7-1 The Fourth Amendment

The lesson focuses on the concept of reasonableness in searches and seizures conducted by law enforcement.
It emphasizes the need for police actions to conform to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Understand the legal standard of reasonableness in the context of searches and seizures.
Analyze case law that illustrates the application of reasonableness.

There is no specific, universally accepted definition of reasonableness.
Synonyms include:
- Logical
- Practical
- Sensible
- Intelligent
- Plausible
Each case’s unique circumstances make reasonable action relative; what is reasonable in one case may not be in another.

In the Collins case, the Supreme Court ruled that a search was unreasonable enough to violate the Fourth Amendment.
This highlights the scrutiny placed on law enforcement's actions and the necessity of a reasonable basis for searches.
However, the Court recognizes that some scenarios may justify immediate action by police without a warrant, such as:
- Emergencies involving a fight happening inside a dwelling
- Situations where a juvenile has made credible threats of violence (e.g., threatening to shoot at a school)

The principle of reasonableness is a guiding factor for law enforcement to ensure constitutional protections are upheld during searches and seizures.
Understanding the nuances of what constitutes reasonable behavior is critical for law enforcement and the judicial system to ensure justice and uphold citizen rights.

The Supreme Court has defined that any arrest or seizure is unreasonable unless supported by probable cause.

Understand the concept of probable cause and its application in law enforcement.
Outline the major sources that may provide probable cause.

Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion; officers must know facts and circumstances leading to a reasonable belief that an offense has occurred or is occurring.

Probable cause is established at the moment a police officer takes action; it cannot be retroactively applied.
Examples:
- A stop for jaywalking followed by finding cocaine doesn’t suffice for probable cause without prior reasonable suspicion (e.g., a tip from an informant).

Personal Observation
- Officers use their training and experience to infer probable cause from non-obvious situations (e.g., observing suspicious behavior).
Information
- Information may come from victims, eyewitnesses, informants, or police bulletins; reliability is key.
Evidence
- Evidence in plain view can lead to probable cause for searches or seizures.
Association
- Associating a known criminal with a crime scene may constitute probable cause, but alone it is generally insufficient.

Probable cause allows effective police work by enabling warrantless arrests in urgent situations.
The Supreme Court supports this flexibility, demonstrated in the 2003 ruling where officers acted properly in arresting passengers linked to hidden cocaine.
After an arrest, the officer must justify probable cause to a judge, as underscored in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991), requiring judicial determination within 48 hours of the arrest, including weekends or holidays.

William Howe: Police Detective
- Role: Collect evidence and conduct investigations.
- Skills: Accident reconstruction, fingerprint identification, crime scene analysis.
- Importance of using intelligence over force in police work.

Job Description:
- Collecting evidence, conducting interviews, observing suspects, assisting with raids.
Training Required:
- 2-5 years experience as a patrol officer, larger departments often require 60 college credit units or an associate's degree.
Salary Range:
- $43,000–$103,000 annually.

The lesson explores the exclusionary rule and its implications in law enforcement and criminal proceedings.
This rule prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence in criminal trials, ensuring that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches or seizures is inadmissible.

The exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained through unreasonable searches or seizures, making it inadmissible in court against defendants.
Even highly incriminating evidence, such as a murder weapon, may be excluded if obtained improperly.

Any evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible, often referred to as the fruit of the poisoned tree.
Example: If a confession is obtained after the illegal seizure of a weapon, the confession is also barred from being used in court.

The rule forces law enforcement to gather evidence properly and follow appropriate procedures, increasing the likelihood of conviction.
However, it can also result in the release of guilty individuals due to police negligence or errors.
Statistically, evidence suppression occurs in fewer than 3% of cases raised by the defense, dropping to less than 1% when a warrant is obtained.

Critics argue that the exclusionary rule hampers effective policing, leading to the establishment of exceptions such as the inevitable discovery exception.
The inevitable discovery exception allows evidence to be admissible if it would have been found lawfully regardless of the illegal methods used.
Case Example:
- Brewer v. Williams (1977) ruled that evidence (the body of Pamela Powers) was obtained illegally due to absence of counsel.
- Nix v. Williams (1984) reversed this ruling, allowing evidence as it would have been inevitably discovered.

The good faith exception permits the use of evidence obtained under an invalid warrant if the officers acted in good faith and were unaware of the warrant's problems.
Case Examples:
- United States v. Leon (1984): Evidence was upheld despite a defective warrant as officers acted in good faith.
- Arizona v. Evans (1995): Evidence obtained due to a computer error was also upheld under the good faith exception.
If officers knowingly use an incorrect warrant, the good faith exception does not apply, and evidence can be suppressed.