7-2 Lawful Searches & Seizures
7-2a Understanding Privacy in Search and Seizure Law
Key Concept: Privacy is a crucial aspect of search and seizure laws.
Definition of Search: A governmental intrusion on a citizen’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Legal Precedents Establishing Privacy Expectations
Katz v. United States (1967):
Established the standard for a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Key Holding: "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
Justice Harlan's Two-Pronged Test:
Individuals must demonstrate an expectation of privacy.
Society must recognize that expectation as reasonable.
Outcome: Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public phone booth, despite it being a public place.
Legitimate Privacy Interest
Criteria for Reasonable Expectation of Privacy:
Merely taking steps to preserve privacy is not sufficient; steps must be reasonably certain.
California v. Greenwood (1988):
Ruling: No reasonable expectation of privacy for garbage placed on the curb.
Reasoning: Trash is exposed to various public intrusions, forfeiting the expectation of privacy.
Private Search Doctrine
Definition: Law enforcement does not require a warrant to search items previously examined by third parties.
Implication: Once a private search occurs, the owner's expectation of privacy is diminished.
Example: An airline employee finding illegal drugs in an unclaimed suitcase leads to a lawful search by police without a warrant.
Law Enforcement and Surveillance
Discussion Point: Should police use helicopters to monitor individuals in fenced backyards?
Privacy and Technology
United States v. Jones (2012):
Ruling against the use of GPS tracking without a warrant; the government significantly intruded on private property.
Outcome: Evidence from the tracking device was ruled inadmissible.
Key Consideration: Time and technology influence privacy rights.
Commentary: Increased technological surveillance does not eliminate societal expectations of privacy.
7-2b Search and Seizure Warrants
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Antoine Jones clarified that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant to track individuals using GPS or similar technology.
Definition of a Search Warrant: A court order that authorizes police to search a specific area to confirm suspected criminal activity.
Requirements for Obtaining a Search Warrant
Law enforcement officers must provide:
Probable Cause: Information indicating that a crime has been or will be committed.
Specific Information:
Detailed description of the premises to be searched.
Identification of suspects and illegal activities taking place.
Description of items to be seized.
Purpose: To ensure that the search of a suspect's property is justified based on probable cause, respecting their reasonable expectation of privacy.
Particularity of Search Warrants
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “general, exploratory searches.”
A warrant must describe, with specificity, the:
Place to be searched.
Items to be seized.
Burden on Law Enforcement: Must prepare a detailed affidavit with specific property info.
General addresses are insufficient; courts favor precise details.
Example of over-broad warrant: A court ruled against a warrant allowing the search for "all handguns, shotguns and rifles" due to vagueness.
Items That Can Be Seized Under a Search Warrant
Learning Objective 3: Four categories of items that law enforcement can seize include:
Items Resulting from a Crime: Such as stolen goods.
Inherently Illegal Items: Like narcotics and counterfeit currency.
Evidence of a Crime: Items connected to the crime (e.g., a bloodstained sneaker).
Items Used to Commit a Crime: Tools or equipment necessary for the crime.
Reasonableness During a Search and Seizure
Officers must act reasonably during searches, adapting to unforeseen circumstances.
Plain View Doctrine: If officers find contraband (e.g., crack cocaine) in plain view while searching for the original item, they can seize it without further warrant.
However, officers cannot search areas not justified by the warrant (e.g., opening small drawers when searching for a stolen laptop).
Example:
Searching for a stolen MacBook Pro:
If a vial of drugs is spotted in plain view, it may be seized.
Searching small drawers not permitted as there is no reasonable basis for doing so.
Searches and Seizures without a Warrant
Learning Objective 4: Explain when searches can be made without a warrant.
Although the Supreme Court has established the principle that searches conducted without warrants are unreasonable per se, it has set specific exceptions to this rule. Most searches occur initially without a judicial order.
Warrantless searches can be lawful when:
Police are in "hot pursuit" of a subject.
Searching bags of trash left at the curb for regular collection.
In border areas such as airports and seaports, where a warrant is generally not needed.
Brigham City v. Stuart (2006): The Court held that police do not need a warrant to enter a private home in an emergency where they reasonably fear for the safety of the inhabitants.
The two primary circumstances where a warrant is not needed include:
Searches incidental to arrests.
Consent searches.
Searches Incidental to an Arrest
The most common exception involves searches incidental to arrests, where police typically search the suspect during the arrest process.
As long as the original arrest was based on probable cause, these searches are valid due to:
The need for officers to find and confiscate any weapons.
The need to protect any evidence on the suspect’s person from destruction.
United States v. Robinson (1973): Established the validity of searches incidental to an arrest.
Chimel v. California (1969): Set guidelines for the extent of searches during arrest, limiting searches to areas within the suspect's immediate control.
Searches with Consent
Consent searches occur when individuals voluntarily give law enforcement permission to search.
Factors determining the voluntariness of consent include:
The age, intelligence, and physical condition of the consenting suspect.
Any coercive behavior by the police.
The length and location of questioning.
If coercion is found, the search is invalid.
Schneckcloth v. Bustamonte (1973): The court held a consent search valid if the individual voluntarily agrees to the search.
Myth vs. Reality: Drivers have the right to refuse a search; they are not required to consent. In Ohio v. Robinette (1996), the Supreme Court ruled officers do not need to inform individuals that they are free to go unless suspicious activity is present.
Recent Developments
Warrantless searches are subject to ongoing legal scrutiny, especially regarding:
Digital devices on the border: Cursory searches are permitted, but detailed searches require reasonable suspicion.
Blood tests in DUI cases: The Supreme Court ruled that warrants are necessary for blood tests without probable cause.
Homes over the objection of an absent resident: The Court ruled that consent from an occupant suffices for a warrantless search even if another occupant objects.
Exceptions to the Search Warrant Requirement
Diagram: Circumstances under which warrantless searches are typically allowed:
Incident to Lawful Arrest: Police can search areas within the immediate control of the arrested person.
Automobile Exception: Police may search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause.
Consent: Searches can proceed if a person voluntarily agrees.
Plain View: Evidence discovered in plain view during lawful police work can be seized without a warrant.
Stop and Frisk: Officers can conduct a pat-down if they suspect criminal activity.
Abandoned Property: Property that has been discarded can be searched.
Hot Pursuit: Officers can search a building if they are in pursuit of a suspected criminal.
Border Searches: No warrant is required for searches at border crossings.
7-2d Searches of Automobiles
Carroll v. United States (1925): Established that the Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search automobiles or other movable vehicles when they have probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.
Reasoning: Requiring a warrant to search an automobile places too heavy a burden on police. Evidence could be destroyed before a warrant is obtained.
Expectation of Privacy: Those in vehicles do not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as people at home or in a phone booth.
Warrantless Searches of Automobiles
For nearly three decades, police believed that a lawful arrest of the driver allowed a warrantless search of the entire vehicle based on New York v. Benton (1981).
Arizona v. Gant (2009) clarified that such searches are allowed only in two situations:
The person being arrested is close enough to the car to grab or destroy evidence or a weapon inside.
The arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertaining to the arrest.
Example: An officer cannot search a car for contraband if the driver was arrested for failing to pay tickets, unless evidence could be destroyed.
Non-Arrest Situations
Police can still conduct a warrantless search based on other circumstances, such as:
Probable Cause: If there is probable cause of criminal activity.
Consent: If the driver gives consent to search.
Protective Searches: Searches for weapons if officers have reasonable suspicion that weapons exist.
Mistaken Notion of Law: Warrantless searches can be valid even if based on a misunderstanding of the law. Example: A traffic stop for a broken brake light led to a lawful search that revealed cocaine, even though no violation had occurred.
Pretextual Stops
What Are They?: Officers can use minor traffic violations to initiate a stop, even if they suspect more serious criminal behavior.
Example: In Stearns County, a rolling stop justified stopping a vehicle, leading to the discovery of marijuana.
Officer’s “true” motivation is irrelevant as long as there is probable cause for the initial traffic stop.
Container Searches
Officers have significant leeway for warrantless searches of containers in vehicles when they have probable cause.
Example: Officers searched the trunk of a suspected drug dealer's car without a warrant after receiving a reliable tip and found heroin.
Limits: Police cannot search areas without probable cause that are unrelated to the items being investigated.
Justice John Paul Stevens Opinion: Probable cause for someone’s transportation does not justify a search of a suitcase without more specific evidence.
7-2e The Plain View Doctrine
Learning Objective 5: Describe the plain view doctrine and indicate one of its limitations.
The Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, offers limited protection to evidence that is in plain view.
Definition and Application
The plain view doctrine allows law enforcement to seize evidence without a warrant if certain criteria are met:
Item Visibility: The item is positioned to be easily detected by an officer’s sight or some other sense.
Legal Presence: The officer is legally in a position to notice the item.
Inadvertent Discovery: The discovery of the item is inadvertent; the officer did not intend to find it.
Recognition of Illegality: The officer immediately recognizes that the item is illegal.
Example: If a traffic officer pulls over a speeding vehicle and sees a bag of heroin on the passenger seat, they can seize the drugs without a warrant under the plain view doctrine.
Limitations of the Doctrine
No Further Investigation: No interrogation or further investigation is allowed under the plain view doctrine.
Technological Considerations
Advances in technology, such as thermal imagers, raise new issues regarding the plain view doctrine.
Thermal Imagers: Detect infrared radiation and are effective for identifying indoor marijuana cultivation due to heat emitted by grow lights.
Fourth Amendment Implications: The Supreme Court ruled that an item is not in plain view if law enforcement requires technology to detect it. - Therefore, information from a thermal imager alone is not sufficient justification for a warrantless search.
7-2f Electronic Surveillance
During criminal investigations, law enforcement may use electronic surveillance, including wiretaps and hidden microphones, to monitor conversations and observe movements.
Basic Rules: Consent and Probable Cause
Fourth Amendment Prohibition: Electronic surveillance is generally prohibited by the Fourth Amendment due to its invasiveness.
Berger v. New York (1967): Established that electronic surveillance is permissible under certain circumstances.
Katz v. United States: Recorded conversations are inadmissible unless specific procedures are followed.
Requirements for Electronic Surveillance:
Consent must be given by one party being monitored or a warrant must be obtained.
Warrant Requirements:
Detail the conversations to be overheard.
Name suspects and places under surveillance.
Show probable cause for belief that a crime has or will be committed.
Duration of Surveillance: Surveillance must end immediately after specific information is gathered and cannot last more than thirty days without judicial extension.
Foreign Surveillance
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Governs government electronic monitoring for national security purposes.
Allows eavesdropping on foreign communications without a court order for up to a year if for national security.
If wrongdoing by an American citizen is uncovered, judicial authorization must be obtained within seventy hours.
Targets classified as foreign agents require special court permission for surveillance.
Controversy: FISA amendments permit warrantless eavesdropping on foreign communications, even if an American is involved.
The Patriot Act
Enacted post-9/11 to enhance federal law enforcement's ability to investigate terrorist suspects.
Material Support: Increased penalties for providing aid to foreign terrorist organizations.
Surveillance Expansions Under the Patriot Act:
Section 201: Wiretap communications of suspected terrorists.
Section 204: Easier to get warrants for searching stored emails.
Section 206: Roving wiretap provision; specific places do not need to be identified.
Section 213: Sneak-and-peek provision removes notice requirement for searches.
Section 215: Allows access to business and other records without showing probable cause if related to terrorism.
Constitutional Concerns
In the mid-2010s, revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA under Section 215 led to public outcry and the end of bulk data collection.
However, the NSA can still gather phone/text records linked to terrorist suspects.
Local Police Usage: Seventy-five percent of local police utilize some type of electronic surveillance, including:
Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR): Matches license plates against databases for stolen cars.
Surveillance Cameras: Monitor city streets for real-time or recorded images of criminal activity.
Drones: Used for search and rescue, crime scene investigations, and law enforcement purposes.
Privacy Concerns: Critics argue surveillance methods allow constant tracking of Americans regardless of criminal status.
Supreme Court Case: United States v. Jones emphasized that prolonged GPS surveillance raises Fourth Amendment issues.
General Rule: No search warrant is needed for short-duration surveillance in public areas, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in those situations.
7-2g Cell Phones and the Fourth Amendment
The pervasiveness of cell phones in everyday life raises questions about privacy and police searches due to the significant amount of personal information stored on these devices.
Searching Cell Phones
California v. Riley (2014): The Supreme Court ruled that police officers need a warrant to search the contents of a suspect's cell phone following an arrest.
Unlike physical items like wallets or cigarette packets, cell phones contain vast personal information deserving greater protection.
Justifications for warrantless searches (deletion of data and endangerment) do not apply to cell phones since the information won't endanger anyone and can't be deleted once secured by police.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts recognized the ruling might impact law enforcement's crime-fighting abilities, emphasizing that privacy comes at a cost.
Police must obtain a warrant or consent from the phone owner to conduct cell phone searches.
Cybersecurity and Criminal Justice
Encryption: iPhones are encrypted and can only be unlocked with the owner's password, a measure that complicates police efforts to access evidence when the password isn't available.
Example: In the case of Mohammed Alshamrani, who was involved in a shooting at a naval base, the FBI sought access to his iPhones, but Apple refused to unlock them due to its commitment to privacy and concerns about creating vulnerabilities.
Debate exists over whether companies should be required to create ways for the government to access encrypted devices with valid search warrants, balancing privacy rights with law enforcement needs.
Tracking Cell Phones
Carpenter v. United States (2018): The Supreme Court extended the warrant requirement to cell phone tracking.
The case involved Timothy Carpenter, whose conviction was based on 127 days of cell phone records that tracked his locations related to a series of robberies.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted that cell phone tracking represents near-perfect surveillance of an individual’s private life.
The Court ruled this information is entitled to Fourth Amendment privacy protections and cannot be collected without a warrant except in emergencies.