Detailed Study Notes: The Fourth Amendment, Arrests, and Use of Force
Fourth Amendment Foundations for Arrest and Seizure
The Fourth Amendment governs the legal requirements for search and seizure. This includes the seizure of physical property and the seizure of persons, more commonly known as arrest.
Under the Fourth Amendment, a distinction is drawn between a brief investigative stop and a formal arrest.
Following the precedent set in Terry v. Ohio, the court developed the concept of "reasonable suspicion."
Reasonable Suspicion: A standard lower than probable cause that allows a police officer to temporarily detain an individual on the spot for a brief period to investigate potential criminal activity.
The Escalation Process: A legal stop must be valid at its inception and can only be escalated into an arrest if the officer develops "probable cause" during the detention.
Definitions: Probable Cause and Hearsay
Probable Cause:
This is the all-important phrase originating directly from the Fourth Amendment.
Verbatim Definition: Facts—not hunches—that would lead a "reasonable person" to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
The term "believe" signifies a higher threshold of certainty than "suspect."
Probable cause requires articulable facts rather than subjective intuition.
Hearsay:
Verbatim Definition: Secondhand evidence not originating from the personal knowledge of a witness, but from repeating what they have heard others say.
Firsthand (Direct) Knowledge: "I saw him shoot him."
Secondhand (Hearsay) Knowledge: "He told me he saw him shoot him."
While hearsay is generally not admissible as evidence in a trial because it is not considered "competent" or "reliable," the Supreme Court has ruled that hearsay can be used to establish probable cause for an arrest or warrant, provided the use is otherwise "reasonable."
Arrests in the Home: The Warrant Requirement
The level of privacy and protection afforded to homes by the courts is significantly higher than that of automobiles or public spaces.
Payton v. New York (1980):
Facts: Police had probable cause to believe Payton committed a murder, but they did not have a warrant. They entered his home, saw evidence in plain view, and seized it.
Legal Issue: Payton challenged the conviction, arguing the warrantless entry was illegal.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits any entry into a home without a warrant, except in cases of an emergency.
Application: In Payton's case, there was no indication of flight or immediate danger; therefore, the police should have gone to a judge, provided facts under oath, and obtained a warrant.
The Doctrine of Exigent Circumstances
Exigent Circumstances: A legal term meaning "emergency," "quick," or "urgent."
Definition: Circumstances that require prompt action, thereby eliminating the requirement for a warrant.
This doctrine allows police to act without a warrant (though still requiring probable cause) in situations such as:
High-speed chases or fleeing suspects.
Maintaining the safety of the public or officers.
Preventing the destruction of evidence.
Searching vehicles in the field where the mobile nature of the car makes obtaining a warrant impractical.
Case Studies in Exigent Circumstances
Laguna v. Mingi (7th Circuit, 1985):
Facts: Police were pursuing a multiple murderer. They located his car and registered address, entered the home without a warrant, and apprehended him.
Ruling: The search was deemed constitutional based on the gravity of the crime.
Principle: The more serious (graver) the crime, the more latitude the court provides regarding mechanical warrant requirements.
Dissent: Argued that a "case-by-case" flexible standard provides no real standard at all and that police should have obtained a warrant.
Brigham City v. Stuart (Utah Case):
Facts: Police responded to a loud party at . They observed juveniles drinking in a backyard. Through a window, they saw a fight in the kitchen where an adult was punched by a juvenile, causing the victim to spit blood into a sink.
Action: Police entered the back door to stop the violence.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled the entry was reasonable. Although a warrant is usually required for a home, the active fight constituted an exigent circumstance.
Concurrence: Described the case as an "odd fly speck of a case," implying the facts were highly specific and might not easily apply to other scenarios.
Arresting by Force and Deadly Force
While not every arrest involves physical struggle, all arrests involve an element of force or the threat thereof.
Deadly Force: Defined as a restraint capable of producing death (primarily involving the use of firearms by police).
Common Law Evolution:
Old Common Law Rule: Allowed the use of deadly force to apprehend any "fleeing felon."
1960s Modification: The standard began to shift, requiring that the suspect be dangerous and that the use of force not put innocent bystanders in danger.
Constitutional Basis: Claims of excessive force are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable" seizure. If the force used is deemed too much, the seizure is unreasonable.
Pivotal Excessive Force Rulings
Tennessee v. Garner (1985):
Facts: A young African American man (Garner) was suspected of a non-violent burglary. He was unarmed and fleeing down an alley. A police officer shot and killed him as he climbed a fence.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to the use of deadly force. Shooting a suspect is a "seizure."
Standard: It is not reasonable to seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting them dead. Deadly force is restricted to crimes of a very dangerous nature.
Graham v. Connor:
Facts: A diabetic man was experiencing an incident that police mistook for criminal disorderly conduct. The police restrained and jailed him without providing medical treatment, resulting in serious injury.
Legal Shift: The lower court initially applied a "Due Process" standard (Fourteenth Amendment), looking for "good faith."
Supreme Court Ruling: The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is the correct standard for excessive force cases.
Objective Standard of Reasonableness: The conduct must be judged by what a reasonable officer would do on the scene, not by "fundamental fairness" or "good faith."
Recent Applications and Minor Offenses
Kuha v. City of Minnetonka:
Facts: A suspect fled a traffic stop and was subsequently bit severely by a police dog. The police allegedly allowed the dog to continue biting without intervention.
Finding: The Court of Appeals ruled that the reasonableness of the force is an "issue of fact" for a jury to decide. Juries must balance the officer’s actions against the Fourth Amendment standard.
Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984):
Facts: A drunk driver left his car and walked home. Police entered his home without a warrant to arrest him for the DUI.
Ruling: The conviction was reversed. The Court established a "presumption of unreasonableness" for warrantless home entries when the offense is relatively minor.
Principle: The gravity of the offense is a key factor in determining if a warrant is necessary. Minor crimes require a higher adherence to the warrant requirement.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista:
Facts: Atwater was arrested and jailed for a seatbelt violation (a minor criminal offense in that jurisdiction).
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that if a person commits a criminal violation—no matter how minor—an arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Dissent: Argued that since the crime carried only a fine and no jail time, custodial arrest was an unreasonable seizure.
Summary of Chapter Five Key Principles
Probable Cause: The mandatory standard for arrests and warrants.
Hearsay Compatibility: Hearsay is acceptable for probable cause; reliability is determined by the "two-pronged test" and the "totality of the circumstances" (referencing the Draper case).
Force Standard: Excessive force is measured by the Fourth Amendment’s "objective reasonableness," not the Fourteenth Amendment’s "Due Process."
Home Protection: A warrant is always required for home entry unless rare "exigent circumstances" exist.