Lesson 11
Context for Searches and Seizure Rights
The framework for search and seizure rights arose from a historical context, specifically as a reaction to British abuses of power.
Writs of Assistance: These were general warrants utilized by British agents to perform indiscriminate searches of ships and houses aimed at ending smuggling.
The Writs granted agents complete discretion regarding search and seizure decisions, significantly broader than standard search warrants.
Standard search warrants are required to identify specific items and locations to be searched. However, Writs of Assistance extended far beyond such constraints.
During the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the Framers successfully passed the 4th Amendment to address these concerns.
4th Amendment
The 4th 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 Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Trespass Doctrine
Trespass Doctrine (Traditional Approach): This doctrine indicates that the 4th Amendment protects individuals from physical intrusions upon their person, real property, or possessions.
Key Case: Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Presiding Judge: Taft
The case involved warrantless wiretapping, wherein no physical intrusion occurred on Olmstead’s property.
Court Ruling: The court allowed warrantless wiretapping, asserting that the 4th Amendment only protects against physical invasions by government entities.
Katz Test
Key Case: Katz v. United States (1967)
Facts: Police recorded Charles Katz' phone conversations made from a public telephone booth using an external listening device.
The traditional Trespass Doctrine would only address physical intrusions into one’s home or an enclosure.
Court's Ruling: The 4th Amendment protects 'people, not places'; therefore, if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their words or actions, they are protected from government intrusion.
Katz Test Definition: The test encompasses two critical components:
Subjective expectation of privacy - An individual’s belief that their privacy should be respected;
Objective expectation of privacy - The recognition by society that a person's expectation is reasonable.
Notably, a physical trespass is not necessary to activate the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment.
Exceptions to Katz Test
Third-Party Exception: Generally, an individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information shared with third parties (e.g., telecommunications and internet service providers).
General Public Use Doctrine: Information obtained through technology widely utilized by the public is typically not protected.
Trespass Doctrine - Expanded Interpretation
Key Case: Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Presiding Judge: Scalia
Facts: Involved the utilization of a thermal imaging device that scanned a house.
Court’s Ruling: The court determined that the use of the thermal imaging device violated the 4th Amendment since it constituted a trespass into the privacy of a home.
It was held that any government intrusion into the home, even if minor, breaches the 4th Amendment.
The assertion made: "In the home… the entire area is held safe from prying government eyes."
What Constitutes an Unreasonable Search and Seizure?
Key Case: Florida v. Jardines (2013)
Facts: A drug-sniffing dog alerted police to the presence of drugs while on the porch of a home, leading to a warrant search that revealed marijuana.
Court’s Ruling: The dog sniff was deemed an unreasonable and warrantless search violating the 4th Amendment due to the combination of the trespass doctrine and the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Specifically, regions immediately surrounding and adjacent to a home, recognized as the “curtilage,” are protected areas.
Situations Without Expectation of Privacy
Key Cases:
Morrison v. Olson: An overnight guest in another’s residence retains a legitimate expectation of privacy.
Minnesota v. Carter: Visitors who briefly bagged cocaine at a home did not possess a legitimate expectation of privacy due to the presence of police with a warrant; simply visiting for a few hours does not guarantee a right to privacy.
Searches and Seizures: Essentials
The 4th Amendment safeguards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.
For a defendant to claim a violation of the 4th Amendment, two conditions must be met:
Government Conduct - The involvement of government or police in the search or seizure.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy - The defendant must have some ownership or possessory interest in the items searched or the locations involved.
Searches and Seizures: Warrants
A search and seizure by the government must be founded on a valid warrant.
Warrant Requirements:
Must be based on probable cause for issuance.
Supported by an oath or affirmation.
Must precisely describe the area to be searched and the individuals or items to be seized.
Must originate from a neutral magistrate.
Searches and Seizures: Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion
Probable Cause (Higher Standard): Exists when a reasonable person has sufficient facts to conclude that it is more likely than not that a crime has occurred and that the accused committed it.
Reasonable Suspicion (Lower Standard): Requires police to have specific, articulable facts suggesting that criminal activity is occurring.
Searches and Seizures: Legal Doctrines Regarding Evidence
Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment cannot be admitted in court.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: Not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also any evidence stemming from it.
Good Faith Exception: Evidence acquired through a defective warrant remains admissible if the police believed in good faith that the warrant was valid.
Searches and Seizures: Exclusionary Rule Extensions
The exclusionary rule is applicable to violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule:
Confessions obtained via Miranda rights violations could be usable solely for impeachment during cross-examination.
Independent Source: When the prosecution has access to a legitimate source for evidence besides the illegal search.
Inevitable Discovery: When evidence would have been discovered regardless of the illegal actions by police.
Defendant’s Intervening Act of Free Will: When a defendant voluntarily returns to the police after being released from an unlawful stop and chooses to confess.
Exceptions to Warrant Requirements
Several exceptions justify warrantless searches and seizures including but not limited to:
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: Police can search a person and areas immediately within their control post-arrest.
Hot Pursuit: Police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon, even into homes.
Evanescent Evidence: Seizure of evidence that would likely disappear before a warrant can be obtained is allowed without a warrant.
Consent: A search is valid if an individual provides voluntary and intelligent consent.
Stop and Frisk (Terry Stop): Police may stop individuals without probable cause if reasonable suspicion exists, and they can frisk for weapons.
Plain View Doctrine: Officers can seize evidence in plain view without a warrant when they are legitimately present.
Exigent Circumstances: Enables entry without a warrant to respond to emergency situations impacting safety.
Automobile Exception: Police can search vehicles without a warrant if they have probable cause to suspect that a vehicle holds contraband or evidence of a crime.
Inventory or Impound Search: Police may perform an inventory search of a vehicle after it’s been impounded.
Police Checkpoint: Roadblocks may be established without individual suspicion, provided they are organized based on a neutral standard related to vehicles.
Specific Exception Cases
Boarder Searches: The reasonable suspicion standard applies at borders, allowing Border Patrol agents to conduct warrantless searches for national security reasons. Permanent checkpoints established by border patrol agencies are constitutional, with locations determined by the agency's discretion.