Ch. 3 Study Notes on Search and Seizure
Chapter 3: Introduction to Search and Seizure
Part I: Overview of the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment
The text of The Fourth Amendment is as follows:
"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."
This amendment enforces the notion that “each man’s home is his castle.”
It is inherited from British law, aimed at preventing unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Key Components of the Fourth Amendment
Reasonableness Clause: Protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Warrant Clause: States that warrants shall only be issued based on probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, detailing the specific place to be searched and the persons or things involved.
Part II: Search Exceptions and Trends
The Three Exceptions to Search
Details on specific exceptions that allow searches without a warrant or probable cause.
Recent Trends Regarding the Fourth Amendment
Examination of recent judicial decisions and patterns that reflect evolving interpretations of the amendment.
Administrative Justification
The need for balancing individual privacy against societal interests in certain regulatory contexts.
Terry vs. Ohio (1968)
Landmark case establishing rules for the stop-and-frisk standard: reasonable suspicion.
Detailed Analysis of the Fourth Amendment
Reasonableness Clause vs. Warrant Clause
Relatedness and Separation: Both clauses are related, but operationally separate:
Related: A warrant must generally be secured before conducting a search; searches can only be lawful if they are warranted by probable cause.
Separated: Warrantless searches could be legal if probable cause existed at the time of search.
Warrant Preference View: While warrants should generally be obtained when possible, exceptions exist (e.g., emergencies, public safety concerns) where warrants might not be required.
Probable Cause
Probable cause is a critical standard for searches and arrests, defined as:
A set of facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that a search is necessary to gather evidence, or that a suspect should be arrested.
It is characterized by:
Being more than mere suspicion or a hunch.
It relies on a totality of the circumstances approach, which evaluates all relevant facts.
Defined legally as:
“The facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.”
A standard of more than 50% certainty is required, often equated to the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence.
Factors Establishing Probable Cause
Factors that may indicate probable cause include:
Prior record
Examples such as previous convictions for similar activities or known offender actions.
Flight from the scene
Evasion behaviors such as running upon sighting police or departing a property known for illegal activities.
Suspicious conduct
Indicators like failure to maintain eye contact or extreme nervousness around police.
Admissions
Individuals making self-incriminating statements.
Incriminating evidence
Items like drug paraphernalia or stolen goods in possession.
Unusual hour
Activity during off-hours that raises suspicion, e.g., late-night presence near a theft scene.
Suspect resemblance
Physical matching or situational parallels to descriptions of suspects.
Evasive and untruthful responses
Instances of suspects providing false information regarding identity or alibi.
Obvious attempts to hide something
For example, flushing toilets or concealing items when police arrive.
Presence in high-crime areas
Being located near recent crime locations adds to probable cause conditions.
Furtive gestures
Actions that indicate suspicious intentions, such as quick movements to conceal items.
Knowing too much
Providing details only a perpetrator might know.
Understanding “Search” in a Legal Context
Definition of a Search
A search constitutes a government actor infringing on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Law enforcement actions that enter someone's privacy legally require a search warrant.
Government Agents
Various personnel qualify as government agents, including:
Uniformed police officers
Fire inspectors, OSHA inspectors
Federal mine inspectors
Private law enforcement personnel acting in lieu of police officers.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Supreme Court Interpretation
Defined as the privacy an individual holds in possession or actions, with societal recognition of this privacy as valid.
Case Law: Katz vs. United States (1967)
The court’s decision in this case extended Fourth Amendment protections, specifically addressing wiretapping of public phone booths as an infringement of privacy rights.
Curtilage and Open Fields
Important distinctions in legal privacy expectations:
Open Field: Publicly accessible spaces are not protected.
Curtilage: Areas surrounding a residence that enjoy privacy protections—"the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life" (Oliver v. U.S., 1984).
Factors Determining Curtilage
Factors include proximity to the home, physical barriers like fences, intended use of the area, and measures taken to keep it private.
Enhanced Technological Devices
Legal scrutiny applies to the use of devices like flashlights, drug detection dogs, and GPS tracking:
Usage without a warrant may violate expectations of privacy.
Legal Examples Exploring Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Questions of Privacy:
Assessing whether various scenarios are covered by reasonable expectation of privacy, such as:
A person’s pocket, home, car, and front yard, electronic devices like cell phones, and communications like phone calls.
Search Necessity Assessing Examples:
Situations include searching trash, canine searches on private property, GPS wiretaps, and drone flights over private property.
Case Analysis: Police Canine Searches
Florida v. Jardines (2013)
The Supreme Court identified that using a dog to sniff for drugs on a porch constitutes a search, necessitating a warrant since the porch is considered curtilage.
Rodriguez v. United States (2015)
Determined dog sniffing during a lawful traffic stop is considered a search.
Recent Trends in the Fourth Amendment
Drone and Aircraft Surveillance
Rulings state that police flyovers for evidence gathering do not require a warrant when conducted from a permissible altitude.
Undercover Operations
Legal standards state whether a search is legal often hinges on the voluntary disclosure of information by subjects, citing cases such as Hoffa v. United States (1966) and United States v. On Lee (1952).
The Third-Party Doctrine
Includes notable cases such as:
United States v. Miller (1976): Weather individuals can claim privacy over bank records.
Carpenter v. United States (2018): Privacy expectations regarding cell phone location data on cell site records.
Administrative Justification and Reasonable Suspicion
Administrative Justification
Used to allow certain searches based on balancing individual privacy interests with society's public safety interests.
Reasonable Suspicion
Standard lower than probable cause, requiring specific articulable facts for police procedures such as stop-and-frisk.
Tied to the landmark case Terry v. Ohio (1968), focusing on permissible searches aimed at weapon detection, not illegal substances.
Summary
The Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, setting a framework for understanding privacy expectations and the standards that guide law enforcement activities.