Search and seizures notes

Introduction to the topic as part of Chapter 3, building on the previous video about the 4th Amendment.
The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, establishing conditions under which officers can act.

Adopted from Katz v. United States (1967), which established the standard for privacy expectations.
Overruled Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) which was based on property rights.
- Katz case focused on individuals' rights to privacy over mere property protections.
- A warrant is required for searches in places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Two-Part Test for Expectation of Privacy:
- Subjective Approach: An individual must exhibit a personal expectation of privacy.
- Objective Approach: Society recognizes that expectation of privacy.

Courts have ruled no reasonable expectation of privacy when talking to informants or undercover agents (false friends).
Key Case: Hoffa v. U.S.
- Jimmy Hoffa confided in a person who was wired.
- Ruling: 4th Amendment does not protect a person’s belief of confidentiality when sharing information with someone who may disclose it.

Warrant Exception: Officers can seize evidence of a crime in plain view if legally present and if the object is immediately apparent as evidence.
Key Case: Arizona v. Hicks
- Officers entered without a warrant, saw a stereo, moved it to read the serial number, found it stolen.
- Ruling: Not a plain view search because it was not immediately apparent; evidence thrown out.

Open Fields: Lack expectation of privacy.
- Key Case: Oliver v. U.S.
  - Police found marijuana in open fields, ruled that individuals do not have an expectation of privacy in open fields.
  - Courts emphasized the accessibility of open fields to the public.
Curtilage: Space immediately surrounding the home, protected under 4th Amendment.
- Factors to Determine Curtilage (United States v. Dunn):
  - Distance: Proximity to home.
  - Enclosure: Is it within a fenced area?
  - Function: Activities that normally take place in the area.
  - Protection: Efforts made to protect the space.
- In Dunn, a barn outside the home’s fence determined as open field; search deemed unconstitutional.

4th Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Definition of Seizure: Detaining an individual restricting freedom of movement.
- Importance of seizure validity ties to legality of subsequent actions (statements, searches).

1. Encounter: No justification needed. Noncoercive interaction.
2. Investigative Stop (Terry Stop): Reasonable suspicion needed for limited frisk for safety.
3. Arrest: Requires probable cause for full-body searches.
- Distinction:
  - Reasonable Suspicion: Belief a crime is about to occur.
  - Probable Cause: Reasonable conclusion one has committed a crime.

Courts consider totality of circumstances in determining if a seizure has occurred.
Key Case: United States v. Mendenhall
- Involves a voluntary encounter with drug agents leading to drug possession charges.
- Court ruled no 4th Amendment seizure occurred, thus probable cause arose after consent to search.

A reasonable person’s perception of their freedom to leave depends on officer demeanor and circumstances.
Case Studies:
- Factory Sweeps: Court ruled not a seizure as workers could freely move within the factory.
- Bus Sweeps: Florida v. Bostick; the encounter's nature essential to determining if a reasonable person would feel free to decline a search request.

Law surrounding searches and seizures is complex; cannot encompass all cases in a short review.
Encouragement to reach out with questions or for clarification on the topic.