Chapter 12: Searches, Seizures, and Arrests
Chapter 12: Searches, Seizures, and Arrests
The Fourth Amendment (1 of 7)
Fourth Amendment Definition:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .”
Requires that all searches be reasonable.
Some searches may be conducted without a warrant if there is probable cause.
A small number of searches require both probable cause and a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment (2 of 7)
Violating Fourth Amendment Rights:
Remedies for violations can include:
Invoke the exclusionary rule.
File a civil action under constitutional tort theory.
Request criminal prosecution by state and federal authorities.
Complain to an officer’s department or relevant officials to seek administrative discipline.
The Fourth Amendment (3 of 7)
Privacy and Property:
Addresses whether the amendment applies at all:
Any person acting on the government’s behalf is subject to constitutional constraints.
Determined if an actual search and seizure has occurred:
Katz v. United States (1967):
Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
Developed a two-part test for determining if the Fourth Amendment is implicated:
An individual must have a subjective expectation of privacy.
That expectation must be objectively reasonable.
Defined a search as any infringement upon a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Noted that privacy rights do not extend to open public spaces such as parks.
The Fourth Amendment (4 of 7)
Key Case Law:
Jones v. United States (2012):
Involves the use of a GPS tracking device;
The Fourth Amendment applies when police trespass on legally recognized property rights or invade a space with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Florida v. Jardines (2013):
Involves the use of a police dog sniff;
Established that government use of trained police dogs to investigate homes and surrounding areas constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment (5 of 7)
Probable Cause:
Defined as the minimum amount of evidence necessary for a search, seizure, or arrest to be legally sound under the Fourth Amendment.
Lacks a universally accepted definition; it is context-sensitive:
More than mere hunches but less than evidence necessary for guilty verdicts at trial.
Sources for Establishing Probable Cause:
Police observations,
Hearsay evidence,
Witness and victim statements,
Other law enforcement officers,
Informants (individuals knowledgeable of a crime due to involvement).
Innuendo or conjecture cannot be considered.
The Fourth Amendment (6 of 7)
Levels of Proof in Criminal Law:
Reasonable Suspicion:
Supports temporary detention and frisks.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
Standard required for conviction in a trial.
Clear and Convincing Evidence:
Required to establish certain facts in trial situations.
Preponderance of Evidence:
Requires a standard of more likely true than not; approximately 51% confidence.
The Fourth Amendment (7 of 7)
Sources Used to Establish Probable Cause:
Police observations,
Hearsay evidence,
Witness and victim statements,
Statements from other law enforcement officers,
Informants:
Florida v. J.L (2000):
An anonymous tip must be reliable and include "predictive information" to allow police to assess the informant's credibility effectively.
Searches and Seizures (1 of 5)
Warrant Requirement:
Protects citizens from excessive law enforcement actions, an essential element of the Fourth Amendment.
Warrantless searches are permitted under certain circumstances.
Aguilar v. Texas (1964):
Emphasized more weight on the magistrate’s findings, requiring less evidence to sustain a search if a warrant is previously obtained.
United States v. Leon (1984):
Determined that the good faith reliance of an officer on a facially valid warrant is paramount, applying to searches and seizures made under that warrant.
Searches and Seizures (2 of 5)
Requirements for Obtaining a Warrant:
Must establish probable cause indicating the sought items will likely be found in the specified area.
The items sought must be linked to criminal activity.
The area to be searched must be specifically outlined.
Facts supporting probable cause must be corroborated by an oath or affirmation.
A neutral and detached magistrate must issue the warrant.
Searches and Seizures (3 of 5)
Executing Warrants:
Generally, warrants should be executed during daytime.
Officers must knock and announce their presence before entering premises:
A no-knock entry is justified only if police have reasonable suspicion that announcing would be dangerous, futile or could impede evidence preservation.
After a search is performed, police are required to inventory seized items.
Searches and Seizures (4 of 5)
Searches Incident to Arrest and Protective Sweep:
US v. Robinson (1973):
At lawful arrests, full searches of the defendant’s person can occur without a warrant.
Chimel v. California (1969):
Searches incident to arrest are limited to areas within the immediate control of the suspect (preventing rummaging through entire houses without a warrant).
Maryland v. Buie (1990):
Allows for protective sweeps during arrests limited to spaces where a person might be found, contingent upon reasonable belief that the area harbors an individual posing a danger.
Searches and Seizures (5 of 5)
Key Case Law in Searches:
Muehler v. Mena (2005):
Upheld that safety concerns permit police to detain occupants during searches, even for extended durations (2-3 hours).
New York v. Belton (1981):
Post-arrest for someone in a vehicle, police can search the car and its compartments, including containers found.
Arrest and Seizure (1 of 4)
Seizure Definition:
Occurs when police interfere with a person’s possessory interests or reasonable expectation of privacy.
Specific mention of seizure of a person arises when police show force that a reasonable person perceives as limiting their freedom to leave.
Brendlin v. California (2007):
When a vehicle is stopped, both the driver and passengers are considered seized under the Fourth Amendment, allowing them protection against unreasonable seizure.
Arrest and Seizure (2 of 4)
Warrant Preference:
Most arrests occur without a warrant.
United States v. Watson (1976):
Established that warrantless arrests in public spaces are legally acceptable under probable cause.
Arrest in Protected Areas:
Arrest warrants cannot authorize entry into third-party private properties without consent.
Warrant required unless owner permits entry; exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry for arrest.
Payton v. New York (1980):
Asserted a valid arrest warrant gives limited rights to enter a suspect’s home if there is probable belief the suspect is present.
Arrest and Seizure (3 of 4)
Misdemeanor Arrests:
Clear Misdemeanor Arrests:
Breaches of peace.
Unclear Misdemeanor Arrests:
Pertained to cases unresolved until 2001; Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001): Officers with probable cause for a minor crime may arrest the suspect without infringing on Fourth Amendment rights.
Arrest and Seizure (4 of 4)
Use of Force/ Use of a Gun by Police:
Torres v. Madrid (2021):
Defined that applying physical force intending to restrain is a seizure, regardless of the success in subduing the individual.
No distinction made between grasping with a hand versus using other methods of physical force; intent to restrain must be objectively visible and lasts as long as the force is applied.
Warrant for Arrest (1 of 4)
Executing Arrest Warrants:
The knock-and-announcement requirement applies whether police enter by force or not.
No-knock warrants are permissible only under exceptional conditions.
Illegal Arrests:
United States v. Toscanino (1974):
Outrageous government conduct can lead to a defendant’s release.
Taylor v. Alabama (1982): Evidence obtained post-illegal arrest may be excluded even if the individual's person cannot be.
Warrant for Arrest (2 of 4)
Warrant for Arrest (3 of 4)
Warrant for Arrest (4 of 4)
Remedying Fourth Amendment Violations
Franks Hearing:
Franks v. Delaware (1978): Provides defendants a right to a hearing if they show that false evidence was utilized in obtaining a warrant.
To succeed, defendants must prove the falsehood by a preponderance of the evidence.
Upon proving falsehood, the trial judge must determine if probable cause still exists; if no longer valid, the evidence is excluded.
Ethical Considerations
Police Ethics:
Law enforcement officers are bound by departmental rules, as well as local, state, and federal laws.
The Constitution is an essential framework in guiding police actions; responsibilities are emphasized in police conduct within the International Association of Police Chiefs.