Search and Seizure and the Doctrine of Justification Study Notes

The learner will:

Discern the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion
Explain probable cause as it relates to search warrants
Explain the inception of the right to privacy
Explain the inclusions and exceptions to the right of privacy
Examine the right of privacy as it relates and does not relate to technology
Discuss the issue of privacy versus governmental invasion as it relates to the U.S. Constitution
Explain the considerations for determination of probable cause in the case of a warrant
Examine the parameters of staleness, vicinage, and particularity in search warrants
Explain the types of warrants

The passage of the Magna Carta in 1215 initiated a process leading to the due process of law, preventing arbitrary detention by the government.
The Magna Carta introduced the concept of "reasonable grounds," establishing a foundation for the American concept of probable cause.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution aimed to protect individuals' rights through the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment.

Ratified in 1791, the Fourth Amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Amendment has received extensive judicial interpretation, focusing on the following areas:
- Distinguishing searches from seizures
- Doctrines of justification
- Expectation of privacy
- Warrant Clause
- Remedies for violations

The Fourth Amendment protections attach only to:
1. Government actions in private areas.
2. Investigations by government entities or those under supervision by state actors.
Traditional definitions are associated with physical intrusion into homes or areas of property interest.
The Supreme Court extended protections in Katz v. United States (1967), establishing that intangible items and areas accessed without physical intrusion may also be protected.

Search: An examination of an individual’s person, property, or area with a reasonable expectation of privacy by law enforcement.
Seizure: A government action that meaningfully interferes with an individual's possessory interests in property.
Actual possession: Physically holding an object, e.g., drugs in one's mouth.
Constructive possession: Possessing something without physical contact, e.g., drugs in a closet.

The Fourth Amendment requires a balance between individual rights and community interests, with probable cause being the baseline standard.
There are three levels of justification:
1. Probable Cause: Requires a reasonable person to conclude that a crime has been committed or evidence exists.
2. Reasonable Suspicion: A lower standard, requiring a reasonable belief that criminal activity is occurring or will occur.
3. Administrative Justification: Justification for limited searches where public safety outweighs individual privacy rights, e.g., health inspections.

Defined as the standard needed for arrests, search warrants, and sometimes for detainment. It involves believable grounds to suspect criminal activity, but does not require certainty.
Supreme Court Rulings:
- Carroll v. United States: Established that probable cause exists when facts are sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief of a crime.
- Brinegar v. United States (1949): Identified probable cause as dealing with probabilities, not technical definitions.
- Illinois v. Gates (1983): Shifted to a "totality of the circumstances" test for evaluating probable cause, focusing on practical and common sense rather than rigid criteria.

Introduced in Terry v. Ohio, this standard is less than probable cause, allowing temporary investigative detentions based on specific and articulable facts.

The Court has recognized situations where limited searches for administrative purposes are allowed, such as health inspections and safety-related searches in schools and heavily regulated industries.

This legal concept identifies areas where individuals have a reasonable expectation against government intrusion. The expectation of privacy can cover:
- Homes: Highest expectation of privacy.
- Automobiles: Lower expectation due to mobile nature and societal norms.
- Abandoned property: Generally no expectation of privacy.
Key Supreme Court Cases: Olmstead v. United States (1928) (no expectation in eavesdropped phone calls), Katz v. United States (1967) (established people's right to privacy in certain spaces).

Required under the Fourth Amendment under various conditions:
- Must be supported by probable cause with specific statements in documents.
- Judicial approval sought before searches or arrests, subject only to rare exceptions.

Anticipatory Search Warrants: Issued before evidence arrives at a location; must outline specific triggering events for executing the warrant.
Sneak-and-Peak Warrants: Allow warrantless entries for surveillance without immediate notification; concerns over privacy exist despite upheld constitutionality.
No-Knock Warrants: Enable officers to enter without alerting occupants, issued under circumstances demanding immediate entry due to the risk of evidence destruction or harm to officers.
Nighttime Search Warrants: Permitted in specific circumstances beyond regular daytime execution of warrants, based on established probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from arbitrary government intrusion while balancing societal interests. The evolving legal landscape, including technological advancements, presents challenges that require ongoing judicial interpretation and adaptation to maintain appropriate standards of privacy.