uses of the area
• steps taken to protect the area from outside observation

What happened in Payton v. New York?

Officers entered the suspects' homes, without arrest warrants, and arrested suspects whom they had probable cause to believe were engaged in criminal offenses

What was the holding in Payton v. New York?

The nonconsenual entry into a suspect's home to effectuate an arrest requires an arrest warrant and reason to believe the suspect is within the premises

Gerstein v. Pugh

The government "must provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by a judicial officer either before or promptly after arrest"

When should probable cause determinations be made?

48 hours, absent extraordinary circumstances

Johnson v. United States

"When the right of privacy must be reasonably yielded to the right to search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent."

What is the knock-and-announce rule?

The Fourth Amendment contains an implicit rule that law enforcement officers knock and announce their presence before entering a premises.

What happened in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte?

An officer stopped a car for a traffic violation, and when the driver couldn't provide a license, the officer asked the occupants to exit. The officer requested permission from Acala, who said he was the owner's brother, to search the vehicle. Acala agreed, two other officers arrived, and officers found stolen checks linked to one of the passengers. No one had been threatened with arrest at this point.

What was the holding in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte?

When a subject of a search is not in custody and the State justifies the search on the basis of consent, the State must demonstrate the consent was voluntarily given. Voluntariness depends on the totality of circumstances. Though knowledge of right can be considered, the State need not establish knowledge as a requirement for valid consent. There is a need to balance two interests: the legitimate need for searches and assuring the absence of coercion. However, there is no evidence of inherently coercive tactics or reason to believe the response to an officer's questions is presumptively coerced.

What happened in Georgia v. Randolph?

D and his wife were separated and she had taken their son. After they returned, D's wife complained to the police that D had taken their son after a fight, and when police arrived, she told them he was a cocaine user. D returned and said he was worried his wife would leave with their son again. D refused to give consent to search the house, but D's wife gave consent. D's wife led officers to D's bedroom and the officer noticed a residue he suspected was cocaine. D was indicted for possession of cocaine and moved to suppress the evidence.

What was the holding in Georgia v. Randolph?

Matlock held that the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared. However, in this case, D was present and actively refusing consent. Minnesota v. Olson held that a social guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in their temporary quarters, so it follows that an inhabitant of shared premises may claim just as much privacy. If a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is at the door and objects, the co-tenant's permission is insufficient for a search; if he is nearby but not invited to take part in the inquiry, he loses out.

What happened in Illinois v. Rodriguez?

Officers saw Fischer was severely beaten, and she said D assaulted her earlier in the at an apartment where D was presently asleep. She consented to going with officer to unlock the door to arrest D. Fischer consistently referred to the apartment as "our apartment" and said she had clothes and furniture at the apartment. Without an arrest/search warrant, the officers entered the apartment where the observed drug parapharnelia and what they believed was cocaine in plain view. D moved to suppress the evidence, claiming Fischer vacated the apartment weeks earlier and had not authority to consent.

What did the lower court conclude in Illinois v. Rodriguez?

The trial court held that Fischer was an "infrequent visitor" rather than a "usual resident" given she was not on the lease, did not contribute to rent, was not allowed to invite others on her own, did not have access with D was away, and had moved some of her things from the apartment. The trial court rejected the argument that the police reasonably believed she possessed the authority to consent.

What was the holding in Illinois v. Rodriguez?

The determination of consent to enter must be judged against an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises?

D is arguing that the officers' judgment should be correct, but reasonableness doesn't demand that the government is factually correct in its assessment of what its search will produce; factual determinations do not always need to be correct, but should always be reasonable.

What happened in Terry v. Ohio?

Patrolling officer had his attention to two men standing on a corner who looked as though they were casing the store. A third man approach and spoke to them, walked away, and the two men walked off in the direction of the third man. The officer feared that they may have a gun, so he approached them. He asked for their names, but the men only mumbled. The officer spun D around and patted him down and felt a pistol. The officer ordered the men to face the wall, patted them all down, and found a weapon on one of the other two men. He took them all to the station, where the two men were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

What was the holding in Terry v. Ohio?

To begin, the court dismisses the argument that the interference was outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because it did not rise to the level of a "search or "seizure" and that it was a "petty indignity."

The search was reasonable. To assess reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the governmental interest against the nature of the intrusion. Specifically, weight must be given to the specific reasonable inferences that he is entitled to draw in light of his experiences. Where an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude there may be criminal activity and that persons with whom he is dealing are armed/dangerous, and when he identifies himself and makes reasonable inquiries that do not dispel his fear for himself or others, he can frisk for weapons. However, the search must be limited in scope to the outer clothing of the subject to discover the weapons that may be used against him.

What are the elements of a Terry stop?

1. Seizure: reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is afoot
2. Search: reasonable suspicion to believe the individual is armed and (presently) dangerous
3. Officer may check the outer clothing of the person for weapons

What happened in Dunaway v. New York?

Detective Fantigrossi was told that a CI had a potential lead in a murder, and after questioning him, he had enough information for a warrant. Fantigrossi nevertheless asked the other detective to pick D up and bring him in. D was taken into custody, and though he was not told he was under arrest, he would have been restrained had he tried to leave. He was driven to HQ in a police vehicle and was placed in an interrogation room after being mirandized. D waived counsel and made self-incriminating statements.

What was the holding in Dunaway v. New York?

The police violated the Fourth Amendment when, without probable cause, they seized D and transported him to the police station for interrogation.

The Court disagrees with the State that the seizure can be justified by mere "reasonable suspicion"; unlike a stop-and-frisk, the detention of D was indistinguishable from an arrest. Terry was a narrow exception. Creating an exception to probable cause in a case with such intrusive seizure would threaten Fourth Amendment probable cause.

What happened in United States v. Mendenhall?

As D was disembarking a flight, two DEA agents who thought she looked suspicious approached her, identified themselves as federal agents, and asked for her identification and license. In response to their questions, D said she had been traveling under a different name because she felt like it and that she was only in California for two days. After Agent Anderson specifically stated he was a DEA agent, D became nervous. Anderson asked her to come to the airport DEA and she did (no verbal response on record). The office was 50 feet away, and in the office, she agreed to a search of her person and handbag after she was informed of her right to decline. A female officer arrived to conduct a search of her person and confirmed that D had consented and again asked for her consent. The officer began removing her clothing and found two packages in her underwear that seemed to contain heroin.

What was the holding in United States v. Mendenhall?

Because the search of her person was not preceded by an impermissible seizure of her person, it can't be said that her apparent consent to the subsequent was infected by an unlawful detention.

Mendenhall Rule: A person has been "seized" if, in view of all circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave.

There was no seizure in the initial encounter because nothing suggested she had any objective reason to believe she was not free to end the conversation and leave.

Whether D's Fourth Amendment protections were violated when she went from the concourse to the DEA office depends on whether the consent to accompany is voluntary or the product or duress/coercion, which is determined by the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that she voluntarily consented to accompany the officers.

What happened in California v. Hodari D.?

Officers McColgin and Pertoso, patrolling in a high crime area, saw 4 or 5 youth surrounding a red parked car but dispersed upon seeing the officers. Pertoso chased D and his friend, who ran through an alley. Just before Pertoso tackled D, D tossed a small rock, which was cocaine.

What was the holding in California v. Hodari D.?

A seizure does not occur when the subject does not yield to a show of authority. D had not been seized since D did not comply until after he threw the cocaine.

D argues that a seizure occurs when "the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen" and that the pursuit was a show of authority. A seizure does not occur when an officer is yelling at a fleeing suspect who continues to flee. It is also not an arrest–an arrest requires either physical force or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority.

What happened in Alabama v. White?

Law enforcement received tip that D would be leaving 235-C Lynnwood Terrace Apartments at a particular time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken tailight and going to Dobey's Motel with cocaine. Officers saw a woman get into the vehicle empty-handed and followed as she drove the most direct route to Dobey's Motel, and when it was on the road of the motel, the officers requested a patrol unit to stop the vehicle. She was asked to step to the back of the car and asked if they could search cocaine, to which she agreed. The officers found a locked brown attaché ( she provided the combination upon request) containing marijuana. During processing, they found cocaine in her purse.

What was the holding in Alabama v. White?

When the officers stopped D, the anonymous tip had been sufficiently corroborated to furnish reasonable suspicion.

Gates established a totality of the circumstances approach to determining whether a tip established probable cause. Though the tip was not as detailed and corroborated as in Gates, reasonable suspicion allows the tip to be established with information that is different in quantity or content and may arise from less reliable information than is required for probable cause. An informant's claims may be considered by police in determining reasonable suspicion. Though not every detail was verified, many of them were verified, suggesting the information was correct about the unverified details. Like Gates, it contained facts that were not just preexisting–it had future actions of third parties that are not easily predicted.

What happened in Illinois v. Wardlow?

D, who possessed an opaque bag, fled when he saw officers patrolling in the area, which was known for heavy drug trafficking. The officers conducted a pat-down search for weapons once they caught up to D because it was common, in Officer Nolan's experience, to have a weapon nearby with drug transactions. D was arrested after Nolan felt an object resembling and gun and recovered a .38 caliber.

What was the holding in Illinois v. Wardlow?

Officer Nolan had sufficient reasonable suspicion that D was involved in criminal activity to justify his search. Though presence in an area of high criminal activity is not enough to support reasonable suspicion, it is a relevant factor in considering the context of the seizure. An unprovoked flight from a police officer may provide reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop.

Concurring Opinion: The time of day, number of people in the area, the character of the neighborhood, the way the runner was dressed, the direction and speed of flight, and unusual behavior are all factors that may be considered for a totality of the circumstances analysis.

What happened in Maryland v. Buie?

After obtaining an arrest warrant for D and his accomplice for committing an armed robbery, law enforcement confirmed D was home and went to his home to execute the warrant. Rozars said he would cover the basement so no one could come up and suprise the others, but when he ordered anyone in the basement to come out, a voice asked for identification and D emerged. Then, a detective entered the basement in case someone else was hiding inside and noticed a red running suit in plain view and seized it (one of the armed robbery suspects was seen in a red running suit).

What was the holding in Maryland v. Buie?

The potential risk to officers must be weighed against the invasion of privacy. Because the arrest happened in the suspect's home, the threat to officers was heightened.

There is an interest (analogous to Terry) to take steps to assure the premises where the suspect was arrested is not haboring other dangerous individuals.Without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, officers could look spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched to dispel reasonable suspicion of danger–it can't take any longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.

A greater search requires articulable facts, taken together with rational inferences, that would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing the area to be swept has an individual posing a danger to those at the scene.

What happened in United States v. Place?

Officers at the airport alerted DEA agents in New York, where D was traveling, of his suspicious behavior. Agents identified themselves and requested (and received) D's identification, and requested consent to search. D refused, and the agents informed him they would take his bags to seek a search warrant but instead took them for a "sniff test" by a canine, and 90 minutes later, the canine reacted positively to one bag. Because it was Friday afternoon, the DEA held the bags until Monday when a magistrate issued a search warrant.

The lower court held that the principles from Terry applied to D's luggage.

What was the holding in United States v. Place?

The detention of D's luggage went beyond the narrow authority possessed by police to detain briefly luggage reasonably suspected to contain narcotics.

Some brief detentions of personal effect may be so minimally intrusive that the strong governmental interest may justify seizure. When an officer's observations lead him to reasonably believe a traveler's luggage contains drugs, Terry permits the officer to detain the luggage to briefly investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided the detention is limited.

The conduct in this case exceeded the limits of a Terry-type investigative stop. The length of time and the agents' inability to give D details about the luggage went beyond the authority of law enforcement to briefly detain luggage reasonably suspected to contain narcotics.

What happened in Maryland v. King?

After D was arrested for assault, in accordance with police protocol, a cheek swab was taken after his arrest and his DNA was entered into the Maryland database. His DNA matched an unsolved rape, and was used against him on the rape charge. D moved to suppress the DNA evidence arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.

What was the holding in Maryland v. King?

Collecting DNA as part of the arrest procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Court balanced the privacy interest and law enforcement concerns to determine whether the intrusion was reasonable. The swab test serves a legitimate government interest because ascertaining identity and criminal background is a a crucial part of the arrest procedure just as valid and informative as fingerprinting. Additionally, the cheek swab for DNA is a minimal intrusion.

What is the requirement for an administrative search?

Government officials may not enter residences and commercial buildings for administrative code violations without an administrative search warrant UNLESS "the privacy interests of the owner are weakened and the government interests in regulating particular business are concomitantly heightened in which case the warrantless inspection of commercial premises may well be reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

What happened in New Jersey v. T.L.O?

Suspected D of having cigarettes at school, schools officials searched her purse and discovered cigarettes, marijuana, and a list of students who owed her money. D was charged with possession of marijuana. D moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the search.