c

 c

 
  p
p
 p SEARCH WARRANTS
a p The particularity requirement
× p
× 
  
Ô p
acts of Case
a p rubbs said that the items that were found within his home
during the search for a child pornography case should be
suppressed
b p He said this because he said he was shown an ´anticipatory
warrantµ with no triggering conditions present
c p The condition was that rubbs had to receive a child
pornographic video in the mail
2 p An M ××MM

M  is a warrant based on an affidavit showing
probable cause that at a future time, certain evidence of crime will
be located at a specified place
a p Same as regular warrants
3 p The fourth amendment does not require that the triggering
condition for an anticipatory search warrant be set forth in the
warrant itself just the place to be searched and items being
searched for
a p Triggering conditions only have to be present in the affidavit
that the police set forth
×× p 
× 
Ô p
acts of the case
a p altimore police had a warrant to search a particular
address They executed the warrant believing that there was
one apartment (the one to be searched) on the floor when in
reality there were two separate ones
b p efore the police realized that there were two separate
apartments, they found contraband in the apartment not
listed on the warrant The evidence was then used to
prosecute the other party
2 p The validity of a warrant must be assessed on the basis of the
information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover
and to disclose, to the issuing Magistrate
b p Warrant Execution
× p × 
  
Ô p
acts of the case
a p nformant purchased marijuana at the home that the
petitioner shared with ryson Jacobs Affidavits that were
filed to get warrants set the details of the narcotic
transactions and that Jacobs had been previously convicted
on other grounds
b p When the police went in to execute warrant they announced
themselves and stated that they had a warrant While inside
they seized various items of contraband
 c p They argued that the search was invalid because the officers
had failed to knock and announce before entering
2 p The common law ´knock and announceµ principle forms a part of the
reasonable inquiry under the
ourth Amendment
3 p n this case, the police did not have to announce before entering
because in doing so they might have been injured since Jacobs was a
known felon and might lead to the destruction of evidence
×× p ×! 
×  ×"
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice officers in Wisconsin got a warrant to search hotel
room for drugs olice requested a warrant that gave
authorizations for a ´no-knockµ entry but the magistrate did
not approve
b p lain clothed officers knocked the door and when Richards
noticed police he slammed the door Officers then kicked in
door and claimed they stated they were officers upon doing
so
2 p n order to justify a ´no-knockµ entry the police must have a
reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence
would be dangerous or inhibit the effective investigation
3 p There should be no blanket exception to knock-and-announce
requirement
iii p
× 
# "$
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice with a warrant knocked on suspect anks· door They
waited between Ô and 20 seconds before busting down door
anks was arrested but argued that officers had not waited
long enough after knocking before busting in door
2 p Court said that Ô to 20 seconds is a reasonable period for the police
to wait before entering by force because in the case of drug cases
waiting longer might lead to the destruction of evidence
iv p Y  % 
 &'
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice obtained a valid warrant to search a house but did not
know that the suspects had moved out 3 months earlier
When searching they found the two residents who were of a
different race than suspects sleeping naked in the bed They
required them to stand before allowing them to dress
b p The residents brought a suit citing the
ourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
2 p n executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable action
to secure the premises and to ensure their own safety and the
efficacy of the search
 p
OURTH AMENDMENT EXECTATON O
RACY
a p rotected
ourth Amendment nterests
i p (

× &
 c

 c
  
  p
p
Ô p
acts of the case
a p overnment introduced evidence of his telephone
conversations overheard by
 agents who had a recording
device on the outside of a telephone booth
b p atz says that the booth is a constitutionally protected area
overnment argued there was no penetration of the phone
booth and that by entering a clear phone booth, there was no
protection from privacy
2 p Court says that the 4th amendment extends to recording of
statements There should be no exception in the surveillance of a
telephone booth Wherever a person is he should remain free from
unreasonable searches
ii p %×) ×
 $
Ô p
acts of the case
a p After receiving a tip about reenwood·s drug use, police
officer asked the trash collectors to turn over the garbage
without mixing it with garbage of other houses After finding
signs of narcotics, police obtained a warrant to search the
house
2 p Court said that the garbage is available to the public and therefore
is exempt from the 4th amendment t is not reasonable for
reenwood to feel that he has an expectation of privacy in trash left
for collection in a public area
 p TECHNOLOY
a p Advancing technology and other methods of sensory enhancement
i p
× 
  $
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice were suspicious that the associate of the defendant
was involved in manufacturing drugs and placed a tracking
beeper in a container of chloroform They used the device to
find a cabin where the drugs were being manufactured
b p They obtained a search warrant for the cabin
2 p Court says that a person traveling in an automobile on public roads
has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one
place to another
a p The fact that the officers relied not on visual surveillance
but on a beeper does not change the situation
3 p notts argues that since the beeper was rested on his property it
should not be allowed to be used Court says that the police did not
the beeper once it reached his grounds There is no search and
seizure for 4th amendment purposes
ii p   

× '*
Ô p
acts of the case
a p
ederal agents used a thermal imager to scan a home when
searching if there were high-intensity lamps that are
commonly used to grow marijuana plants ased on the
 thermal imaging system as well as tips from informants,
utility bills, the agents got a warrant to search the house and
found the indoor marijuana growing operation
2 p atz test ² examine the minimum protection of privacy that exists
and that is acknowledged to be reasonable
3 p Court finds that the thermal imager was a unconstitutional search
overnment states that the imager only detects heat leaving the
house but the court argues that a microphone does the same thing
but is prohibited [see above]
a p Thermal devices does not let the police know what quality the
material they receive is ² could be personal information
 p ROALE CAUSE
a p Challenging Warrants
i p £ 
+*&
Ô p Court finds that if the defendant shows the following then there has
to a hearing at defendant·s request
a p The false statement was made knowing
b p s included in a warrant affidavit
c p And is used in a probable cause
b p robable Cause
i p ××

× 
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Spinelli was convicted of travelling to St Louis from a nearby
suburb with the intent of conducting gambling activities that
are illegal under Missouri law
2 p Court said the affidavit is not proper because circumstances did not
to be ones that led to a valid warrant
a p They did not have support that their inside tip was credible
b p When they submitted affidavit only one of four elements
would be supportive for warrant and that was the informant
i p nformant was not specified
3 p Have to measure up affidavit to Aguilar standards
irst you have to
examine the tip then look to the other points addressed
a p n this case there was no support that the source was
reliable
b p Have to detail the criminal activity so that we know that it is
not hearsay that the informant is providing
ii p × × 
 ,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice received an anomynous handwritten letter stating that
the ates family transports drugs to and from
lorida They
then used an informant to find the next trip to
lorida
After obtaining details to the trips, they obtained a search
warrant for the ates· residence and their automobile
b p After the ates returned, they searched and found various
contraband and guns
 c

 c
  
  p
p
2 p The court said that the anonymous letter sent to the police
department does not provide basis that there was probable cause to
believe that there is contraband in the car and home
a p No evidence that the author is reliable or honest
3 p The Supreme [previous] Court said should apply two-prong Spinelli
test
a p Show that the affidavit revealed the basis of knowledge of
the letter writer
b p Had to show that the facts showed the reliability of the
informant·s report
4 p When a court decides whether or not to issue a search warrant, the
elements of the informant·s ´credibility/reliabilityµ and ´basis of
knowledgeµ are to be used as guides when considering the ´totality of
the circumstancesµ and are not to be exclusive requirements applied
in every case
a p So long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for
concluding a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing,
the
ourth Amendment is not violated
 p LAN EW
a p Warrantless Searches and Seizures
i p   
%×) ×*
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice searching home for stolen goods & finds guns in plain
sight
2 p ? M× 
×
× ' if an article is in plain view, neither its
observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy
a p The item must be in plain view and its incriminating character
must also be ´immediately apparentµ
b p He or her must have lawful access to the access to the
object itself
3 p lain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of
evidence The discovery of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent
4 p Seizing a plain view object is not an intrusion prohibiting of general
searches helps as protection against intrusions
 p WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
a p Search ncident to Legal Arrest
i p
× 
 *&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p
ederal inspector believed that Watson had a stolen car
Court said that the arrest was unconstitutional because it
was acted without a warrant
b p Under the
ourth Amendment it is not unreasonable for
postal inspectors to arrest without a warrant provided they
have probable cause to do so
2 p A government official may arrest a person without a warrant upon
probable cause to believe the person is guilty of a felony
 3 p Any arrest, which is executed, must be supported by either probable
cause, a warrant, exigent circumstances or an Act of Congress, which
authorizes various government officials to make warrantless arrests
 p SEARCH NCDENT TO ARREST
i p %!×-
%×) ×**
Ô p
acts of the case
a p 3 police officers arrived at Chimel·s house with a warrant
authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop The
wife let the police in When Chimel arrived home, the police
asked him if they could look around the house and when he
objected, they advised him that they would continue to look
around
b p They did not have a search warrant When searching the
house they directed the wife to move things around and
seized numerous items primarily coins Chimel objected they
were unconstitutionally taken
2 p There should not be any search in the home other than in the
arresting area
a p There should be no search beyond area where the person can
get evidence or weapons
b p n this particular case, the search clearly went beyond area
where there is weapon
i p The search was unconstitutional under the 4th and
Ô4th amendment
ii p ×( 
**,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Anomynous tip led police to a particular house ant answered
the door and stated he was not owner Officers did a check
no his license and found that it was suspended and there was
outstanding warrant for his arrest
b p When arriving later they found a man and woman in back of
house for drug paraphernalia ant arrived later and was
arreted After handcuffed and placed in back of patrol car,
officers searched his car finding frugs and a gun
c p ant argued that the warrantless search violated the 4th
amendment
2 p Court found that ant was not within the reaching distance of his
car when it was being searched n addition, since ant was being
arrested for a suspended license, there was nothing that could have
been reasonably found in the car
3 p eople guilty of traffic violations are allowed to be free from
searches
 p SEARCHES O
EHCLES
a p Automobile Exception
i p %×) ×
% *
Ô p
acts of the case
 c

 c
  
  p
p
a p olice received uncorroborated information that a motor
home was being used by a person exchanging marijuana for
sex After surveilling the home for an hour, police questioned
a boy leaving the motor home and asked if it was true, and
the boy confirmed
b p Without a warrant or consent, police entered the motor
home and viewed various drug parephanelia and subsequently
took possession of the motor home and took Carney into
custody
2 p Court found that there are exceptions that a warrant must be
secured before a search is taken
a p The privacy interests in an automobile are present but the
fact that it can move, leans it to a lesser degree of
protection
b p ecause automobiles travel on public highways, they can be
subject to be inspected at anytime
c p The court did not want to distinguish between vehiciles that
are used as homes (in this particular case) or those used
merely as vehicles
3 p This search was not unreasonable
ii p %×) ×

 *""
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice was notified that a package was seized because it
contained marijuana They took the package to see who is
going to claim the package After Daza went to go pick up the
package, the police watched and got a search warrant
b p olice watched another person leaving the apartment,
stopped him, searched the knapsack and for marijuana
c p Respondent came into the apartment, left with a bag, placed
it in the trunk Officers searched the trunk without a
warrant and seized marijuana
2 p Court says the police can search an automobile and the containers in
it when they believe that there is evidence or contraband in it
3 p n this case, the car would have been impounded anyway, and once
the police had possession, they would have been allowed to search
the whole car The decision, however, is limited to those areas where
the police already had probable cause to search
b p nventory Exception
i p %   
#×*&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p ertin was arrested for DU After car was taken into
impound lot, car was searched & found illegal substances
2 p Court finds that inventory searches are the exception to the 4th
amendment
 a p nventory searches are meant to protect police from danger
and protect anything from happening to personal belongings
while car is impounded
X p CONSENT SEARCHES
a p Consent
i p ! !
# - *$
Ô p
acts of the case
a p ustamonte was stopped and was asked to search the vehicle
Another passenger in the car gave permission The search
showed stolen checks that were seized
- p
Y
./Y0
× !!
M M
!M
 M

 
 ×
!M!
  M !×
×! 
!!
!M ×)!×
 M × ×M!M!

 M
 M
× M × !M
!
a p f the subject knows he or she has a right to refuse, it is a
factor to be considered but that fact is not the only
consideration
3 p Court finds that the consent of a vehicle search does not violate the
4th and th amendments
ii p × × 
 × (*'
Ô p
acts of the case
a p The police was invited into the apartment of Rodriguez by a
non resident Without a warrant they entered the apartment
and found drugs
- p
Y
./YM

M  M
!)M
×M

×
! ! × × 
M M !M!!M   M

  )
M
 !M ×   
 p Court finds the search is okay because the police believed that a
person with authority consented to the search
M p Doesn·t matter if the person had authority but rather it was
reasonable to believe so 
××× p  ×
  !*'$
 p
acts of the case
M p Respondent and his wife were separated She returned to
the house and called the police for the return of her child
She volunteered to the police that husband had evidence of
cocaine use in house and gave consent to search 
 p Husband refused search
- p Court found that the police has no right to search a house where one
person consents to the search of a house and another person does
not
 p
Y
./YM!×M 
 × !M×M 1


 M 
  M ×M
!×××× M!  
M
 
!  M  M 
X p EXENT CRCUMSTANCES
× p #×!-%× 
 "'
 c

 c
  
  p
p
Ô p
acts of the case 
M p olice officers responded to a call about a loud party
Officers announced presence and entered premises
Arrested respondents and charged them with 3 charges
 p Respondents claim that there was a warrantless entry
- p Court said that the officers· entry here was reasonable because they
reasonably believe that the violence was going to escalate within the
house
 p The officer·s announcement in this case sufficed as a knock and
announce
" p
Y
./Y!
! × × !M!
×M 



× ×!× M!  
 M  × ×!  × ×
 ×× 
×× p × M .  M"
 p
acts of the case
M p unmen shot up gas station owner Officers apprehended car
² caught Ô man and the other got free olice found a sack of
money and weapons in the car The car was registered to
Robert Olson 
 p Woman called in a tip with Olson·s name and gave the address
of two women he was planning on escaping with They were
given a ´probable cause arrest bulletinµ but were ordered to
stay away from the duplex Detective ordered the police to
enter the house without permission
- p The court said that if you are not in hot pursuit, there needs to be
exigent circumstances to enter in a house without a warrant 
M p in this case, the respondent wasn·t a known murderer ² he
was just a driver so there were no circumstances to warrant
police to enter
 p ‘ Y
./Y2  
× ×
 M  
× M
! ×! MM

M 
××× p ‘!× 
%M×)
×MM"$
 p
acts of the case
M p olice obtained evidence that the defendant was selling
narcotics They forcibly entered his house and found him
upstairs When they asked him about the drugs, the
defendant swallowed the ones that he had in his hand The
police took him to the hospital to have his stomach pumped to
retrieve evidence
- p The court found that it is clear that the combination of entering the
house without a warrant and pumping the stomach without permission
is a violation of due process
× p !-
%×) ×"
 p
acts of the case
M p etitioner convicted of DU He was arrested at the hospital
while he was receiving treatment for injuries that he
 suffered in an accident while driving drunk olice asked the
doctor to draw his blood to obtain his AC to be used in the
trial against the defendant 
- p The court found that there is no violation of the 4th and Ô4th
amendments because in this case AC drops shortly after you stop
drinking This would lead to a destruction of evidence 
M p Taking blood samples is an effective way of testing AC and
seeing if person is intoxicated The test was performed in a
reasonable setting
 p ‘ Y
./Y0! × ×  
×!M

× 
× 
× × M
 1 

×    ××
 ××  
X p TERRY STOS
a p Stop and
risk
i p 0 
 ).!× *,,
Ô p
acts of the case'
a p Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon Officer
saw suspicious activity as he witnessed Terry and another
man walking back and forth in front of a store window Since
the officer thought that they might stick up the store, he
approached the asked them for identification Officer spun
Terry around and patted the outside of his clothes
b p The police then seized the guns that he foud The defendant
claimed that it was unreasonable search and seizure
2 p The court determined in order to be reasonable, police must be able
to state facts that would lead a reasonable person to reach the same
conclusion
a p
acts have to be looked objectively
b p ood faith of the officer is not enough
3 p n this particular case, it was legitimate for the officer to approach
a p All the facts combined would lead a reasonable person to the
same conclusion
b p Officer can legitimately suspect danger long before he has
enough information to arrest
ii p 3  
0 Y . ,
Ô p
acts of the case'
a p Two girls were found smoking in a bathroom After denying
smoking, the teacher demanded to search her purse n the
purse, drugs were found and the girl admitted to selling
marijuana
2 p The court said that searching by public authorities in school is
permissible more than in the case of belief
3 p The reasonableness of a search is a two-part test
a p Whether the search is reasonable given circumstances
b p s the scope of the search reasonable?
 c

 c
  
  p
p
4 p n this case, the court said that the search was not unreasonable
The fact that school officials heard about smoking meant there was
probable cause to search the purse After finding rolling papers,
there was reason to believe that there was marijuana
iii p £ ×
 &
Ô p
acts of the case'
a p Royer was witnessed in Miami nternational Airport as having
suspicious behavior (His appearance, mannerisms, luggage,
and actions suggested he was a drug courier
b p He purchased a one-way ticket to New York City and checked
his suitcases under another name His plane ticket had a
different name Without his consent, detectives retrieved
his luggage from baggage check Royer was asked if there
could be a search of his luggage Without orally consenting he
provided a key for the locked suitcase and drugs were found
2 p The court found that Royer was illegally detained when he was
brought into the interrogation room and the suitcases were seized
He was never informed that he was free to leave at any time to
board the plane
iv p ××
×4!3 ××+× ×% ""
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Officer receives a call saying that there was an assault by a
man in a red and silver truck Officer found the man driving
the vehicle and thinks that he is intoxicated
b p Officer asked to see D and the man refused Officer
arrested the man for not complying
c p Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his
ifth
Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his
ourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches
2 p the Court ruled that the search did not violate the
ourth
Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion (the police
officer was investigating the assault, and Hiibel was nearby) and
involved only a minimally intrusive question (his name)
3 p t also did not violate the
ifth Amendment because Hiibel never
argued that telling the officer his name would actually incriminate
him of any crime
v p  
# ×&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p 2 men committed armed robbery olice executed search
warrant for uie One of the detectives shouted into the
basement uie came out of the basement and the detective
went into the basement to make sure there wasn·t another
person and saw a jumpsuit in plain view matching the alleged
robbers ones
2 p Court found that even though uie expected privacy in his house
doesn·t mean that the detectives couldn·t enter in the house t was
 reasonable of the detective to secure the house so there would be
no random attacks on the police
a p Arresting officers can take steps to ensure safety
3 p ‘ Y
./Y.×
  !M 
M M 
M
!M
MM M

× M
M
X p MERE ENCOUNTERS AND RO
LN
a p Other nvestigatory Searches and Seizures
i p
× 
!*
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Respondent arrived in the Detroit Airport coming in from Los
Angeles and was acting in a behavior that made him seem like
a drug courier Agents then approached her and asked to see
her identification and airline ticket The airline ticket was in
a different name than the identification Was then asked if
she would accompany to a office and she complied
b p Agent asked if they could do a search of her person and
handbag and advised her that she could decline She
assented She undressed and removed drugs from her
undergarments
2 p The court said that the agents action was constitutional if they
reasonably suspected the respondent of wrongdoing
a p Seized means if the person reasonably believed they could
not leave
b p There is no seizure here
i p There is no reason that the defendant would not
believe that she could not leave
c p Even though there was no seizure the fourth amendment
rights were violated during search
d p The totality of the circumstances led to believe that the
defendant consented to search
i p The defendant was 22 with a highschool education,
she could understand consent
ii p %×) ×
 ×+ *,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Officers dressed in plain clothes saw youths surrounded a
car When the youths saw the officer·s car approaching they
apparently panicked, and took flight Hodari meanwhile had
emerged from a back alley and an officer tackled him to the
ground During the tackle he appeared to have tossed a small
rock on the ground, later identified to be cocaine Hodari was
found to be carrying Ô30 in cash and a paper along with the
cocaine
2 p The court held that this was not a seizure within the meaning of the

ourth Amendment and that the drugs were not fruit of an illegal
search
X p ROADLOCS
 c

 c
  
  p
p
i p +
5 $*
Ô p
acts of the case
a p A policeman stopped a car at random and it smelled like
marijuana Seized marijuana that was n plain view There
was no previous suspicious activitiy before he stopped the
vehicle
2 p The court said that traffic violations happen so many times where
license and registration is required Licenses, insurance, registration
are safety implementations to make sure that the roads are kept
safe
a p There should be no stopping unless there is reasonable
suspicion
3 p ‘ Y
./Y‘M ! 6 ×× 
× 

/
!  
ii p %×  )× × 
7- $
Ô p
acts of the case
a p City of ndianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints on
ndianapolis roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs
The search only is authorized if reasonable suspicion occurs
b p Respondents were both stopped and filed suit against
checkpoints
2 p The court says that the checkpoint is meant to protect roadway
safety but the threat of criminal activity is not enough to satisfy
reasoning for checkpoints
a p The llinois drug checkpoint is the same as general interest
in crime control
3 p ‘ Y
./Yolice must have the ´usual requirement of
individualized suspicion where [they] seek to employ a checkpoint
primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes µ
iii p × × 
Y× '&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Motorist hit elderly man and then drove off olice set up a
checkpoint to try and find out information about hit and run
Lidster almost hit police officer during checkpoint and
smelled of alcohol He was later convicted of a DU
2 p The court held that the stop was constitutional because the public
interest was grave
a p The stops only interfered only minimally within the liberty
that the fourth amendment is trying to protect
X p SECAL NEEDS & ORDER SEARCHES
i p )) 
×)×! +× ×8
 ×"
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Assistant rincipal asked Wilson to go to the office and
showed her planner which contained knives, lighters, etc She
claimed that none of the items belonged to her He showed
 her various over the counter and prescription pills and asked
her about them She denied again
b p She was taken to a school nurse and strip-searched including
within her undergarments Mother filed suit for conducting
illegal strip search
2 p Court said that the suspicion of Wilson was enough to justify a
search of her backpack and outer clothing The drugs however were
not dangerous enough in nature to warrant the search
b p Special Needs
i p #  )7 ×  )! +× × ,* )
5  -×%  
7 ,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p The School District adopted the Student Activites Drug
Testing olicy which requires all middle and high school
students to consent to drug testing in order to participate in
any extracurricular activity
2 p The court says that the school in this case has presented specific
evidence of drug use Drug testing therefore, does not have to be
based on individual suspicion
a p t places a higher burden on teachers
b p Unfairly can target members of certain groups
ii p
× 
£  9  &
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Customs seized marijuana from
lores at the international
border 2 customs officers inspected the tank The mechanic
dissembled tank and found the marijuana The total search
took about 2 -3 minutes
2 p The court said that reasonable suspicion that is needed to search a
person is not required for vehicles
3 p Expectation of privacy at the border is much less
X p EXCLUSONARY RULE ASCS
a p The Rule·s Application to
ederal and State roceedings
i p  )
%   $
Ô p
acts of the case'
a p Wolf was convicted for conspiring to commit abortions based
on evidence obtained in violation of
ourth Amendment·s
search and seizure clause
b p He claimed that his
ourth Amendment constitutional right
to be free from illegal searches and seizures had been
violated and so evidence should have been excluded
2 p ‘ Y
./Y0!+ ?
% M  
!××!
M××  × M× 
× M × M M
!M 
×(
× M
 

 × M!MM
!M
M


M M   !  M M

M 
M 
ii p 
.!× $
 c

 c
  
  p
p
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Three police officers arrived at Mapp's (D) house pursuant
to information that a person (who was wanted for questioning
in a bombing) was hiding out The officers knocked at the
door, but D was advised by her attorney not to admit them
without a search warrant Three hours later, more officers
showed up and forcibly entered the house Upon request, an
officer showed D an alleged search warrant D grabbed the
warrant and placed it in her bosom An officer recovered it
and D was restrained Eventually, obscene materials for
which she was ultimately convicted were discovered in the
search of the house
2 p All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the
Constitution is inadmissible in a state court
3 p ‘ Y
./Y All evidence discovered as a result of a search and
seizure conducted in violation of the
ourth Amendment of the
United States Constitution (µConstitutionµ) shall be inadmissible in
State court proceedings
X p OOD
ATH EXCETON
a p The ´ood
aithµ Exception
i p nited States v Leon [page 632]
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice officers started surveilling A search warrant was
given based on the surveillance Drugs were seized during the
search warrant Defendant was charged with federal drug-
trafficking
2 p The court found that the 4th amendment·s exclusionary rule should
be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained in the
reasonable good-faith belief that a search or seizure was in accord
with the 4th amendment
a p The officer·s reliance on the warrant has to be reasonable
b p The courts can allow a good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule
ii p roh v Ramirez [page 647]
Ô p
acts of the case
a p roh applied for a search warrant to search the Ramirez
ranch for illegal weapons On the warrant, he mistakely left
out the exact items he was looking for Ramirezes later sued
roh saying that their 4th amendment rights were violated
They said that the fact that the warrant was completed
incorrectly violated the 4th amendment requirement that any
items searched for has to be layed out in warrant
2 p The court found that the search was ´unreasonableµ under the 4th
amendment His warrant was invalid because it did not meet the
requirement that a warrant has to describe the things or people to
 be seized Even though the magistrate approved the warrant the
Ramirezes did not know what the warrant was for
a p No reasonable officer could have believed that the warrant
was valid so he did not have qualified immunity
iii p Hudson v Michigan [page 624]
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession after
police found cocaine and a gun in his house The police had a
search warrant but did not follow the ´knock and announceµ
rule
2 p The court ruled that evidence does not need to be excluded when
they violate the ´knock-and-announceµ rule
iv p Herring v nited States [page 652]
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Herring·s vehicle was searched after he was apprehended
olice found methamphetamie in his pocket and a gun under
the seat of his truck The initial search was made after a
faulty arrest warrant The warrant was supposed to be
removed 5 months earlier from the computer system
2 p The court held that a criminal defendant·s 4th amendment rights are
not violated when police make mistakes that lead to unlawful
searches They are merely the result of negligence and are not
disregard for the constitution
a p Evidence obtained because of this is admissible and not
subject to the exclusionary rule
X p TANDN
a p The cope of the Exclusionary Rules
i p  
× × $'*
Ô p
acts of the case
a p olice officers stopped a car that matched a description of a
getaway car in a robbery etitioners were passengers and
neither one of them owned the car A gun and ammunition
were found in the car
2 p The court found that the petitioners did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the areas, which were the subject of the
search and seizure They did not have standing in this manner
ii p × 
. $
Ô p
acts of the case
a p as station was robbed and the station manager was fatally
shot The police officer heard a dispatcher report that
Ecker was a suspect in the robbery They went to the house
and at the same time a car arrived The car spun out of
control and two people ran out of it Ecker was captured in
his house
b p The police found the money and a weapon inside fo the car as
well as a title certificate with the respondent Olson The
 c

 c
  
  p
p
next day they received a tip stating that Olson was involved
and that he was planning on leaving town They arrived at his
friends· house and entered without permission
2 p The court found that since the defendant was an overnight guest, he
had reasonable expectation of privacy Since the police had already
surrounded the apartment, there were no exigent circumstances and
they should have waited for the defendant to leave the house
X p
RUT O
THE OSONOUS TREE
a p ´
ruit of the oisonous Treeµ Doctrine
i p # 
× × $,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p rown was arrested for murder The arrest lacked probable
cause and was illegal The officers warned him of his Miranda
rights They told him that they recovered a bulled in the
ceiling of a pool hall and that they were comparing it to the
victim·s body The plaintiff then answered the question
b p He then gave two statements proving factual accounts of the
murder
2 p The court found that under the rule of Wong Sun, a Miranda warning
is an important factor in determining whether the confession is
obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest
a p Here the first statement came less than two hours after his
illegal arrest with no intervening event
3 p ‘ Y
./Y×
M MM
×   ××  
M
!M M !M×  M × M M

M M ×
ii p ×4
××- $,'
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Williams was arrested for the murder of a Ô0 year old whose
body he disposed of on a gravel road olice engaged in a
search for the child·s body During the search after an
officer appealed for help, Williams made statements to the
police without an attorney, which helped lead them to the
body Williams was only read his rights after he was
arrested
2 p The court ruled that under the inevitable doctrin, because the
evidence would have been discovered within a short period of time,
the method in which it was obtained becomes irrelevant and such
evidence is still allowed against defendant
3 p ‘ Y
./Y:!M ×  ×M × 
M 
M×  ×!× ××M !M× × 
M× × 
M
XX p

TH AMENDMENT ² MRANDA
a p The
ifth Amendment and Miranda
i p ×
×( "'
Ô p
acts of the case
 a p The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police
interrogations without prior notification of their rights
under the
ifth Amendment of the US Constitution
2 p The court found that the government needs to notify arrested
individuals of their
ifth Amendment constitutional rights,
specifically' their right to remain silent; an explanation that anything
they say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel;
and their right to have counsel appointed to represent them if
necessary
3 p Without this notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an
interrogation will not be admissible in court
4 p ‘ Y
./Y 
 M !
×× × 
× × × M 
!×
/×!   × × M 
×!
×
M 
× 

M×  × M M


b p Adequate Warnings
i p × ×
×&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder, after a fire
was set to her mobile hobe, killing someone She was then
interrogated by a police officer who initially did not rea her
her Miranda warnings Once she confessed the officer took a
break and read her her rights and resumed questioning after
she made a waiver
2 p The court said that the second ost-Miranda confession is not
admissible when there has been a prior confession has been given
unless the Miranda warning and the break are sufficient to give the
defendant the reasonable belief that she can decide not to speak
with police
3 p ‘ Y
./Y: 

 M9×
M ×( × 
M
 ××× M  9×
M ×( × ! × × 
! M M 
 × ×
!!
×
M MM
× 
XX p

TH AMENDMENT ² CUSTODY AND NTERROATON
a p Custody
i p    
%×) ×"
Ô p
acts of the case
a p The surrounding in custodial interrogations is what makes it
persuasive
b p oliceman·s plan has no effect on whether or not someone is
in custody
c p Officer·s belief or knowledge only counts if he lets the
suspect know
ii p !  
× "
Ô p
acts of the case
a p nnis was arrested, read his Miranda rights, and put into the
backseat of a patrol car The police discussed that the gun
 c

 c
  
  p
p
used for the crime might be found by a child and the
respondent disclosed the location of the weapon so that
there would not be an accident
2 p The court found that the conversation that nnis had with the police
was not an interrogation and therefore the rights under the
ifth
Amendment were not violated nterrogations should only be limited
to conduct that police perform that they know would get a response
3 p ‘ Y
./Y × 

M× ! × ×   


  !M! ×! !M    

M M ×   M × × × M 
 
XX p

TH AMENDMENT ² NOCATON O
MRANDA RHTS
a p nvocation of Right to Silence
i p ×!×
  &&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Mosely was arrested in connection with certain robberies He
exercised his right to remain silent after a police officer
seeking to interrogate the defendant as to the robberies
advised him of his Miranda rights The police officer ended
the interrogation after the defendant invoked his right
More than 2 hours later, another officer took the defendant
to another place and advised him of his Miranda rights and
questioned him about another unrelated murder He then
obtained an incriminating statement from the defendant
2 p The court found that once a defendant exercised his right to remain
silent, he may later be interrogated on another subject as long as a
reasonable time has passed and a new warning is given
ii p 7 
×( &,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Edwards was charged with robbery A warrant was issued and
Edwards was arrested After Edwards was read his Miranda
warnings, he requested for a lawyer The next morning 2
detectives went to question Edwards without the presence of
his attorney and they obtained a confession out of the
petitioner
2 p The court found that according to Miranda v Arizona, all police
interrogation should stop when a person requests for an attorney f
the officer starts a conversation with the defendant which
according to a reasonable officer will lead to incriminating
statements, the conversation will be considered police interrogation
b p Unambiguous nvocation Requirement
i p +
× 

× &*
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Davis was interviewed at the Naval nvestigative Service
office regarding a murder outside a pool hall on the naval
base He waived his right to remain silent and to counsel by
 mouth and in writing Later he suggested he may want to talk
to a lawyer and later said he did not want a lawyer
2 p The court found that if a suspect makes reference to an attorney
that is ambigious, there does not need to be a stop of questioning
The suspect must unquestionably request counsel
a p n this case the NS agents did not have to stop questioning
Davis
XX p NTERCETON O
ORAL COMMUNCATONS
a p Eavesdropping Through Secret overnment Agents
i p  ))

× &,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p A government informant was in a hotel room with a criminal
defendant during a trial The defendant often conferred
with his attorneys in the room The informant was there in
order to obtain information from the defendant to be used
during a second trial for witness tampering
2 p The court found that the petitioner was not relying on the security
of his hotel suite when he made the incriminating statements to the
informant The informant was in the suite by invitaition and every
conversation which he heard was directed to him or knowingly
carried on in his present
3 p ‘ Y
./Y0!  ! 
  M× M

× 

× ! M

M M 
× M
×× M 

×M   × M! M 1"! &! M $!M  

×!
ii p
× 
!×&,&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p overnment authorities through an informant secretly
recorded conversations with the Respondent White The
informant was not present at trial but the recorded
conversations were admitted
2 p The court argues that the respondent could not have relied on the
expectation that a conversation is private
3 p ‘ Y
./Y0! 
 ×

×  
M× 
 M × × × M M  
 M  ×! MM

M  
  × M!/
!  
XX p SXTH AMENDMENT ² RHT TO COUNSEL
a p enerally
i p # 
# 
Ô p
acts of the case
a p etts was indicted for robbery in circuit court in Maryland
He was unable to retain an attorney When he requested that
the court appoint him an attorney, the court said that the
court does not have to appoint counsel for poor defendants
except in prosecutions for murder and rape
 c

 c
  
  p
p
2 p The court found that while there is an implication for a free trial,
there is no requirement
3 p ‘ Y
./Y0!Ô
!M  !% × ×  
M !MM 
 M × × M

M× M M 
ii p × 
××!&
Ô p
acts of the case
a p ideon was charged in
lordia with having broken in and
entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor
The defendant appeared in court without counsel or money
The defendant asked the court to appoint counsel for him
saying he was entitled to it The court denied him counsel and
the defendant represented himself The jury found him
guilty
2 p The 6th amendment·s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right
The court got it wrong in etts v rady overnments spend a lot of
money each year to construct and maintain an environment for trying
criminal defendants Lawyers are an integral part of this process
3 p ‘ Y
./Y0!$!M  1 M
M   ×M
 M M 
×!M ×M
  !M!Ô
!
M  
iii p  ×
-×,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p The petitioner was a poor person charged with carrying a
concealed weapon t was a judge-trial and the petitioner had
no representation He was sentenced to a 90-day jail term
2 p The court found that the requirement of counsel may well be
necessary for a fair trial even in a petty-offense prosecution
3 p ‘ Y
./Y !
×MM× 
 
 ! 
×
× 
M  !!
 M××M 
×M 

      M
×M 

 !×
b p Waiver of the Right to Counsel
i p £
%×) ×""
Ô p
acts of the case
a p The appellant was arrested for grand theft and was
appointed a public defender The appellant tried to waive
that right because wanted to represent himself The court
tested his legal skills and rejected his request
2 p The court said that the right of self-representation finds support in
the structure of the 6th amendment as well as in the English and
colonial jurisprudence
XX p SXTH AMENDMENT ² NE

ECTE ASSTANCE O
COUNSEL
a p neffective Assistance of Counsel
i p ×
 !× $'
Ô p
acts of the case
 a p Respondent committed 3 groups of crimes He gave a
statement admitting to 3rd group of crimes Counsel tried
pretrial motions until he found out that the defendant
confessed to 2 other murders He waived counsel·s advice and
pleaded to all 3 counts
b p Counsel suggested the defendant to have an advisory jury at
his capital sentencing and he went such advice and waived
that right Counsel did not look for further character
witnesses or psychological exam because defendant seemed
ok
i p Counsel was hopeless about situation
ii p Thought that plea showed enough about background
Ô p Didn·t want cross-examination
2 p The court said that while counsel might have committed error, it
wasn·t so ineffective as to overturn a death sentence
3 p ‘ Y
./Y



M  ×  ×× 
 !MM
 M M
× !×
 × × M 
×!× 
M×M  
ii p £ ×
×4 ',
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Nixon kidnapped and murdered a young woman and then
burned her body and her car He confessed this to his
brother His brother informed the police When taken into
custody Nixon confessed in graphic detail Nixon·s counsel
concluded that respondent·s guilt was not subject to any
dispute and tried to plead but the state would only accept
the death penalty
b p Counsel tried to argue that the respondent was not normal
2 p The court held that the in order for council to be deemed
ineffective they would have to show that counsel·s concession
strategy was unreasonable When counsel informs the defendant of
the strategy counsel believes to be in the defendant·s best interest
and the defendant is unresponsive, counsel·s strategic choice is not
impeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendant·s explicit
consent
3 p ‘ Y
./Y3 M    !
 M 1

  M
M ×  × × M
M×M 
×M  M M M×M !M  1


M × M× 
iii p -×
#'
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Respondent Rompilla was convicted of murder He appealed on
the grounds that his counsel had not properly investigated
mitigating factors
2 p The court argued that the original counsel had relied too much on
the uncooperative respondent and his family
 c

 c
  
  p
p
3 p ‘ Y
./Y
 ! MM×M  M M !×M× 

M!M!
× ××M×  ×  !× M
×
 M
M M 
M× M 
 ×M
×M 
!M   !
 × × 
M 
  M
 × M
M M× M!
×M 1  × !M
iv p 


× ,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p lover was  and eneral Counsel of Chicago truck drivers
He used the union money for himself District Court said that
money laundering should not be grouped with other offenses
lover said that his sentence should be corrected because
failure of counsel to press grouping issue led to ineffective
counsel
2 p The court said that any increase in sentence must meet a standard
of significance Although the amount by which a defendant·s
sentence is increased by a particular decision may be a factor to
consider in determining whether counsel·s performance in failing to
argue the point constitutes ineffective assistance it cannot serve as
a bar to a showing of prejudice
XX p SXTH AMENDMENT ² NTERROATON LAW
a p re-Miranda Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
i p  ×!

× "$'
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Massiah along with conspirator Colson were indicted for
narcotics offenses oth pled not guilty and were released on
bail Colson, without petitioner·s knowledge, decided to
cooperate with the government He permitted agents to place
a radio transmitter under the seat of his car so that agents
could hear conversations in the car etitioner made several
incriminating statements during the conversation
2 p The court found that the defendant·s own the prosecution, as
evidence against him at trial could not constitutionally use
incriminating statements obtained by federal agents under these
circumstances
3 p ‘ Y
./Y × ×!M×
× !
$!M   M
M ! !
M MM× !×M!×

×M  × !× × 
×× M× 
 !×!
M 
M !M ×
M  ××
!×M
!!M 
× ×× !M !× 
b p olice Questioning and Massiah Rights
i p #
××- &*,
Ô p
acts of the case
a p Williams, after being arraigned on charges of abducting a Ô0
year old girl, was traveling with an officer between two parts
of owa Even though the defendant·s lawyers instructed
that no questioning should take place outside of their
 presence, the defendant was convinced by the officer to give
directions to the body of the girl
2 p The court found that the evidence should be suppressed because the
defendant was denied counsel during an interrogation environment
3 p ‘ Y
./Y. 6 ××M 
× × !$!
M  ! % × × ×M!M! !M
M
×! 
ii p  !-
× &
Ô p
acts of the case
a p An informer planted in a suspect·s jail cell obtained
incriminating information from a suspect after being told not
to start the conversation, but to listen for incriminating
information
2 p ‘ Y
./YWhen police plant an informer with a jailed suspect
and the informer does not ask questions, the suspect·s statements to
the informer are admissible unless the informer took coercive steps
other than listening to elicit incriminating information