Crim Pro Cases

Weeks

Lottery male ticket violations. Arrested without a warrant.

Search You need a warrant to search this guy's room. Classic search case.

Mapp

Numbers slips cases. Lotteries ran by nonlottery commission) being hidden in the home. Ms. Mapp said no to cops entering. They entered anyways.

Holding: Search.

We apply exclusionary rule to states.

Katz

Bug on the outside of a telephone booth recording his conversation.

Search

Move away from purely physical intrusion for searches.

Harlan shorthand

1) A person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy

2) That society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

White

Undercover informant with a wire tap.

Not a search.

You assumed the risk of talking to the agent.

It is different from Katz because of that voluntary nature.

He may have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but it is not something society is ready to find as reasonable. SO not a search.

Smith

Installation and use of a pen register to be a search?

Not a search.

A phone company is a private company like you confided in a friend (informant case)

Third Party Doctrine: You are voluntarily giving this up to thidr parties so no expectation of privacy.

Miller case: Financial info given to banks is third party doctrine.

Applies the third party doctrine here.

Ciraolo

Plane overhead, seeing the weed plants.

Not a search.

Curtilage definitions.

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th Amendment protection. (this was from Katz).

● Even with the curtilage of the home there is no reasonable expectation of privacty W/ respect to

Police observation

From a public vantage point where the officer has a right to be

In a physically nonintrusive manner

Of what is visible to the naked eye.

Public planes can go overhead and possibly see this with the naked eye. So it is not a search.

Knotts

Tracking a beeper on a container for 1-2 hours.

Not a search.

-Driving on public roads was not a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Jones

GPS on bottom of vehicle for 28 days.

Search

Holding: This was physical intrusion and via physical proximity doctrine, this was a search.

● Did the governmental activity

Physically intrude on a

Constitutionally protected area

For the purpose of obtaining information?

● If so, a 4th Amendment search has occurred.

● If not, you proceed to Katz.(Need expectation of privacy)

Second line of reasoning:

Short term and long term was the issue.

Jardines

Drug sniffing dog on homeowner's porch.

Search.

Implicit license: Cops can go on the porch, look around and knock. This is an implicit license for anyone.

But the drug sniffing dog is different. It is not customary. It is unlicensed. Behavior is not routined.

Grady

Tracker on person's body.

Search.

Physical intrusion on someone.

Bond

Squeezing the bag on the bus and feeling a brick like thing.

Search

This wasn't just some fee. This was a probing tactile investigation. Maybe it was the jones test.

But applying Katz,

He exhibited an expectation of privacy. (put it in an opaque bag and placed it above his seat)

Society is prepared for passengers to kind of move it around, but not feeling the bag in an exploratory manner.

Kyllo

Marijuana heat lamp.

Search

Even when info is gathered from a public vantage point, it is a 4th amendment search to:

● Obtain by sense-enhancing technology

● Any information regarding the interior of a home

● That otherwise could not be obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area

● AT least if the technology is not in general public use.

Carpenter

Cell phone location data tracking.

Search

Is this a case where you are voluntarily giving up information to a third party?

No, this is just a way of life. Retrospective Quality: Gives police access to category of information otherwise unknowable.

This is 24/7 tracking. Tells you so so so much more.

A narrow opinion on cell phone tracking.

Spinelli

Spinelli was convicted traveling to St. louis, from Illinois with the intent to gamble in ways outside of Missouri law. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the warrant.

Probable Cause? No. Affidavit fell short of Probable Cause

We are looking for an adequaae showing regarding the informant's

● Veracity AND

○ Support for the claim that the informant is credible, or that his

○ Information is otherwise reliable.

■ How do you get veracity?

They have provided accurate information before (Track record)

Independent Corroboration (If they are accurate in some things it makes it more accurate)

Tip fitting a hearsay exception.

● Basis of Knowledge

○ Base facts needed for independent judgment of the validity of the informant's conclusions.

How do you get this Basis of Knowledge?

Claim of Personal Knowledge.

Particularity (self-verifying detail).

Apply it here:

Veracity: the informant says he is confident, but offered no reason to support it.

Basis of knowledge: "In the absence of statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is important that the tip describe the accused's criminal activity in sufficient detail and the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld."

Gates

Affidavit describing drug couple traveling to and from Miami (Basically a complex aff with the support to back it up)

Probable cause? Affidavit was good enough here.

● Applying the Agular-Spinelli standard:

○ Veracity: Not a ton.

○ But basis of knowledge: Predictive info that was so specific and backed up by the actual actions of the D.

● Totality of the circumstances approach

○ Don't be hyper technical about the Aguilar Spinelli test.

○ Looking for a fair probability

○ Or a substantial sufficient to find a particular piece of evidence in a location.

● Applied here:

○ Facts obtained showed drug trafficking.

○ The corroboration of the anonymous tip here was so good: the flight, travel plan, drugs, florida. Too much detail that was backed up to make it good.

Pringle

Cops do lawful search and find cocain in a car with three men. Probable cause to arrest a passenger in an automobile when there was probable cause to believe that felony narcotics possession had been committed by someone in the vehicle?

Yes probable cause.

● Basically, when looking at a vehicle, probable cause can apply to everyone in the vehicle.

● All three men could have had the joint reasonable belief about the cocaine and the money.

○ Therefore there was probable cause to believe that the D in this case committed the crime of possession (jointly and individually).

Whren

Traffic stop of motorist who was driving crazy.

Probable cause for traffic stop is good enough to stop and lead to a search? Yes Does the officer's motives matter?

NOPE: Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable cause 4th Amendment analysis.

We aren't going to change the rules on probable cause just bc they come from a traffic stop.

Moore

Arrest based on probable cause, but the arrest was not permitted under state law.

An arrest based on probable cause is enough for a seizure even if the state forego the probable cause.

Devenpeck

Is an arrest constitutional when an officer lacks probable cause to arrest a person for the offense he stated to be the basis for the arrest, but has probable cause to arrest the person for another offense that is not "closely related" to the stated offense?

Yes it's consistent. It is constitutional.

Johnson v. U.S.

Smalled opium in the hotel. They found opium and smoking apparatus, that was warm. Entered with probable cause, but not warrant.

Holding: Needed a warrant to suppress the evidence. Needed more than probable cause.

● You can have probable cause over everyone even if there were other people in that room (via Pringle)

● Rule: When is a warrant going to be required?

○ Pretty much in every scenario with a search absent exceptional circumstances, it is going to be required.

Watson

Meet up with D. Arrest him in public for a for a felony.

Holding: Valid Arrest

● No warrant is required for a

Public arrest

For a felony

On probable cause

We had valid Probable Cause Here.

Atwater

Our classic seatbelt being pulled over case, leading to a full on arrest of a mother.

We hold that the 4th amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a seatbelt violation.

Structure of Analysis in the case:

Looked at the English Common Law (history) Statutory law, some cases, treatises, they found disagreement with evidence going both ways.

When history fails, you need a balancing test between the degree to which it intrudes on privacy and government interest.

Applying the analysis: Look the interests of privacy are great. At the same time, bright line rules for arrests are even greater. We need to allow police officers to quickly make the right decision (and not do all this balancing).

The standard of probable cause applies to all arrests without the need to balance the interests and circumstances involved. If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may arrest the offender. (court is ready to hear this issue)

● If it is a felony and the police officer is not in the presence of the crime, the officer can still arrest.

● If it is a misdemeanor and the police officer is not in the presence of the crime, the officer cannot still arrest. (IS THIS GOING TO BE A 4th Amendment violation? IDK).

Groh

Messed up writing items to be seized in a search warrant.

Holding: Warrant was invalid and the search was unreasonable.

The warrant did not describe all the itemt to be seized

● Warrantless searches of homes are presumptively unreasonable.

● A particular warrant: "assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search."

● You need the warrant to describe it.

● BUT you don't need to provide the basis for probable cause in the warrant. It is not in the particularity requirement

Garrison

Went into the wrong apartment mistakenly.

Holding: Reasonable warrant and search. There is room for honest mistakes like this.

Chimel

Police officers show up with an arrest warrant for the D. They are let inside the house and ask to search the house. D says no, they don't have a search warrant. They search a bunch of spots in the house.

Holding: Going into the rooms is not okay.

What is reasonable? Twin justifications:

● Need to find weapons (that could be used to resist or escape)

● Need to find evidence (that could be concealed or destroyed)

Searching the person and the area within his immediate control -> like places where he can grab a weapon and destroy evidence.

What is not reasonable? Routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs, or searching through all the desk drawers in a concealed area.

Robinson

After having probable cause to arrest someone for operating a vehicle without a permit. He patted him down, found a pack of cigarettes with something inside. It was heroin. Search okay?

Holding: Okay search.

Twin Justifications?

Destroying evidence? Ehh it's a license problem.

Weapon? Maybe a small pin in the cigarette pack.

We want a bright line rule instead of going through the justifications.

We hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest, a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendment.

Buie (Search Incident)

When officers arrest a person within a dwelling they may "as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be "launched" by associates of the arrestee.

Knowles

For traffic citations, you don't get to do a full search. You need more.

Gant

After arresting two other people, arrested Gant in his car, and searched his vehicle as he was being placed in his patrol car. They had an arrest warrant for his arrest, but not a search warrant for his car.

Holding: Unreasonable search here.

Police may search a vehicle incident to 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 the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

-NOTE: Does not apply to hood and trunk.

In this case, neither the possibility of access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search in this case. (here the officers outnumbered the arrestees contrasting Belton).

We hold that Chimel rationale authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.

Belton

One officer pulling over a car with 4 people. 4 v 1. Searches the passengers as well.

When an officer lawfully arrests "the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile" and any containers herein.

Riley v. CA

Whether the police may without a warrant search digital info on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Holding: Warrant is required before a search of a cell phone even when it is seized incident to arrest.

NOTE: Phones are allowed to be seized.

What did they do? Balance Privacy interests and government interests:

Privacy: quantitatively huge, qualitative specific, it is soooo much personal stuff in the cabinet

Government: Destruction of evidence (well you still take the phone, so unless they do it remotely. You can put it in a faraday bag, turn the phone off, keep it safe). Safety of the officers? Maybe a remote bomb or detonator, but it wouldn't really change that much.

NOTE: you can still take the containers from the body of the phone and search it.

Birchfield

Incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving" it is reasonable to administer "a breath test, but not a blood test" for evidence of intoxication.

Chrisman

An officer could enter the dormitory room of an arrested student without a warrant because "it is not 'unreasonable' under the 4th Amendment for a police officer, as a matter of routine, to monitor movements of an arrested person following the arrest."

Payton

Statutes that let people go into a house to arrest without a warrant.

Holding: Unconstitutional, you need an arrest arrant.

● Why isn't a search warrant required?

○ It would be difficult to get a search warrant. If you have this probable cause determination by a magistrate that a crime has been committed by this particular person, it is reasonable that they can open their door to an officer of the law.

● Limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives it is reasonable to believe the suspect is within.

Point blank

● To Enter A's home to arrest A:

○ Absent existent circumstances or consent, the police need [at least]

■ An arrest warrant, AND

■ Reason to believe that A is within the dwelling [and has to end up living there].

● NOTE: If you only have a search warrant to search a place, without an arrest warrant, can you arrest them?

○ Yes bc they are in plain view when you are searching the place.

Steagald

Had an arrest warrant for one person. End up at an address of someone else and search that address. Thought that maybe Lyons D could be there. IT is a third party search.

Unreasonable search of third party residence. They needed a warrant.

Point blank

● To enter B's home to arrest A

○ Absent exigent circumstances or consent, an ARREST warrant for A is insufficient;

○ The police need a SEARCH warrant.

Santana

Court held that a suspected felon who stood precisely in the threshold of the front door of her home was subject to warrantless arrest under the Watson holding.

Hayden

Hot pursuit where feighning sleep finding a gun in the toilet and trousers in the washing machine.

Holding: Exigent Circumstances made this a valid arrest and search. HOT PURSUIT KIND OF CASE.

Less than 5 mins before they got there, they were told that the suspect entered the residence.

Limit: the scope of the search must at least be as broad as reasonably necessary to prevent the dangers that the suspect at large in the house may resist or escape. (neutralize the suspect).

Big three categories

● Danger to harm to officers or others inside or outside of the house (leads to like every felon being considered dangerous)

● Risk suspect will escape

● Risk of imminent destruction of evidence.

NOTE: It doesn't have to be Hot Pursuit to qualify as an exigent circumstance.

Welsh

Hot Pursuit after guy was driving dangerously, but left his car, ran home, and was naked in his house when they entered

Holding: AN exigency based on the destruction of evidence here was not enough to justify the warrantless entry of Welsh's home.

Really, he abandoned his car so it wasn't that dangerous. It was not an immediate and continuous pursuit. It's just not reasonable to enter the home for such a minor offense.

Brigham City v. Stuart

Officers entered a home without a warrant after witnessing an altercation in the kitchen that involved four adults and one juvenile.

Holding: Warrantless entry okay.

One exigency obviating the requirement is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.

It is reasonable for an officer to "enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury."

Mich. v. Fisher

Guy who was a danger of violence to himself.

Home entry did not violate 4th Amendment.

There is a danger and emergency aid, even if it is to themselves.

KY. v. King

Went to wrong apartment, but knocked on door. Heard shufflings and ruffling (like evidence was being destroyed).

Holding: Because the officers in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the 4th Amendment prior to the exigency, we hold that the exigency justified the warrantless search of the apartment.

Exception to the policy-created exigency doctrine!

Our test: 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.

● Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.

Officers were reasonable here.

Vale

After arresting someone for doing a drug deal they saw on the street, they had probable cause that there were narcotics in the home. They searched without a warrant.

Holding: Search in the home when the arrest is outside is no good.

UNLESS you have good exigent circumstances.

McArthur

Officer, while his buddy was trying to get a search warrant, wouldn't let the D inside of his trailer until they got that warrant. (Basically seized him outside of his trailer so he wouldn't potentially go in and destroy evidence of narcotics.)

Holding: Reasonable seizure

"In sum," the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they "had probable cause to believe that a home contained contraband," they "reasonably believed that the home's resident, if left free of any restraint, would destroy that evidence," and they "imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests."

Lange

Police tried to pull D over 100 ft from his phone. He pulls into garage. Police follow him into the garage and observe signs of intoxication. They administer sobriety test and get some information from him.

Case by case assessment as to weather warrantless home entry for exigent circumstances works in regards to misdemeanant's flight (totality of the circumstances involved).

● Think about the exigencies to figure out whether you should get a warrant or not.

● NOTE: Does not misdemeanor always leads to warrantless entry with exigent circumstances, but cannnn.

MI v. McNeely

After arresting McNeely for driving under the influence, an officer without a warrant, took him to the hospital. Subsequent testing found his BAC was wayyy above legal limit. Issue is whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream establishes a per se exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in drunk-driving investigations.

Holding; no point blank rule on BAC tests here.

"In short, while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, … it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of circumstances."

Mitchell

Plurality of four justices concluded that the exigent circumstances doctrine almost always allows a warrantless blood test "when the police has probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk-driving offense and the driver's unconscious or stupor requires him to be taken to the hospital or similar facility before police have a reasonable opportunity to give up a breath test.

Chambers

Arrested person, drove their car to a police station, then while at the station did a thorough search of the car finding guns, revolvers, and stuff they stole.

Holding: valid search at the station under the 4th Amendment. They said it was alright on the automobile exception.

Under Chambers, you can search the car on the stop or wait later to search it at the station.

○ Ready Mobility of an automobile is a big deal here: Cars are readily moveable. They can be moved out of the jurisdiction.

■ Qualified version: Readily moveable cars stopped on the highway where the occupants are alerted and under the circumstances, the opportunity to search is fleeting.

Collins

Driveway enclosure where the motorcycle was parked, qualified as a curtilage and was not on the path visitors would follow when walking up to the home's front door.

Warrantless entry of curtilage to search a vehicle parked there is not authorized by the automobile exception because it involves invasion of the sanctity of the curtilage.

Carney

Mobile home search without a warrant.

Holding: Automobile exception applies.

The second basis: expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.

○ Kind of comes from plain view, but also capable of travel on public highways.

Test: From the lens of an objective observer and whether they would conclude that it is being used as a residence.

● Some factors like: elevated on blocks, licensed, connected to utilities, and convenient access to a public road.

Kilgore

Officers had probable cause to believe that narcotics would be found in a pickup truck owned by Kilgore. Truck parked on the driveway of a farmhouse that belonged to another individual. Without a warrant, officers searched the pickup, finding cocaine on the floor.

● Holding: If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more.

○ There might be a standing problem by the D. It's not his property. They are suggesting that a long driveway, it might be looked at differently.

Chadwick

Amtrack officials take the brown footlocker after they see D's get in a car. Brown footlocker was in the truck and arrest the D's. With the brown footlocker in custody, they decide to open it and seize the items without a warrant.

Holding: Needed a warrant. Bottom line not good.

NOTE: AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS NOT ARGUED

BASically, we do not allow for luggage to be seized by the police and then allowed to search them without a warrant. Why (when allow it for cars?)?

They are not in public view

● Not subject to regular inspections

● Intended as a repository of personal effects

○ Expectation of privacy is greater in luggage than an automobile.

Ark. v Sanders

Police officers developed probable cause to believe that a green suitcase contained weed. They watched as D and a cohort loaded the suitcase into the trunk of a taxicab. When taxi drove away, officers stopped it, and opened the suitcase without a warrant.

Holding: There is no justification for the extension of the automobile doctrine to the warrantless search of one's personal luggage merely bc it was located in an automobile.

OLD CASE CHANGED BY ACEVEDO

● Warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment applies to personal luggage taken from an automobile to the same degree as it applies to such luggage in other locations.

Acevedo

● Whole chain of events where they see D with a paper bag, leave the apartment and get into the trunk of his car. Fearing the loss of evidence, they stop him, open the trunk and the bag and find marijuana.

Holding: Fair search. Good for warrantless search of these containers in the automobiles.

Ultimately, the police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.

Went against Sanders and let the automobile exception out of the bag (to literally search bags)

Scope matters: If probable cause is just about a specific container → police can search that container only If probable cause extends to the entire vehicle → police can search the whole car and all containers inside

Opperman

Overtime parking ticket leads to impoundment of the car and a standard inventory search.

Holding: Inventory searches are not unreasonable.

This was standard. Why do we allow them without probable cause?

No investigatory purpose, there would never be probable cause, standard procedures, and there could still be bombs in this thing.

Why do we do inventory searches?

Protect owner's property, protect police from claims of stolen property, and protection of police and the public from dangers. IT IS A community caretaking function

It was lawful to impound the car

When its impeding traffic and public safety and convenience.

Routine: Procedures already in place. —---You don't always have a reasonable expectation of privacy when there is a routine way to do it. Preventing pretext

Lafayette

Cigarette case package searched after a standard inventory search at the station.

Holding: Okay under the 4th Amendment.

This is a routine administrative procedure.

● Booking and incarcarated

○ Lots of dangers:

■ To other prisoners.

■ To the detainee themselves.

● You don't have to use LEAST intrusive means, but it just has to be reasonable.

Note: Limited to someone booked and jailed.

Florences

Upheld searches. Even DNA testing of individuals arrested for serious offenses.

Bustamonte

Bunch of guys in a vehicle. One of the guys in the vehicle says yes to allow for a search of the vehicle. Finds some stolen checks.

Standard for Consents. It's a totality of the circumstances test:

We hold only that when the subject of a search is not in custody, and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, 4th and 14th Amendment require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.

Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances, and while the subject's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequesite to voluntary consent.

● Factors:

○ Look at the characteristics of the individual

○ Look at the characteristics of the investigator.

● Trying to figure out: Coercion.

○ Is the will overborn due to coercion: light or heavy the coercion.

Matlock

Gayle Graff, someone living in someone else’s place with the robe and baby in hand, did she consent to letting them into the home and then into the particular room.

Holding: Given the admissibility of Mrs Graff's and respondent's out of court statements, the Government sustained its burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that Mrs. Graff's voluntary consent to search the east bedroom was legally sufficient to warrant admitting into evidence the 4,995 found in the diaper bag.

What would a reasonable person have thought. ?

She is in her robe with a three year old, bringing them to a room.

THere was common authority.

NOTE 7: How to get common authority?

● Mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched

Randolph

Co-occupant wife consented, but husband who was presently there said no.

Holding: A warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.

We are good with tenants giving consent.

● But in the case where there are two co-tenants at the door and one of them does not give permission, they are not going to be trumped by the other cotenant.

○ Fine line in this situation

Fernandez

Fernandez in his apartment and objected to a police entry. Arrested for assaulting a woman who lived there and taken to the police station. An officer returned to his apartment, obtained consent to search from the woman.

Holding Six Justice majority held that despite his initial objection to the search and his removal by the police, the consent given by the woman, third party with his authority to consent, rendered the search reasonable.

Since he was removed→her consent worked

Rodriguez

Woman found at mother's house beaten and said she was beaten by D at this apartment. She goes with the police officers to the apartment. Says, our apartment, had a key, and had clothes and furniture there. ● She swiped the key. She didn't actually live there, but moved a bunch of her stuff out.

Holding: If the police reasonably believe that there is actual authority, this is apparent authority.

Found this was apparent authority and good enough here.

Horton

Had a warrant for the whole house, but the magistrate had it issued for proceeds of a robbery like rings, but goes into the home and sees some weapons (and was kind of searching for them). Seizes the weapons too.

Holding: We conclude that even tho inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate "plain view:" seizures, it is not a necessary condition.

A couple conditions that need to be met:

● Officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed.

● The items incriminating character must be "immediately apparent."

● Officer must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.

○ Footnote: This is a corollary of the familiar principle discussed above, that no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent exigent circumstances.

Ar. v. Hicks

Police moved some turntables to see their serial number to see if they were stolen.

Holding: Unlawful search. Police may not move or manipulate an object in plain view to investigate it unless they have probable cause.

Why was the moving a search?

● He says the tiny little movement of the turntable is a search.

● How is it a search?

○ Officer stepped beyond the scope of the exigent circumstances. By taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion, which exposed to view concealed portions of apartment or its contents.

Terry

The classic stop and frisk case. Two guys didn't look right to him. Thought they were casing stores. He approached, confronted, pats them down, and finds guns.

Holding: Stop and frisk is reasonable.

Stop and fisks are searches and seizures. Seizure when he stops them. Search when he pats them.

Balancing test (Government interest v. Privacy Interest Government: effective crime prevention and detection, officer and public safety. If they have a weapon, something could happen.

Note: We are not worried about destruction of evidence. These are brief and for weapons.

Where a police 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 dangerous, where in the course of investigating, he makes reasonable inquiries, reasonable fear for his and others safety, entitled for the protection of everyone to conduct a limited search of the outer clothing specifically to discover weapons.

Sibron

Officer watched a man converse with several known narcotics addicts over an 8 hour period. Officer approached him. Guy mumbled and reached for his pocket. Officer leaped, hand in pocket and extracted heroin.

Holding: No good. Officer did not have "reasonable grounds to believe that Sibron was armed and dangerous.

Dunaway

They never told him he was arrested. He later was taken to interrogation room, where he admitted to it. Never had probable cause. Unreasonable seizure?

Holding: Seizure no good.

Literally, he was never told he was free to go.

● If you are going to transport the person to the police station, that is going to get you into the zone to a traditional arrest itself and you need probable cause.

● And those detentions in important respects indistinguishable.

Mendenhall

Airport search of a woman when taken to DEA office in airport.

Holding: Enough evidence to say she consented.

Brought up a big question as to whether this was a seizure or not.

Some say people had reasonable suspicion and others say she was not even seized.

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

Royer

Holding: No seizure occurred when officers approached a suspect in an airport concourse and asked for and examined his airline ticket and driver's license.

Chesternut

Holding: Following a suspect in a marked police car is not a seizure.

Bostick

Routine bus check where they randomly ask passengers to search their stuff. D kinda consented, but kinda didn’t.

Holding: WE need a better standard.

Note: If his consent was brought on by the police, then it wouldn't have worked.

Just bc he didn't feel free to leave does not mean they seized him. He could have left the bus.

● His inability to move was restricted by a factor independent of police conduct, bc he was a passenger on the bus.

○ Test: did the police conduct "have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business?"

Hodari D

Patroling in a high crime area. See some young guys. The guys see the cops and start to run. Officers decide to chase. When they chase, one of the guys throws back some crack cocaine at the officer.

Holding: The mere show of authority was not enough here.

An arrest requires either physical force or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority.

● But if you break away from the physical force, you are no longer seized.

Brendlin

Holding: Unanimous Supreme Court rejected California Supreme Court's conclusion that a passenger was not "seized" when the car in which he was riding was stopped to verify that its temporary operating permit was valid.

COUNTS for PASSENGERS IN A CAR BEING STOPPED.

Torres

Whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting."

Holding: Application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.

Specifically the use of force WITH Objective INTENT TO RESTRAIN.

● "whether the challenged conduct objectively manifests an intent to restrain."

Wardlow

Seeing someone fleeing away from cops when he sees them. They exited car, stopped respondent, did a pat down. During the frisk, squeezed the bag, thought that they had the gun and arrested him.

Holding: Search was okay. Justifiable suspicion.

Factors for reasonable suspicion (less than preponderance):

MOre than a hunch of criminal activity, unprovoked flight, common sense, NOT just high crime area, but some weird flight could work.

Alabama v. White

Cops get anonymous call that D is going to be leaving their house in this specific car and tailight broken. Follow car to motel, stop the person outside the hotel, look inside brown bag. Find weed and cocaine on their person.

Holding: Seizure ookay.

Note: look for similar things with reasonable suspicion when you are thinking about the tip that you had:

Veracity of the informant

Informant's basis for their knowledge.

There were a ton of supported predictive factors here: tail light, motel, where she was going.

Florida v. J.L.

Anonymous tip that a young black male in a plaid shirt had a gun. Cops saw a young black male with a plaid shirt. Stopped and frisked him and others.

Holding: Invalid search. No reasonable suspicion.

Tip wasn't good enough: Look you can identify the person. That helps, but the tip does not give us anything to show knowledge of a criminal activity.

● It needs to be reliable in its assertion of illegality.

Navarrette

Anonymous caller reported that she had been run off the road by a pickup truck. Caller specified the area, color, model, and license place. Officer saw the truck, pulled it over, smelled marijuana and found a ton of it.

HOlding: Looking at the totality of the circumstances here, he had reasonable suspicion driver was intoxicated.

Anonymous tip: eyewitness has personal knowledge of what they saw.

Danger was high enough with this drunk driving and cars have a diminished expectation of privacy.

Reid

Holding: Officers "could not as a matter of law, have reasonably suspected [an individual] of criminal activity based on

● Arriving on a flight

● Arriving in the early morning

● Him and his companion trying to conceal that they were traveling together.

Glover

License Plate showed the owner had a revoked driver’s license. Reasonable suspicion good enough even if the driver of that vehicle is not the owner (has a good license).

Holding: OKay

The fact that the registered owner of a vehicle is not always the driver does not negate the reasonableness of an inference that he or she is the driver on a particuar occasion bc reasonable suspicion is short of 51% accuracy.

Heinen

Officer thought broken brake lights were a violation of the law when they weren’t.

Holding: Okay stop.

-We allow for reasonable mistakes like this.

Hensley

Constitutional detentions if based upon a reasonable suspicion "that a person . . . Was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony." Terry stop for completed felony on reasonable suspicion.

Sharpe

A 20 min detention stop too long as an illegal detention?

Holding: Fine to hold him for that long.

Focuses on reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, we just think what would be reasonable for the length of detention.

for example, a traffic stop for a ticket shouldn't go forever.

Place

Airport FDA drug sniff case. Federal Drug Agents had grounds to suspect that a man who had just flown from Miami to NYC had contraband in his luggage. When he refused to consent, they seized him and transported him to another airport where he was sniffed by a dog. Dog alerted one of his bags. They applied for and secured a warrant. Then they found a bunch of cocaine.

Holding: Limited siezure of an effect could be consistent with the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion. BUT seizure of luggage here, exceeded the scope of a permissible detention.

When an officer's observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terry and its progeny would permit the officer to detain luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the detention is properly limited in scope

Some brief detentions of personal effects may be so minimally intrusive that strong countervailing government interest will justify seizure based only on a specific articulable facts that property contains contraband or evidence of a crime.

● Governmental interest: We are worried about deadly drugs.

● Personal interest: It is intrusive, and your liberty is essentially intruded on bc you can't move without your stuff.

Mich. v. Long

Guy, after being pulled over for driving erratically and asked to step out of the car, likely under the influence, was walking back towards his vehicle with the cops (where he had a large hunting knife). Cops stopped and patted him down.

Holding: Search for vehicle is reasonable in this case.

The search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.

Mimms

Reasonable for officers to routinely order drivers to get out of their vehicles.

Maryland v. Wilson

you can order them out for the passenger and driver. This is fair game.

Dickerson

After seeing a guy walk out of a crackhouse, he saw the police, turned the other way. They stopped him and patted him down, did a little manipulation into the shirt to find cocaine.

Holding: The patdown with contraband is too far. Seizure was unconstitutional.

Note: He manifupated his fingers a bit. This is the PLain feel doctrine. He can do a normal Terry frisk, but During a lawful Terry frisk, officers may seize contraband only if its identity is immediately apparent by touch—without further manipulation.

Buie (Protective Sweep)

Armed with an arrest warrant, officers enter Buie's home and arrested him for armed robbery. After arrest, they enter the basement in case others had been there.

Holding: Warrantless protective sweeps were justified if based if based on articulable facts would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

Zone 1: Closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.

○ Justification: Automatic, incident to arrest.

Zone 2: Other areas

○ Justification: Reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts (reasonable supicion language) that the area to be swept harbors an individual on an arrest scene.

■ Upon reasonable suspicion.

Berkemer

Holding: Routine traffic stop is not custody. This is okay, but once it becomes a formal arrest, he needs to be read his rights.

Really tried to weigh the pros and cons of stopping a roadside motorist.

There was an interrogation (Questioning)

We hold that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.

This is because we want a bright line rule.

"CUSTODY" for Miranda purposes occurs when there is

● Formal arrest, or

● Is functional equivalent

when a reasonable person in the defendant's position would conclude that his or her freedom of action is curtailed

To a degree associated with formal arrest.

Shatzer (Custody)

Is an inmate in custody bc he is in prison?

Holding: No, an inmate is not automatically in custody just bc they are in confinement.

Three reasons why imprisonment alone is not enough to say custody:

● Questioning a person serving a prison term does not have shock.

● Unlikely to be lured in for quick release.

● Prisoner knows the questioning officer lacks the authority to affect the duration of his sentence.

Howes v. Fields

Courts apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether the interrogation imposed restraints comparable to formal arrest.
Combination of imprisonment + in a separate room + asked questions about the outside world = Custodial Arrest

Rhode Island v. Innis

Taxi body in grave, shotgun wounds, other taxicab reports it. They find respondent, arrest him give Miranda rights. He asks for a lawyer. Multiple officers show up, they all end up repeating his Miranda rights. Officers were discussing safety concerns, but did not ask him questions.

Holding: Not an interrogation.

We conclude that the Mirana safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.

● Interrogation: to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

○ It's about the perceptions of the suspect rather than the intent of the police.

Here, the officers did not ask him questions and had no real reason to know that their discussion would elicit the response that it did.

Ill. v. Perkins

Placed an undercover agent in a cell with D to get more info out of him.

Holding: Undercover contacts are different. No need for miranda.

We hold that an undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response.

● Statements here were voluntary.

● Deters coercion not ploys to mislead a subject.

It's not coercion when it is a government agent. That is what we are worried bout.

Fulminante

Inmate threatened by other inmate (paid informant) with physical violence in prison to get a statement.

Holding: D's confession had been coerced and violated due process clause.

Does not fall in line with Miranda (Fulminante would apply via a due process problem).

● So when they don't know whether it is a government official.

○ Whether your will is overborne.

■ So your motion to supress would be granted, but not via Miranda, but via due process violation.

Penn v. Muniz

Booking Questions

Okay if they are routine booking questions for administrative purposes and not have the intent for criminal investigations.

Berghuis

Guy was given his Miranda rights and doesn't do anything. He won't sign the rights. During the interrogation he gives a couple yes's, nos, or idk's but pretty silent. "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" A: Yes.

Holding: Confession is fine. Waiver was present.

NOTE: Waiver can be implied from all the circumstances (Burden is on government to prove waiver) Warnings + Understanding + uncoerced statement= Implied Waiver

Mich v. Mosley

First interrogation, miranda rights are read and when the police asks him questions about a robbery, he says he doesn't want to answer them. So, the interrogation ends. Then, in a different location, different detectives asked him different questions. Also reread his Miranda rights. Here he admits to it. Was this fair under Miranda?

Holding: okay interrogation.

This is not a case where the police failed to honor a decision of a person in custody to cut off questioning, either by refusing to discontinue the interrogation upon request or by persisting in repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind.

The thing is the person's right to cut off the questioning.

● We therefore conclude that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his "right to cut off questioning" was "scrupulously" honored.

Here: There was 2 hours later, provision of fresh warnings, interrogation of different crime and immediatley ceased the first one. They gave him ample opportunity to cut off questioning.

Note: NO COERCION BY OFFICERS, but strategic deception (here they said his buddy confessed) is okay.

Edwards

Here, during an initial interrogation, he said he wanted an attorney before making a deal. The next day, he's called back in to be interrogated. Then he makes a confession (agrees to answer questions).

Holding: His rights were violated.

We now hold that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if advised of rights.

● It depends on who initiated what.

○ We further hold that an accused such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him.

This is a right to counsel with a very firm rule/line on this stuff.

McNeil

A D who had been charged with armed robbery made an appearance in court with counsel.

Holding: A request for the "offense-specific" Sixth Amendment right of assistance in proceedings pertaining to be a charged offense does not constitute invocation for custodial interrogation conerncing separate uncharged crimes.

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and does not bar police questioning on unrelated, uncharged offenses. BUT THE 5th AMendment Miranda rights are not offense-specific.

Shatzer (Edwards)

Does a break in custody end the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. Arizona? Two and a half years later, he was interviewed at a prison about the same incident. He got more warnings, and he waived his rights and made incriminating admissions (after not waiving his rights 2 years before).

Holding: Edwards did not require an exlcusion of the statements in these circumstances.

14 days is the period of time. This applies even if put back into prison population.