Chapter 4: Searches and Seizures - Key Concepts

Fourth Amendment

  • Defines the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrants require probable cause, oath/affirmation, and particular description of place to be searched and items to be seized.
  • Applies to persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Basic Limitation on Searches

  • Searches must be narrow in scope; general searches are unconstitutional.
  • Officers must know and operate within the law; consequences for noncompliance are severe.
  • Evidence from illegal searches is not admissible at trial.

Exclusionary Rule

  • Weeks v. United States (1914): Courts may not admit evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure; initially not applicable to states.
  • Mapp v. Ohio (1967): Exclusionary Rule made applicable to all states.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

  • Evidence derived from an earlier illegality must be excluded.
  • Courts aim to deter illegal police conduct; there are two exceptions to the doctrine (one example discussed elsewhere).

Inevitable Discovery

  • Nix v. Williams (1984): If illegally obtained evidence would have been discovered lawfully anyway, it may be admitted.
  • Rationale: Exclusion would not enhance integrity or fairness in such cases.

Justification for Reasonable Searches

  • Searches with a warrant are valid if issued properly.
  • Other justifications: consent, stop of a suspicious person who may be armed, incident to a lawful arrest, emergency, and parole/probation.

Good Faith

  • United States v. Leon (1984): Good-faith exception; illegally obtained evidence may be admissible if police acted with objective good faith and were truly unaware of a violation; applies to search warrants.

Warrants

  • Probable Cause: facts and circumstances known to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe that crime-related evidence is at the place or on the person to be searched.
  • Needs to be more than a mere hunch; less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Informants

  • Aguilar v. Texas (1964): Two-prong test—informant reliability and information believability.
  • Illinois v. Gates (1983): Replaced with the Totality of the Circumstances test.

Totality of the Circumstances

  • The court considers the sum of all factors to determine whether probable cause exists.

Search Warrants (Grounds)

  • Penal Code 1524 outlines grounds to obtain a search warrant: stolen/embezzled property; used to commit a felony; possessed with intent to commit a felony; possession by another to conceal or prevent discovery; evidence tending to show a felony; evidence of sexual exploitation of a child; warrant to arrest a person.

Anticipatory Warrant

  • Warrants based on probable evidence that a particular result will occur (e.g., seizure of specified items when a triggering condition happens).

Knock and Notice

  • Wilson v. Arkansas (1995): Announce presence before entering a residence.
  • Purposes: protect privacy, reduce risk of violence, prevent destruction of private property.
  • Must be voluntary and freely given.
  • Search limited to the area covered by consent.
  • Consent should be a general request; can revoke consent at any time during the search.

Pat Down Frisk

  • Exception to the warrant requirement when investigating suspicious circumstances or identifying a suspect from an APB.
  • Reasonable suspicion required.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

  • Established the pat-down (frisk) for weapons for officer safety.
  • Upheld when: carrying suspicious objects, vague answers, failure to identify, appearing out of place.

Incident to Arrest

  • Protective Sweep: Supreme Court recognized for officer safety; requires reasonable suspicion and limited to areas where a person might be hiding.

Exigent Circumstances

  • New York v. Quarles (1984): Exceptions to the warrant requirement to protect life, prevent destruction of property, prevent destruction of evidence, or prevent suspect escape.

Vehicle Searches

  • New York v. Belton (1981): Bright-line rule; after probable cause to arrest, it is reasonable to search the entire passenger compartment for safety and evidence preservation.
  • Arizona v. Gant (2008): A vehicle search incident to arrest is reasonable if: the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search; or the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the arrestee was arrested.
  • Pretext Stops; Inventory Searches: Additional vehicle search considerations.

Plain View / Plain Feel / Plain Smell / Plain Hearing

  • Plain View: Warrantless seizures of contraband or evidence when officers are lawfully present.
  • Plain Feel: Extends Plain View; during a lawful pat-down, if an object is immediately identifiable as contraband, it may be seized.
  • Plain Smell: Some contraband has distinct smells allowing seizure.
  • Plain Hearing: Information overheard can be used as evidence.

Use of Dogs

  • Valuable force multiplier: dogs trained to detect drugs, explosives, cadavers, etc.; assist in locating suspects and evidence.