4th Amendment Unreasonable searches and seizures: Modern Seizure: US v.
Seizure: US v. Medenhall: factors give rise to Probable Cause: TEST Arrest : whether at
courts view 4th amendment as serving one primary function:
limiting the discretion of police and government agents to violate
liberty, privacy, and possessory rights. It limits discretion by
requiring a significant degree of justification before police can
intrude on one of those rights.
KATZ: does person have reasonable expectation of privacy in area
being searched. Reasonable expectation of what he said on the
phone in a phone booth. 4th proctects people, not just places.
Factors considering Search: A. Location(most important) Open
fields(unoccupied and undeveloped areas even if enclosed and
posted with no trespass) have no 4th protection. Activies on
cartilage(adjacent areas to and intimately connected with home
are protected cause ReasonExpectofPriv.
US. v. DUNN: Open field v. Curt test: a. areas proximity to the
home(barn 50 yards from fence surrounding house and 60 from
house itself); b. Area’s ability to be distinct from the home(barn
was outside the fenced in area surrounding the fence, distinct
portion of ranch separate from house. Fence served to demark
area connected to house; c. The use to which areas was made;
used as a drug lab which is not something fairly characterized with
activites and privacies of domestic life like that cops should have
deemed barn as part of house; d. steps taken to prevent person
from observing what lay with area: interior fences were not made
to prevent people from peering in. Someone in open field could
easily see in.
Assumption of Risk: False Friend Doctrine: whether individual
assumed risk that certain info will not be kept private
NOREOFPRIV. Speaker assumes risk of reciepient disloyalty.
Wearing recording device does not violate 4th: assume risk
someone will snitch, but risk must materialize: if friend is listening
to you and police record, but fried never tells police then cant use
it. Pen Registers: records numbers dialed from phone: Pen
registrey not search because individuals using their tele voluntarily
convey numerical info to phone company thus assume risk comp
will reveal info to police. Electronic tracking device Person
travelling in a car on public roads has no reasonable expectation of
privacy in his movements, cause they are open to public.
Usv.Karo: beeper used to reveal activies inside a private
residence, location not open to visual surveillance; that use
invaded REASEXPRIV, beeper enabled police to determine what
they otherwise could not have known. Aerial Survelliance:
CAvCiraolo even though plants in cartilage, no REASONEXPPRI
against airborne observations. Cant expect no one will fly over
property and look down. Thermal Imaging devices: fed tip growing
pot inside home requires high intense lamps. Feds use thermal
imager scan for infared radiation. Certain areas more heat than
others and more than surrounding houses. SEARCH takes place
when gov agent employ device that is not in general public use to
explore details of home that would previously been unknowable
without phys intrusion. BONDvUS: 2prong test:1. indiv by conduct,
has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy:def had actual
expect due to having opaque bag above his seat. 2. is expectation
reasonable: def would expect luggage to be handled by
passengers, doesn’t expect them to feel the bag in exploratory.
Property relevant factor but not dispositive, less exp if not your
car, no search police look at previously protected prop in which
owner voluntarily relinquished her proprietary interest. Social
Custom GEUST: reasonable Exp if overnight guest, visitor no REP.
Drug Sniff dog: sniff discloses only presence or absence of drugs,
only thing dog can detect. Not same as cop seached pocket cause
could have legal contraband. VANTAGE POINT: if standing where
you are allowed to be, anything you see is fair game
SEIZURE: of Person: has been seized if Reasonable person, in light
of surrounding circumstances TOTALITY OF CIR, would have
believed he not free to leave . 2 types: serious is arrest, less ser is
stop. Siez of Thing: interference with individual’s possessory
interest in that property. TERRY STOP: to stop need
REASONABLE SUSPECIION THAT CRIME IS AFOOT, no warrant
required, brief detention ok. Inchoate unparticularized suspicion or
Hunch is not RS, Cant make bold conclusion(must be suspicion
that can be articulated by facts). MUST CONSIDER TOTALITY OF
CIRCUMSTANCE: LOOKS AT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
IDENTIFIED BY OFFICER AS WELL AS DEFERENCE TO OFFICERS
EXPERTISE IN INTERPRETING THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
If RS officer can investigate a bit further. IF stop doesn’t give rise
to PC free to go, if does proceed to arrest. TERRY FRISK: must
follow valid Stop. Need reasonable suspecion that the suspect is
armed and dangerous, cop may do a pat down(frisk for weapons).
REAS: look to inferences drawn from facts in light of experience
TERRY CASE: saw 3 mean go through acts innocent
themselves, taken together warranted further
investigation; though daylight robbery, reasonable
to assume involve weapons. US v. ARVIZU: border agent
terry stop of can on AZ backroad. Agent claim RS occupants traffic
drug. App court says some facts consistent with innocent
behavior( no eye contact) some carry weight, minvans travel
coincided with shift chage and prior use of back road minivan drug
run. SCourt says: quite reasonable driver slowing down and not
making eye contact with agent might be unremarkable in one
instance(SF) quite unusual in another(remote protion of AZ
desert). Quantum of Evidence for RS: can be based on less
evidence than PC and less reliable than PC. Presence in high crime
area not enough to give rise, but if w/ nervous or evasive
Reasonable belief one not free to leave: A.
threatening presence of several officers, B
display of weapon by officer, physical touching
by cop; C. use of language or tone of voice
indicating compliance with cop request might be
compelled. CASE: no seizure agents no uni’s,
displayed no weapons, approached her but no
summoned her to them, requested did not
demand id and ticket, took place in airport. FL v.
Bostick: guy on bus from Mia to ATL, county
practive to board and ask passengers to search
bags. 2 cops with bages one had zipper pouch
with gun. Eye passengers without articulable
suspicion pick out def asked for ID. Id matched
ticket, asked for consent to look in bag, informed
of right to refuse, did not threaten with gun. US
v. Drayton agents board bus at rest stop. No
uni’s, weapons concealed. Aisle left clear, but
one in front. Two others start at back of bus.
Went to def, held bagde to see, 12-18” from
face, loud enough to hear. Id said doing bus
interdiction, DO U HAVE BAGS. Can check? Go
ahead. Noticed baggy clothes, in his experience
consistent w/ drug traff to conceal. Ask mid if
check person, detected hard object similar to
drug packs. Arrested. DEF seized before consent.
NO factors of seizure present. After 1st seized
should put 2nd on notice of consequence of not
terminating encounter. HOW TO KNOW IF
ARREST OR STOP : USE 2 FACTORS: Length of
detention and place of detention. LENGTH: must
be no longer than is necessary to conduct
investigation that justified the stop. USvSharpe:
20 min detention a stop during it cops deligently
pursuing investigation. USvPlace: 90 min detain
of suitcase to long. Longer detained more likely
arrest. PLACE: detention must remain in vicinity
of the stop. FL v. Royer: 15 min stop arrest b/c
man taken from airport to office 40ft away.
Suspect forcibly taken to police station is arrest.
ARREST: must be reasonable: 1.
Seriousness of the offense: authority to
arrest comes fro statue so each juris tells officers
as to which offense arrestable. Minor crimes like
traffic violations do give rise authority to arrest,
even if warrantless, but parking violation
probably not. 2. Level of suspicion: need PC
for full blown arrest which are highly intrusive
seizures of person, as opposed to brief stop on
street. 3. Warrant Required: Governed by
location of the action A. public(no)/
private(yes). In pub place can arrest on PC
w/o warrant. PC either you commiiting a crime
or just commited a crime. No REASEXPPRIV in
pub. B. target’s home or overnight guest(no
SearchW required): if police have arrest
warrant for me and I’m in my home, they don’t
need an additional warrant to enter my home. Or
if overnight guest, cops don’t need SW to enter
home. The fact they have PC to arrest me, I
already have a exp of priv that will be intruded
on. C. 3rd party home(SW and ArrestW
required) need warrant to enter home cuz
invading 3rd party’s privacy. 4. Use of Force:
force must be reasonable( reasonable cop on
scene) depending of circum of case: severity of
crime, whether suspect poses an immediate
threat to safety of officers or others, whether he
is actively resisting arrest of attempting to evade
arrest. UnREASONABLE to use deadly force to
prevent escape of all felony suspect. ONLY TYPE
OF FLEEING FELONG that can be shot are those
who are demonstrably dangeruous(armed with a
weapon, fleeing a violent crime) HIDARI: person
not seized unless stop until physically seized by
officer or submits to a show of authority.
Agular/spinelli plus gates: 1. is inform creditable:
was likely telling truth 2. is info reliable: likely
sound basis of knowledge: totality of cir: balance
rel with credibility.
STUFF ON STATEMENT CONT: brief
questioning on scene ex filed sobriety test to get
PC fo DUR, telling guy how test administered not
question. Long period of time between waiver
and mirand might suggest overcome will.
Knowing: suspects ability to understand the
warnings and consequences of speaking. RIGHT
TO REMAIN SILENT: inherent pressure of police
dominated setting, have while in custody, loose
when leave custody Cops must scrupulously
honor. Cops cant initiate further after invoked
without read Miranda again and have waived.
May question with relation to another offense.
time of arrest; facts and circumstances within
cop’s knowledge, and of which they have
trustworthy info, would warrant a reasonable
prudent man in believing that the suspect had
commited or was committing a crime. Must
articulate those facts in affidavit. TEST
SEARCH: same as above but would warrant
a reasprudent in believing that what/where is
being searched harbors contraband, fruits,
evidence, or instrumentalities of crime.
INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION
REQUIREMENT: generally required for PC
search and seize: that THIS suspect is guilty
of crime, or That THIS PLACE harbors
contraband, fruits, etc. FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES: must be ones cop is
aware of at time of S/S. Cops experience a
factor. MD v. PRINGLE: cop stops for
speeding. Sees cash in glove box when guy
opens to get ID. Cops asks to step out. Finds
coke under armrest. None would claim, cop
arrests all 3 occupants. Pringle not driver who
consented to search. So at time of arrest did
he have PC. YES PC must be belief of guilt
that is particularized to the infor and
individual searched or seized.
REASONABLE COP, facts of case at time of
d’s arrest amount to PC. Focus on
accessibility of drugs to d. Reasonable
inference that one or all 3 occupants could
have knowledge of and exercise dominon and
control over drug. CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSES: proximaty to item, knowledge that
item is there, indicia of intent to exercise
dominion and control. Proximity alone is
sufficient. Court focused on accebility:
Money in front of Pringle, bags of drug
accessible to all three. NOT LIKE
YBARRA: dude in bar cops search for
evidence of owner controlled substance and
find drug. A person mere propinquity to
others independently suspected of crime
doesn’t without more, rise toPC to seach.
Pring diff, small car not public tavern,
reasonable to infer a common enterprise
among 3 men, quantity of cash and drugs
indicated likelihood of drug enterprise. Not
Like DIRE: informant in car with 2 others,
cops search not only guy inform snitched on
but 3rd guy. Everyone on scene of crime is a
party to it must disappear if Gov singles out
guilty. Davenpeck: officer state of
mind(except for facts he knows) irrelevant to
PC. If cops have PC to arrest for one
thing(impersonating) but at time of arrest
believe violating something else, still valid
even though though arrested and intended to
charge with difference offense.
COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE
DOCTRINE: Says an officer can make an
arrest if the facts and circumstances giving
rise to probable cause are in his pers know
OR if he is relying on a warrant or an order
from another officer or judge with probable
cause. *Remember the cop with PC must
convey it!. c. Informant’s TIP – If PC
is based (even in part) on a tip, then
analyze the creditability of the
informant and reliability of the
information in light of the totality of
the circumstances. Use
agular/spinelli plus gates: 1. is
the informant credible: was he likely
to be telling truth; 2. was
information reliable- was it likely to
be telling the truth.
Illinois v Gates: Police got a hand
written letter from an anonymous
person. It said a couple living at a
certain address driving a certain car
would go to FL and get drugs. The
informant described the events very
specifically giving dates and
everything. This would have gone
to the reliability part. As far as
creditability, we don't know any
thing about the informant so we
cant make a creditability finding.
NEW TEST: Totality of
circumstances test which balances
the reliability of the tip and the
creditability of the informant.
CREDIBILTY PRONG: factors: a.
was tip against interest if implicated