Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 I. General Principles a.

The fourth amendment protects people not places. b. A seizure occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual s possessory interests in that property. Law enforcement officers may seize what they have probably cause to believe is criminal evidence. Three categories of seizable items: 1. Contraband evidence that may not lawfully be possessed by a private party; 2. Fruits of a crimes; and 3. Instrumentalities used in the commission of an offense. 4. Fourth category mere evidence an item of value to the police solely because it will help in the apprehension or conviction of a person for an offense. c. The fourth amendment applies to both searches and seizures of property and to arrests of persons. d. Generally, the fact that D was arrested in an unconstitutional manner makes no difference a defendant may be tried and convicted even though is arrest was made in violation of the fourth amendment. i. Exception when search is a warrantless search incident to an arrest evidence will be excluded if the arrest was illegal. e. Probable Cause required in order to issue a warrant. f. Warrants are usually required before a search or seizure takes place. An arrest warrant is usually not constitutionally required. g. Search must always be reasonable, regardless of whether or not there is a warrant. h. No probable cause for warrantless search or arrest. Areas and People Protected by the Fourth Amendment a. Katz expectation of privacy doctrine search or seizure only occurs when a person s reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated. i. Behavior may mean that person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. b. No reasonable expectation of privacy in: i. Abandoned property, such as trash ii. Things that can be seen from an aerial overview, or from the perspective of a person on public property iii. Things a person says or does while in public; and iv. Information the police learn by using other sense while the police are in a place they have a right to be (plain view) c. A police trespass or physical intrusion is more likely to violate a person s reasonable expectation of privacy, but not dispositive. Just one factor. d. Curtilage land and ancillary buildings that are associated with the dwelling. 1. In general, a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the curtilage. 2. But not if it can be seen from public property e. Open Fields

II.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 1. Generally no reasonable expectation of privacy. Transferred property or information 1. May indicate no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy. i.e. dialed phone numbers g. Trash and other abandoned property 1. Normally no expectation of privacy. 2. Trash on one s own property police may not normally enter property, but can get trash when 3rd party collects it. h. Jail 1. No legitimate expectation of privacy. i. Guests 1. Overnight guest legitimate expectation of privacy unless owner consents to search 2. Social guest not staying probably also has a legitimate expectation of privacy but has not been decided 3. Business guests less likely to be found to have a legitimate expectation of privacy, especially is the visit was a relatively brief one i.e. bagging cocaine. Plain View Doctrine a. No search where the police can see in plain view something from a place where he has the right to be. 1. Public property 2. Lawfully invited onto private property b. Does not mean they have a right to seize that item. c. Mechanical devices 1. Flashlights still plain view 2. Electronic beeper still plain view 3. High tech devices considered a search d. Aerial observation 1. Public navigable airspace, anything seen is in plain view. e. Other senses 1. Smell probably canine sniffers 2. Touch probably legal pat downs. But must have a right to touch Probable Cause a. Not just probable cause that someone is suspicious, but probable cause that someone ____________________. b. Applies in two different scenarios: 1. Before a judge or magistrate may issue a warrant; and 2. Before the police may make a warrantless search or arrest c. Probable cause to arrest must be reasonably likely that 1. The violation of the law has been committed; and f.

III.

IV.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 2. The person to be arrested committed the violation. d. Probable cause to search it must be reasonably likely that 1. The specific items to be searched are connected with criminal activities; and 2. These items will be founded in the place to be searched. e. Probable cause probably less than 50-50 cases where 1/3 of a chance (3 people in the car, 1 bag of cocaine) was enough. f. Any information may be used to get probable cause, even if the evidence would be inadmissible at trial. g. Probable cause must be judged only by reference to the facts presented to the magistrate. h. Perjured affidavit or reckless disregard for the truth warrant invalidated but, honest error acceptable Particular information establishing probable cause a. Informant information: 1. Based on totality of the circumstances 2. Magistrate considers two factors: (1) whether the informant is generally a reliable witness; and (2) whether facts are set forth showing the informant s basis of knowledge means which the informant came upon information. 3. Strong factor can make up for weak factor; also if later events corroborate the informant s story. b. Non-criminal sources 1. More lenient than criminal information 2. Information from other police officer probably only valid if the original officer had probable cause. Search warrants issuance and execution a. Who may issue judicial officer (judge or magistrate) who is neutral. b. Affidavit written and signed are the norm c. Particular description of the premises to be searched and the things to be seized. 1. Contraband does not have to be described 2. Things to be seized don t need as specific of a description as places to be searched. d. What may be seized any item that is the subject of a valid search warrant also, no 5th amendment claim in items seized. e. Warrants against non-suspects can search them if there is probable cause to believe that the search will produce evidence of someone else s crime. f. Execution cannot be unreasonable 1. Entry without notice must knock and announce unless there is an immediate threat of destruction of evidence or physical danger to police or refused entry. 2. May not automatically search everyone on the premises unless police have probable cause to believe that an individual has on him items named in the search warrant or person attempts to leave.

V.

VI.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 3. Must stick to the area specified in the warrant. 4. Can seize items in plain view doesn t have to be inadvertent. 5. Can search a person s body if reasonable taking of blood, OKAY. Surgery, probably not. 6. Good-faith exception general an invalid search makes evidence excluded at trial unless the cops reasonably (but erroneously) believe that the warrant which they have been issued is valid.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 Arrest, Probable Cause, and Search Warrants I. Summary a. Fourth amendment applies both to searches and seizures of property and to the arrest of persons. b. Probable cause fourth amendment requires that a search or arrest warrant be issued only based on probable cause. i. For there to be probable cause to arrest a person, it must be more likely than not that a violation of the law has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed the violation. ii. Probable cause to search must be more likely than not that the specific items to be searched for are connected with criminal activities and that these items will be found in the place to be searched. c. Places i. Police must generally obtain a search warrant in order to search areas in which the suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place if two tests are met: 1. The person must show an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the area; and 2. The expectation must be one which society recognizes as reasonable d. Plain View doctrine: police do not violate the fourth amendment when they see an object in plain view from a position they have a right to be in. e. Search warrants: 1. Must be issued by a neutral judicial officer, and 2. Must contain a description of the premises to be search and the things to be seized. f. Good Faith exceptions: if the police reasonably but erroneous believe that the warrant which they have been issued is valid; the seized evidence may be used at trial. Introduction a. Fourth amendment applies both to searches and arrests. b. MAPP V. OHIO Exclusionary rule c. Usually invalid arrest is no defense, however, in cases where a warrantless search occurred incident to invalid arrest the arrest can become an issue. d. Fourth amendment applies both to situations where a warrant is used and where there is no warrant. e. Fourth amendment can only be violated by the government 1. Packed sent through Fed Ex. Damaged and Fed Ex opened it. Had cocaine. Called DEA. No fourth amendment violation because Fed Ex opened the package, not the government. Areas protected by the fourth amendment a. the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

II.

III.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 b. KATZ and the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine i. Fourth amendment applies to any government search or seizure that interferes with a person s reasonable expectation of privacy even if there was no interference with property. ii. The fourth amendment protects people not places. iii. The fact that defendant has transferred property or information to a third person may indicate that he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to that property. but does not automatically mean that he no longer has a justifiable expectation of privacy with respect to it. A person who send package through the mail is normally entitled to assume that the government will not open and inspect it. iv. Someone using a phone, even in his own home, has no justifiable expectation of privacy with respect to the numbers being called. SMITH V. MD v. A party who possess contraband has no legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to that possession. Drug tests okay. Dog sniff tests okay. c. The fact that authorities have committed some sort of trespass or physical intrusion is an important factor. i. BOND V. US passenger on a greyhound bus. Cops squeezed his luggage and felt meth. SCOTUS held that squeezing D s luggage was unreasonable and therefore violated the fourth amendment. ii. Air- surveillance CALIFORNIA V. CIRAOLO, FLORDIA V. RILEY Did not violate expectation of privacy. Visual observation iii. Trespass does not automatically mean that there was a fourth amendment search or seizure. US V. DUNN police trespassed and peered into D s barn. D had no justifiable expectation of privacy with respect to the barn and, therefore, no Fourth Amendment search was found to have taken place. d. Curtilage i. The area around your house and your house used to be the only places you could expect privacy. ii. Katz at least modifies this concept. iii. Curtilage probably protected under Katz. iv. Four factors to determine whether or not something is in the curtilage. US V. DUNN 1. The proximity of the home to the area claimed to be curtilage; 2. Whether the area is included within an enclosure that surrounds the home 3. The nature of the uses to which the area is put; 4. And the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing it. v. When an outbuilding is found to be within the curtilage, this fact will apparently induce SCOTUS to hold that the inhabitant had a justifiable expectation of

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 privacy with respect to the building, so that the fourth amendment is triggered by a police officer looking into or searching the building. vi. Even when inside of the curtilage, SCOTUS can determine that for other reasons the owner had no justifiable expectation of privacy, so that no Fourth Amendment search has occurred. e. Open Fields i. Open fields beyond the curtilage are not protected by the fourth amendment. OLIVER V. US. ii. OLIVER V. US open fields are not persons, houses, papers, and effects . Second, no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields. Property interests a. Fourth amendment protects privacy (search) and property (seizure) b. US V. JACOBSON 1. Sent cocaine through Fed Ex. Fed Ex opened the box. Found cocaine. Called DEA. Not a search because Fed Ex did it, not the government. 2. There was a seizure; however, the seizure was reasonable because it was contraband. c. Controlled delivery doctrine 1. When a common carrier or customs official discovers contraband in transit the contraband can be destroyed. The police can also make a controlled delivery where the person takes possession and the police prosecute so long as the initial discover of the contraband is lawful. Police can seize the container and reopen it without a warrant. ILLINOIS V. ANDREAS. d. Trash 1. Trash or other abandoned property will normally not be material as to which the own has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy i. CALIFORNIA V. GREENWOOD when a person puts trash out on the curb to be picked up by the garbage collector, the police may search that trash without a warrant. e. Abandoned houses and hotel rooms 1. Similarly, a person probably has no reasonable expectation of privacy in houses, hotel rooms, vehicles, etc. that are abandoned. Police must bear burden that the person intended to abandon the property. 2. Fire destroyed house doesn t necessarily make you lose privacy interest 3. Property is not abandoned when it is thrown to the ground when approached by a cop. f. Jail Cells 1. A prisoner has no legitimate expectation of privacy in his prison cell. There are no fourth amendment limitations on prison officials right to conduct searches of such cells and seizures of their contents.

IV.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 g. Guests 1. Social guests generally has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that home 2. Business guests likely to find that the visitor had no such legitimate expectation of privacy regarding the premises. MINNESOTA V. CARTER no expectation of privacy. Was only there for a few hours to bag cocaine. 3. Overnight social guests clearly have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the home where she is staying. MINNESOTA V. OLSON. 1990 4. Even when a guest is found to have a legitimate expectation of privacy, that expectation will extend only to those portions of the premises which the host has given the guest access to. The Plain View Doctrine a. Where objects on private property can be seen from public places, observation by the police does not constitute a fourth amendment search. b. Just because an object is in plain view does not automatically give police the right to seize the object without a warrant. For seizure to be proper there must be a generallyapplicable warrant in force, or some exception to the warrant requirements. c. The plain view doctrine is not an exception to the warrant requirement. Plain view provides grounds for seizure of an item when the access to the object has some prior justification, therefore, plain view is not an exception to the warrant clause but simply an extension of whatever the prior justification for an officer s access to the object may be d. Searching for something else with a warrant, see obvious contraband, doesn t need a new warrant. e. If cops see an object in plain view, this does not entitle them to enter the private property and seize it. Must get a warrant. f. The fact that a merchant has placed items on display in order to sell them to the public does not mean that he has no legitimate expectation of privacy against government intrusion. Thus where a merchant displays porn he has not lost his right to object to an unreasonable search and seizure of them LO-JI SALES INC V. NY g. Mechanical devices 1. The use of a flashlight by cops in the nighttime does not prevent an observation from falling within the plain view doctrine. 2. Lower courts the use of binoculars to see an object does not prevent the plain view doctrine. 3. Even where the devices are more sophisticated, SCOTUS is apparently willing to uphold their use under the plain view doctrine if two conditions are met: (1) the view takes place from a location where the cops have a right to be; and (2) the information obtained could have been gotten from plain view surveillance without the special device.

V.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 4. Cops can put electronic beepers on cars a driver voluntarily conveys to anyone who watches him the fact that he is traveling over particular roads in a particular direction. No 4th amendment violation. 5. US V. KARO cops found out D was going to make cocaine. Put a beeper on a can he bought. The beeper s existence did not infringe on any fourth amendment interest; only the monitoring of the signals could be constitutionally significant intrusion. SCOTUS held that the fact that the beeper inside a can of ether allowed the police to learn that the can was in a particular house, and to obtain a search warrant for the house, meant that the monitoring of the beeper was a fourth amendment search. Could not have otherwise seen the protected area without a search . NOT plain view. 6. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY no constitutional violation. Flying over chemical company s property. but the court indicated that had the equipment been of the type that was not generally available to the public the result might be otherwise. 7. KYLLO V. US the use of special high-tech devices not in general civilian use from public places to gain views that could not be seen by the naked eye is a search. Have to get a warrant. Device was a thermal imager. Must be a minimum expectation of privacy or else technology would erode the privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment. Kyllo test for when use of technology would constitute a search obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search at least where the technology in question is not in public use. 8. Limitations of Kyllo: applies only to the interior of the home; probably only against the owner of the house or a resident; the rule only applies if the technology is not in general public use; police can get a warrant h. Contorted positions 1. The fact that the police who obtains the plain view did so from a contorted or unusual position does not prevent the plain view doctrine from applying assuming that the policeman is in a place where has has a prior right to be. i. Aerial observations 1. Assuming that the aircraft is in public, navigable airspace, anything the cops can see with the naked eye from that airspace falls within the plain view doctrine. 2. CALIFORNIA V. CIRAOLO cops flew over guy s backyard to see marijuana. Ruled for the cops the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities does not preclude an officer s observation from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 3. Helicopters okay too even though they can fly much lower. But, plurality opinion. O Connor believed that if the cops flew at a level that the public does not generally play then the flight would be a search. j. Use of other senses 1. Plain view is not restricted to sight. 2. If a police officer who is in a place he has a right to be can discover the probable existence of contraband, evidence of crime, etc. through one of these other senses, the plain view doctrine apparently applies permitting immediate seizure of the item. 3. Plain Touch MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON court held that where an officer is conducting a frisk or pat down pursuant to Terry, the officer may seize any object which his sense of touch gives him probable cause to believe is contraband, a weapon, or some other form of evidence. Applies only if the officer had a right to do the touching. 4. Plain Odor SCOTUS hasn t exactly said that there is a plain odor rule, but probably is. Also, canine sniff test is okay. US V PLACE since a dog sniff test only tells about the presence of contraband, the sniff test won t compromise any legitimate privacy interest because no one has a right to possess contraband. No search takes place with a sniffer dog. 5. In any event, plain view/odor/touch would not apply where the police are employing high-tech sense enhancing technology b/c of KYLLO. k. Plain view where police on defendant s property 1. The plain view doctrine may apply where the police are lawfully on the owner s property. 2. When the cops come to a house to lawfully arrest him, any observation they make while in the process of arresting him does not constitute a fourth amendment search. 3. BUT if a package or container is in plain view, its contents cannot normally be inspected under the plain view doctrine. 4. WALTER V US cops came into legitimate possession of a previously-opened box of obscene movies. Did not entitle the cops to screen the films. 5. US V. CHADWICK right of police to seize foot locker does not imply the right to open and inspect the foot locker s contents 6. If a closed container is found during a valid warrantless search of an automobile, it may usually be opened and its contents searched. Not done pursuant to plain view doctrine but automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 7. If the police are illegally on the defendant s property, and then have plain view into building, the plain view doctrine may apply. This will be the case if the police are trespassing on open field anything outside of the curtilage at the time they had the plain view

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 Probable cause I. Applicability of probable cause a. No warrant, whether search or arrest, may be issued without probable cause. b. Must have trustworthy evidence that would make a reasonable person think it more likely than not that the proposed search/arrest is justified. c. Also required in warrantless cases. d. SCOTUS has indicated that a lower standard for probable cause might be applied where a warrant was sought than without a warrant, but it is generally the same in both cases. Basic requirements for probable cause: probable cause is required for both searches and arrests, but the meaning of the term is not exactly the same in both situations. a. Probable cause to arrest 1. Two conclusions must be justified by substantial, trustworthy evidence: a violation of the law has been committed AND that the person to be arrested committed the violation b. Probable cause to search conclusions that must be supported by evidence are: 1. That the specific items to be searched for are connected with criminal activity; and 2. That these items will be found in the place to be searched. c. Any trustworthy information may be considered in determining whether probable cause to search/arrest exists, even if the information would not be admissible at trial d. Only information relayed to the magistrate at issue even if cops had more evidence, at a suppression hearing court only cares that the magistrate acted properly. e. In order to invalidate the warrant must make a showing of actual perjury or reckless disregard of the truth not just that the warrant contained inaccurate information. f. A warrant will not be invalidated if it later turns out the police were wrong but reasonably and honestly believed the info they gave to the magistrate MARYLAND V. GARRISON got a warrant for the wrong house, found drugs in the wrong house, not invalidated. g. How much is probable cause 1. Mostly, more likely than not but the court has held that 1/3 likely is okay case where cocaine was found in a car and cop arrested all 3 men. h. Standard of review a question of mixed fact and law. law is reviewed de novo, fact clearly erroneous

II.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 Particular Information Establishing Probable Cause I. Evidence from officer s own observation in some situations, probable cause for a search/arrest can be established from the cops own personal knowledge. Flight of a suspect, physical clues, voluntary admissions, suspicious conduct, previous criminal record, presence in a high crime area. Must be carefully weighed. Information from informants 1. Stringent tests for determining whether an informant s testimony establishes probable cause 2. totality of the circumstances the issue of whether an informant s information creates probable cause for a search or arrest is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances. So long as a neutral magistrate can reasonably determine that, based on informant and other facts, there is probable cause to believe that a search/arrest is justified, he may issue the warrant. ILLINOIS V. GATES relevant considerations in the totality of circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations. Strong showing in one prong can make up for weakness of the other (1) evidence that the informant was a reliable witness, and, (2) evidence of the basis of knowledge (basis of knowledge, correctness, etc.). ILLINOIS V. GATES is bare minimum. States can still adopt a more stringent requirement 3. Totality of the circumstances used to determine whether an informant s information creates probable cause for a search/arrest; also used to determine whether an informant s information is sufficiently reliable that although it does not furnish probable cause, it provides the reasonable suspicion needed to make an investigatory stop. Criminal reputation 1. May be considered in determining probable cause, if supporting facts indicating past criminality are present 2. Can never by itself be enough to demonstrate probable cause, but reputation can be combined with factual statements about the suspect s past criminal activity. 3. US V. HARRIS also, one of the informants admitted to buying illegal whiskey from defendant. Court attached great importance to admission that the informant himself violated the law. Non-Criminal informants 1. Court is generally more lenient about their reliability. 2. Ordinary citizen most courts presumed that the ordinary citizen who is either a victim or witness of a crime is reliable. 3. Usually more lenient for known informant v. unidentified informant. 4. Other cops the arrest or search is valid only if the maker of the original alert, order, or poster acted with probable cause. An otherwise illegal arrest cannot be insulated from challenge by the decision of the instigating officer to rely on fellow officers to make the arrest.

II.

III.

IV.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 5. Collective information in the case of a warrant, not okay because only facts presented to the magistrate can be considered. In a warrantless search, probably probable cause. WHITE V. US court allowed collective information of all the officers to be considered in determining whether probable cause existed. A suspect s car was stopped under circumstances which allow a warrantless search. One of the two officers involved has probable cause, but his partner (who does not have probable cause) did the actual searching search was valid. 6. Usually presume that a police is a reliable source.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 Search Warrants Issuance and Execution I. Who may issue 1. A neutral party detached from the law enforcement side of government. AG who issued a warrant in a case he was directing investigation of not neutral. Justice of the peace who gets paid per warrant issued not neutral. 2. A magistrate who accompanies police to the scene of the search and actively participate in the search not neutral LO-JI SALES, INC V. NY 3. Magistrate must be authorized by statute Affidavit Almost all jurisdictions require policeman seeking a warrant to put facts establishing probable cause into a written, signed, affidavit. Information cannot be stale this is determined case-by-case. 1. PARTICULARIZED Description of the premises to be searched and the things to be seized 2. Place must merely be precise enough that the officer execution the warrant can ascertain where he should search. The two part test is: (1) whether the warrant enables the officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort; and (3) whether there is any reasonable probability that another premises might be mistakenly searched. apartment building must contain the name of the occupant or the number of the apartment. Search of person requires warrant to state the person s name or describe him. 3. things to be seized must be specifically identified contraband does not have to be specifically described. What may be seized 1. Instrumentality to commit a crime 2. Fruits of crime 3. Contraband 4. mere evidence Items whose only interest to the police is that they may be introduced in court to incriminate the defendant. WARDEN V. HAYDEN allowed cops to seize clothing belonging to an armed robbery suspect. 4th amendment is concerned with privacy not property. (does not violate 5th amendment because the protection against self-incrimination adheres to the person, not the information. With a warrant, the individual does not aid in the discovery, etc.) Warrants against non-suspects: Can search non-suspects if there is probable cause to believe that the search will produce evidence of someone else s crime Execution of Warrants statutes and case law tell how a warrant must be executed 1. Time period statutes set an outer time frame but even within that period if enough time has elapsed there may no longer be probable cause. 2. Time of day SCOTUS has never decided, but could require during day time. 3. Knock and announce not always necessary, but a factor to be considered when the court decides if the search was unreasonable can only force entry if denied after knocking and announcing. Requires specific indication that the destruction of evidence

II.

III.

IV. V.

Criminal Procedure Outline Arrests, Probable Cause, Warrants Amanda Leigh Sellers Fall 2011 is imminent (officer hears footsteps, whispers, flushing; knows he has been seen from a window); Exception threat of immediate destruction of evidence. Applies even where force is not used for entry (landlord gives key, doors unlocked, etc.). Exception physical danger to the cop. BUT exclusionary rule does not apply 4. Search of persons on premises if there is probable cause to arrest, can do so and then conduct a search incident to arrest. Without probable cause, only some circumstances where a person can be searched cops have probable cause to believe that an individual has on his persons items named in the warrant; person attempts to leave during search; Terry frisk; 5. Person on premise who has no connection with the criminal activity that gave rise to the warrant may not be searched. Probable cause must be particularized to that person. 6. Can only search areas specified in warrant i.e. can t look in drawers if looking for a stereo. 7. Plain view items can be seized. 8. Intrusions into body balancing test. Can take blood from drunk driver. 5th amendment does not apply because it only applies to testimonial evidence. Good Faith Exception 1. SCOTUS has held that if the police reasonably believe that the warrant which they have been issued is valid, the exclusionary rule will not apply to bar the items from begin introduced at trial.

VI.

Arrest Warrants Generally unimportant because there are few circumstances in which courts have found them to be a constitutional requirement. Most of Search Warrant analysis applies Differences: different meaning of probable cause; not subject to strict time limitations; plain view area is smaller; less particular description (only need name of crime and name of court issuing warrant); Summary Unconstitutionality of an arrest is not a defense to the charges. Seeing something (in plain view) does not automatically dive the cops the right to seize the plant without a warrant. Must get warrant or have exigent circumstances for seizure.