Crim Pro

SEARCHES
SEARCH KATZ I. GENERAL A. Reasonableness 1. Search = must be Reasonable 2. WRL S = Per se Unreasonable a. Must have a WR OR EX B. Olmstead Trespass Doctrine- (Before ER) 1. Facts a. Whispering Wires i. Transcript created from wire tap 2. Rule a. Absence of such penetration foreclosed 4AM inquiry b. AM limits only S&S of tangible property c. Property interests control the right of gov to S+S d. Without trespass & seizure of any material object (tangible) fell outside C C. Scope of Search 1. The place to search for certain items limits the area a. Drugs for personal use = anywhere in the house b. Human body = cant look into kitchen drawers D. KATZ 1. Protects people NOT places* 2. Manifests an intention of privacy a. closing the door behind you to make a phone call to protect / want privacy of the converstation NOT the body II. ITEMS? A. 2- Prong Harlan 1. Subjective a. Person exhibited an actual expectation of privacy 2. Objective a. The expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize it as reasonable B. Explanation 1. Expectation of Privacy a. A place where he expects privacy protected 2. Plain-view a. Objects, activities or statements he exposes to outsiders is not protected by C b/c no intention to keep it from them b. Privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable/ unreasonable expectation. C. Silverman v. US 1. Interception of conversations reasonably intended to be private could constitute a S&S and that the examination or taking of physical property was not required* D. Things that can be searched / seized 1. Jacobson+ Caballes no reasonable interest / expectation of privacy in a. Contraband. E. Bond 1. Squeez NOT OKAY vs. Pat Down IF RAS = TERRY OKAY 2. Gov Agents
1

Crim Pro

3. What is your expecation of privacy in public a. No RE of privacy in public vs. Feel it in a manner that / to understand what it is b. No exploratory manner observation c. III. PERSON A. Terry S+F 1. FRISK = Police can Search when police has RAS that RP would think the person is armed & dangerous a. RAS under Terry i. Cop suspects a violent crime is afoot OR ii. Have some reasonable basis of thinking individual must be armed. 2. Weapons Search immediate & automatic IF cop believes violent crime is afoot* a. Pat down Frisk ONLY IF conditions are met: i. Cop RS that person is armed & presently dangerous ii. Cop must use LIM (least intrusive means) to protect (I) Investigate (questioning) AND (II) only frisk IF Nothing in initial stages of encounter serves to dispel reasonable fear for safety b. Method: i. Pat Down (Frisk) (I) Sibron v. NY [1] Cops thrusted hand into pocket w/o Frisk = OK (a) Frisk is not always prerequisite to a valid weapons search (b) Cops does not need to jeop safety by conducting PD (II) Adams v. Williams [1] Holding: cop pulled gun (weapon search) from suspects pocket while in car before PD= reasonable (a) B/c cop only reached to the spot where he was told the gun would be concealed ii. After PD (I) If not weapon search no longer justifed under Terry (II) IF PD provides PC to believe object felt is (Contraband OR Criminal Evidence)Cop may pull out the object w/o WR = Plain Touch Doctrine [1] Continuation (a) Container Weapons (if belief weapon could fit & cannot dispell but size & weight) = can Search (b) Container - Contraband search if no RS to believe present UNLESS encounter gives rise to PC to arrest --- SILA = can Search IV. PROPERTY A. Private 1. Kyllo a. Sense enhancing Technology i. When is it okay /when it is commonly used by the public ii. Night vision

Crim Pro

b. Public Use? 2. Protective Sweeps of Residences Special Needs Doctrine. a. Maryland v. Buie i. Facts (I) D was arrested on main floor + cops do Basement check + PV evidence seen ii. General PS (I) Quick & limited search of home SILA (II) Cursory visual inspection - of those places which person might be hiding. iii. Hold/ Rule: (I) SILA police may automatically (w/o PC or RS) conduct PS (protective Sweep) of spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest = limited area. (II) Beyond limited area cops may conduct w/o WR PS of other parts of home IF RS exists that area not yet swept harbors person posing danger to cops or others. (new rule) iv. Rationale: (I) Terry v. Long [1] In-home arrest puts cops at a disadvantage being on Ds turf [2] PS = limited intrusion of privacy interests. [3] Lasts no longer than necessary to dispel RS of danger [4] Search must be protective (based on protection of safety) B. Commerical 1. Dow Chemical a. Not Sense enhancing Technology i. Mapping Photo Camera b. Industrial property vs. Home (type of property) i. Did not pentrate the walls (TTW vs. OTW) ii. No intimate details c. Public / Common Use 2. Greenwood a. Trash on the curb not a search i. Did not exercise a reasonable expectation of privacy ie: never checked on it. b. Rule i. Anything you expose to the public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy V. AUTOMOBILES / CARS A. Weapons Search Frisk (Terry) 1. Michigan v. Long a. Police may conduct a WS of passenger compartment of lawfully stopped car i. Shone light into car armest on front seat found weapon b. Hold: Car WS was =OK b/c danger to the police AND w/I immiedate control of suspect. i. * WS of passenger Comparment of Car LIMITED to areas in which weapon my be placed or hidden

Crim Pro

ii. articulable facts justified cops to enter car & do WS (I) late at night (II) rural area (III) D appeared drunk (IV) Cops already saw a hunting knife in car (PV) (V) D intended to reenter car. VI. HYPO(s) (mixture of S+S) A. Situation 1: Person gets into a car accident + Warrant to seize blood did not say anything about testing Police tested it for THC + Alcohol- blood revealed alcohol THC. 1. Analysis a. Testing the blood = Search b. Seizure of Blood WR i. Was the WR valid? ii. Did it state with particularity where to search & what can be seized (I) (R) WR requirements: must describe with particularity: what place can searched and what items can be seized c. Jacobson+ Caballes no reasonable interest / expectation of privacy in Contraband i. Not a search - analogy to IL v. Caballes (I) Only searching for the presence of Contraband (II) Not searching / interfering with privacy interest of other stuff ii. No WR / PC need iii. Vs. if running all information on the blood found alcohol which is not contraband = Search d. Vs. If NO WR is it a trespass to the person? 2. Focus on the idea that is was THC v. Alcohol. B. Situation 2: Picking up a Book + Read it 1. Analysis a. Seizure? Meaningful interference? YES = Seizure b. Search? Privacy Interest? NO Search. 2. Distinguish b/w Search & Seizure. C. Situation 3: If manufactured GPS 1. Search 2. Analysis a. No trespass b. Use Katz NOT Jones c. 3rd party rule i. pen Reg. Smith d. Open Field v. Effects (car) i. OF Not a home + 4AM does not protect it (I) not a trespass ii. Effect 4thAM protects/ Expressed. (I) = Trespass D. Situation 4: Dog Sniff the porch smelled Weed Trespass? 1. Analysis a. Katz Expectation of Privacy (2 Prong) i. Do expect ppl to walk around vs. ii. Expect a dog DEA to snif around the house (I) 4 Factor Test ***** b. 4AM Expectation ?

Crim Pro

i. Gov coming onto my porch vs. Mail man = Gov Actor ii. Public witnessed Dog & police on the porch = Embarrassment E. Situation 5: Internet Searches? [Potential Exam Question] 1. Analysis a. Katz - Expectation of Privacy i. On bill - No list of what searches ii. Clear search history Subjective Expectation of Privacy iii. What if Search in library vs. Home. iv. Email = Paper Under 4AM (I) Like mail / letter v. Email Password = subjective expecation of privacy vs. Phone not a letter / paper & no password. b. Smith - 3rd party Rule (Pen Registry) Risk Assumption (makes subjective prong meaningless) i. Being billed for usage/ for type of searches ii. Email content vs. Smith Not content vs. actual # (I) 3rd party risk rely all Forward potential vs. mail but can show 3rd party c. Place? F. Situation 6: Working for the Gov and the Gov job provides you with a phone Business vs. Personal 1. Analysis a. Expecation of Privacy? i. Anything done on the gov phone = is gov info. b. Reasonable ? i. If Reasonable Search no 4AM implication G. Situation 7: Social media Monitoring [Potential Exam Question] 1. Facts a. Software used to monitor & Search hot Words to scan & monitor possible Crime 2. Analysis a. Smith i. Not about the content that is views vs. the # id b. Greenwood i. What you expose to the public expectation of privacy c. Kyllo i. No technology excessible to public d. Jones i. Concurrance of jones follow you constantly to embarrassing areas (strip clubs) ii. What does that mean about future tech advances? e. Karo + Knotts i. Put it out to the world / expose to public & can follow f. White i. Dissent Big Brother (I) Protect against gov invasion. g. Msgs vs. newsfeed / wall posts i. Msgs more expectation of privacy h. Terry Seizure of Persons i. Court abandoned the requirement of PC ii. Shift focus from Warrant to S+S to Reasonable = RAS

Crim Pro

SEIZURE?
SEIZURES KARO I. Seizure = meaningful interference (R) II. PROPERTY/ OBJECTS A. Karo seizure of Property 1. Interfering with possesory rights, meaningful interference B. Knotts 1. What you expose to public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. C. Jones 1. GPS tracking device on Car 2. Trespass issue Tresspass onto the Car 3. Balancing of Interest -4th AM cases a. You have an expectation of privacy is protected no matter what you are suspected of doing. 4. Concur should be decided on expectation of privacy a. 3 wks too long. D. 4 Kinds of Seizable Items 1. Contraband (burgary tools) 2. Instruments of crime 3. Fruits of a crime ( $ from robbery, Drugs from dealing) 4. Mere Evidence (ie: glove OJ. Simpson, Tire Tread, Shoe print) E. Temporary Seizure of property 1. US v. Place a. Drugs in Airplane luggage + 90 mins + non-search dog sniff b. Hold: Seize luggage w/o WR on basis of RS, in order to investigate circumstances that arosed suspicion i. * Terry principles apply to propery too! ii. However: 90mins detention of luggage excessive c. Seizure of property relinquish control of property i. Not free to leave airport w/o personal belongingsseizure of property as if seizure of person. III. PERSON A. Seizure of Person Defintion: 1. When a RP does not feel they have a reason to leave (2 ways) a. Show of physical force b. Show of Authority. i. Arrest B. Terry S+F 1. STOP = Police can Seize when police has RAS that criminal activitiy is a foot. (R) 2. Scope? a. Search may be reasonable at its inception HOWEVER may violate 4th Am by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. b. To determine is the seizure & search is unreasonable Dual inquiry i. Justified action at the inception?

Crim Pro

ii. Is the action/ search reasonably related in scope to the circumstances? 3. Rationale: a. Crime Prevention v. Crime Detection b. Nature of Crime c. Fingerprinting * i. Hayes v. FL. C. Drawing Lines: Terry Seizures versus De Facto Arrests 1. General a. Terry Seizure = RS b. De Facto Arrest = PC 2. Difference b/w TS v. DA consider Factors under the Totality of Circumstances. a. FACTORS i. Length of the detention(duration) (I) US V. Sharpe. [1] Holding: 20 mins detention is okay based on 3 tempory factors (a) cops investigation was diligent & reasonable manner (b) method of investigation was used to confirm or dispel suspicions quickly (c) detention lasted no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose [2] detention that continues indefinitely OK under a Terry Stop. (II) US v. Montoya se Hernadez (hypo) [1] Holding: Stop of person withdrugs in a ballon up bum = Okay not unreasonably long (a) International board (b) Method of inspecting did not allow for speedy determination b/c D refused to cooperate ii. Forcible Movement of the Suspect (I) General [1] if cops move suspect to another site for futher investigation seizure may be treated as tantamount to an arrest- tf need PC [2] IF the investigation could have occurred where the detention arose. [3] *Was there any reason/purpose why the cops moved the suspect? (II) Special problem: Removal from a car after lawful stop [1] Penn v. Mimms (a) Can order Driver out of car automatic & no justificiation is needed IF the intitial seizure is lawful [2] Maryland v. Wilson

Crim Pro

(a) Can order Passenger out of car, b/c they are already stopped by virtue of the car being stopped. (b) *Terry Reasonablness Balancing Standard* iii. Existence of less intrusive means (I) FL v. Royer [1] Could have used the Dogs sniff- luggage at airport b/c it was more feasible & avaliable then cops searching it. (II) US v. Place [1] 90 mins detention & dog sniff okay/ unreasonable [2] cops have prior warning of Ps schedule & could have min the intrusion by having dog avaliable when P arrived. (III) States v. Sokolow [1] the reasonableness of cops to stop suspect does not turn on the avaliability of LIM [2] S arg: Cops C required to verify suspicions WRONG (IV) US v. Sharpe [1] Least intrusive-Means Doctrine (a) Whether the police acted unreasonable in failing to recognize or pursue alternatives? (b) Warning cannot answer based on unrealistic second-guessing. iv. characteristics of suspect v. events during the detention. 3. Dunaway Rule a. GR: require PC to make arrest reasonable under 4AM. b. Terry Exception to GR- requiring PC c. Arrest i. Need a warrant, ii. IF warrant PC. D. Drawing Lines: Seizure vs. Non-Seizure Encounters 1. Mendenhall Rule a. All circumstances surrounding the incident, Reasonable Person would have believed that he was not free to leave (Objective Standard) b. Guidelines (4 Factors) to determine if there was a seizure of person i. Threatening presence of several officiers ii. Display of weapon iii. Some physical touching of person of the citizen iv. Use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officiers request might be compelled c. Totality of all the Circumstances i. To determine if consent was voluntary- free from duress or coercion-express or implied. ii. Gov has the burden of Proof. 2. US v. Drayton

Crim Pro

3. Cali v. Hodari D. E. Arrest 1. Definition: a. arrested when taken into custody b. by lawful authority c. for the purpose of holding d. in order to answer for criminal charges. 2. Types. a. Formal b. Custodial c. Traditional 3. Arrest vs. Seizure a. Arrest must be made on PC & it constitutes a seizure. (Dunway) b. All arrests = seizure vs. not all seizures = arrests. c. Time? i. Arrest: freedom of movement has been curtailed for indefintite period of time long enough to go back to HQ & be booked ii. Detained for brief time w/o arrest 4. CL vs. Stat Arrest Rules a. CL: police could not arrest UNLESS reasonable grounds to believe that cime had been committed and that person to be arrested committed it i. Reasonable grounds = probable cause. b. Stat: most allow police to may a felony arrest w/o warrant i. Warrant required for a misdemeanor arrest UNLESS the offense occurs in the police presence 5. Custodial Arrests Minor Offenses

4TH AMENDMENT
2 Clauses O RR (reasonableness requirement) AND Person anything attached- clothing, interior blooddrawn Home dwellings ie: office Tent, cardboard box trespassing? Paper letters, laptop? Effects briefcase, purse, drawers in office (containers) (ie)- your stuff O WR (warrant requirement) People? O US citizen is Protected O People does not include non-resident & located in foreign country O Rule: who is the 4th AM protecting under people Sufficient connection to the country AND falls under the umbrella of protection of the People O Hypo: French citizen in Us visting US (1 week) - Traveling vs. student VISA NO based on facts, dont need a WR Undoc 30 yrs of living & working YES sufficient connection

Crim Pro

Student VISA Not subject to all rights cant vote vs. can study here.

Purpose? O Restrict gov action O Protect from gov invasion + abuse of power Balance Interests sliding scale O Gov interest: Higher interest at the boarder vs. home State secruity O Individula interest: Privacy Interest O Lower vs. higher? the higher the interest the more reasonable the search is. Gov Actor vs. Private Actors 4th Am protection? O FBI O Person acting on behalf of State actors If acting under 1) encouragement, 2) participate, 3) enforse *

REASONABLE SUSPICION I. RS- Generally. A. Can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show PC 1. Reasonableness = as an independent factor in 4AM. B. Factors- considered in the T.C (when evaluating RS) 1. Quantity 2. Quality II. Individualized Observation (type of Information - 1) A. Frank v. Maryland 1. City health inspector + city code looking for a source of rats 2. Issue: Whether Ds conviction for resisting a warrantless inspection of his home violated 4AM 3. Held: NO- upheld conviction & fine a. Ds asserted privacy interest did not concern a crim. Investigation. b. Inspection for criminal evidence c. Fundamental right to be secure from evidentiary searches made in connection w/ criminal prosecution. B. Camara: 1. Adminstrative Search = w/i 4AM a. Went to 4AM central purpose of safeguarding the privacy & secruity of individuals against arbitary invasions by gov officials. 2. Except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a. searches of private property w/o proper consent is unreasonable b. UNLESS it have been authorized by a valid warrant 3. Camara = reasonableness in the form of balancing test a. Backdoor of the WR. b. Expanded the range of acceptable gov. behavior 4. TEST police conduct: whether the search was reasonable a. S+S vary in intrusiveness / not all are alike b. Balancing Test individuals & societys interest in the given type of adminstrative search were weighed against each other. C. Terry v. Ohio 1. Facts a. Men casing a store v. window shopping + cop feared men had gun i. Facts based on personal observation of the cops.

10

Crim Pro

ii. Perspective of the police: daily activities and the experiences of persons on the street 2. Issue: a. Whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person & subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is PC to arrest? b. Whether in all circumstances of this on-the- street encounter, his right to personal security was violated by unreasonable S+S i. rapidly unfolding/ often dangerous situation on street police face = Extingient Circumstances? (I) Stop v. Arrest (II) Frisk v. Search 3. Rule a. Terms i. Terry Seizure STOP (I) Whenever the police accosts an individual & restrains his freedom to walk away (II) 2 means [1] Physical Force OR [2] Show of Authority ii. Terry Search FRISK (I) Pat-down exploration of the outer surfaces of the persons clothing all over the boyd in attempt to find weapons b. Stop & Frisk i. STOP = RAS in light of his experiences that criminal activity is a foot ii. FRISK = RAS that person is armed & dangerous / may pose a threat to the officer or others. c. REASONABLENESS OVERVIEW (to interefer with personal security) i. Balancing Interest= Gov vs. private citizen interests. (I) Effective crime prevention + Safety fatality via weapon vs. free locomotion on streets & intrusion [1] Series of acts innocent in itself BUT taken together warranted further investigation ii. Justification/ Purpose = Sp. Facts + rational inference (I) Safety against armed man - unreasonable to require cops to take unnec risks in performance of their on the street duties. (II) Strictly circumscribed by exigencies (III) Protective search vs. gathering evidence to build case. iii. Technique/ Scope (I) RS = more than a hunch. (II) Pat Down (III) Limited to exterior of clothing (a) On the spot & immediate (b) Brief [2] Do not place hands in pockets or under outer surface. [3] designed to discover guns, knives, clubs etc hidding for the assult of the police. [4] Feels like a weapon during PD full search under clothing to remove it. iv. Objective person?

11

Crim Pro

(I) Given the facts + circumstances, (II) reasonabley prudent man (of reasonable caution) (III) be warranted the belief (inferences) that his safety or that of others was in danger (IV) (S&F) action taken was appropriate in light of his experience* d. Reasonable Articulable Suspicion [RR/ WR- deemed inapplicable] i. Must be able to articulate why it was suspicious. ii. Just because you suspect of one crime, does not mean you cant arrest for another crime iii. observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experiences that criminal activity may be afoot + may be armed & dangerous = reasonable inquires in the initial encounter that of resonable fear for his own & others safety [RAS] e. S&F= RS PC? i. If suspicion = S+ F (May lead to PC) ii. If PC = A+S f. Crime is a foot (element) i. Police may detain & Ask Q = STOP ii. Pat Down? = FRISK (I) Depends on the crime (shoplifting vs. armed robbery) [1] Shoplifting does not involve dangerous & armed person [2] Cannot do a PD b/c you think person is carrying drugs or merchanise [3] PD ONLY for Weapons * iii. Plain-View/ Mistaken Belief for a weapon (I) If the Police believe it was a weapon during PD & pull it out its not a weapon but drugs --- Cop not have to ignore the drugs pulled out* (II) If police is lawfully there, where she is & sees the evidence = she may leg pull it out with the RAS and turns out to be something different = OK iv. Skipping right to a Search= YES (2nd rather than 1st Stop: Question asking) (I) 2am time = reasonable to do a FRISK for drugs & guns [1] Tip - enough level of detail 4. ANALYSIS/ Inquiry a. Main Reasonableness* b. Dual i. Was the police action justified at its inception AND ii. Was the action reasonably related in the scope of the circumstances which justified the interference in the 1st place. 5. Harlan CONCUR a. Must have authority justified = Seize. b. Immediate & authomatice if stop is RAS of crime of violence = Search D. + Maryland v. Wilson 1. Terry Stop applies to Passenger in car a. Can be ordered out of car

12

Crim Pro

b. Based on balance of interests (Public Intrusion interest vs. Police safety interest) E. US v. Hensley 1. Terry Doc also applies when an officer seeks to investigate a completed felony + crime was a foot. F. Minnesota v. Dickerson 1. Plain touch Doctrine (limit set) / Evidentiary Search a. Just a pat down b. Manipulate = OK c. IF Manipulate NOT OK 2. Cacaine baggy feel = too far! a. improperly seized (Cop already knew contained no weapon) b. If it is obviously contraband then can seize it = PC i. Contraband is 1 /4 seizable items no privacy interest/ expectation. G. IL v. Caballes 1. Traffic Stops vs. Narcotics Detection 2. * Time Concept* 3. Up held = seizure justified by the interest in time reasonably required to complete the mission a. did not extend the duration b. does not change character of traffic stop c. possessing contraband deemed legitiamte gov conduct only reveals possession of it no compromise to legitimate privacy interest III. Hearsay observation via Informates anonymous vs. non-anonymous (Type of Information 2) A. General Information 1. Factors RS application of Terry Informants information a. Basis of knowledge AND b. Veracity 2. Evaluation a. Totality of the Circumstances. i. Police personal observations + ii. Surrounding circumstances + iii. Drawn on personal police expertise. B. Adams v. Williams 1. Facts a. Tip + Known Informant i. Tip: W seated in nearby car w/ drugs in possession & gun concealed at waist. b. Did not indicate the basis of the knowledge c. Police conduced- Terry procedure 2. Held: carried enough indicate of relability to justify a Terry-level seziure C. Alabama v. White 1. Facts a. Tip + Anonymous Informant + Predicted Future Behavior + Police investigation b. Blue car + attache filled with drugs +motel c. W was not holding the Attache when getting into the car & Police stoped the car before reaching the motel & werent sure it was the W that informant named.

13

Crim Pro

2. Held: a. Under the T.C, the anonymous tip exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the investigatory stop of car. b. Predicted future conduct i. Significant aspects of the callers predications were verified (I) Anonymous tip contained a range of details not easily obtained facts and conditions / future actions of 3rd party are not easily predicted ii. Reason to believe informant was honest + well informed = enough to justify the stop (I) b/c an informant show to be right about somethings he is probably right about other facts alleged (II) Demonstrates inside information + special familiarity close to (III) Privity to an individuals itinerary - Reasonable to believe that access to such informatin is also likely to have access to reliable information about illegal activities. 3. Rule a. RS:Can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show PC i. Factors- considered in the T.C (when evaluating RS) (I) Quantity (II) Quality 4. Dissent a. Involved innocent conduct that fit description of countless people each day. D. FL v. JL. 1. Facts a. Tip + Anonymous phone caller + general information i. plaid shirt, black m, at bus stop w/ gun 2. Held: a. Apart from the tip Police had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. b. Lacked reasonable suspicion RS i. An accurate description of subjects readily observable location & appearance = limited realiablity c. Tip lacked predictive infromation that police could corroborate. 3. Rationale a. Terry analysis modified to a - License a firearm exception rove too far. E. Hiibel v. Sixth Juicial District Court of Nevada 1. Facts a. Report man assulting woman b. Man refused to provide id c. Statute violated: Stop and Identify Statute 2. Issue a. Whether the refusal to provide ID lead a Terry Stop Question session INTO RS? 3. Holding a. YES can form RS to seize (thinking that criminal activity is afoot) i. Getting id of suspect serves an important gov interest ii. Records violent conduct recorded. iii. Allow police to know who they are dealing with (safety)

14

Crim Pro

IV. Drug Courier Profiles (Type of Information 3) A. General Information 1. Police obseravation may be supplemented by consideration of modes & patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers 2. set of characteristics- associated w/ drug traffickers 3. Terry level Seizure a. Police must possess reasonable suspicion for forced encourter b. Stop the suspect in order to question her. 4. To be reasonable a. Must be specific - Individualized to the particular characteristics exhibited by a particular person b. Evidentiary significance (of the factors) as seen by a trained agent. c. must be decided on its own merits B. Reid v. Georgia 1. Facts a. Factors arrived in a drug source city + arrived in AM when police enforcement is low + concealed that traveling with another person + no luggage 2. Held a. Lacked reasonable suspicion to justify detaining a suspect in an airport who fir a drug-courier profile b. Facts described a very large category of presumably innocent travelers. c. Inchoate & unparticularized hunch C. Florida v. Royer 1. Facts a. Factors - Traveling from a major drug source city + paid ticket in cash + traveled under another name + appeared nervous b. Police asked for ID + Kept it 2. Held a. RS fit the drug courier profile (factors)= justified a temporary detention i. Paid cash for ticket with large # of sm. Bills ii. Traveling under an assumed name A. Mendenhall 1. Facts a. Asked for ID + gave it back b. Pointed out age & gender of the suspect B. US v. Sokolow 1. Facts a. Factors paid in cash w/ rolled bills + under diff name + Miami major drug city + short stay 2 days + nervous + no luggage checked in. 2. Held a. Factors (T.C) taken together amounted to RS of Drug trafficking II. Flight in High- Crime Areas (Type of Information 4) A. Brown v. Texas 1. the fact that person was in a neighbourhood frequented by drug users alone is basis for concluding that he himself was engaged in criminal conduct B. California v. Hodari D (dictum mention / not main topic) 1. Unprovoked flight constitutes RS

15

Crim Pro

2. When Seized? 3. Not Fruit of an Lawful seizure C. IL v. Wardlow 1. Facts a. High crime neighborhood in Chicago* + Police in caravan + W standing next to building w/ opaque bag + W fled b. Police chased & seized W 2. Held a. Unprovoked headlong Flight + (when coupled with other factors) = Constitute Terry-Level Suspicion justifying seziure BUT this case does not provide an express per se rule regarding flight b. Factors i. Unprovoked Flight motivated by presence of police + ii. High crime area (I) = RS justify seizure of fleeing individual 3. Rule a. RS (Facts evaluated by the Totality of the Circumstances Test (T.C)) i. Refusal to respond alone does not provide a legitimate basis for investigative stop ii. Under Terry Determination of RS must be based on (I) commonsense judgments AND (II) inferences about human behavior. [1] Terry accepts the risk that Police may stop innocent ppl iii. Factors (relevant to consider in formulating RS) (I) High crime area + (II) unprovoked Flight upon noticing police + (III) nervous behavior [1] (pertinient factor in determining , not indicative of wronging BUT suggestive). 4. Dissent a. Did not describe / define what is 1) flight or 2) high crime area. b. Factors i. Time of day ii. Number of ppl in area iii. Character of the neighborhood iv. Cop in uniform v. The way the runner was dressed vi. The direction and speed of flight vii. Unusual Behavior III. Pretexual Stops A. General Information 1. Racial Profining a. Defintion: a decision to interdict or detain an individual based solely on racial assumptions about the indviduals propensity toward criminality 2. RS --- > PC = OK a. Racial Profiling with RS into cases arise of PC context. 3. DWB B. Whren v. US

16

Crim Pro

1. Pretexual Nature of stops is acceptable under 4AM. IV. Terry Seizure vs. Defacto Arrests A. Dunaway 1. Facts a. Informant + tip enough info for Arrest WR b. Police picked up D from Neighbors + Brought to Police station + interrogation rm i. Was not told he was arrested BUT said he would be physically restrained if attempted to leave 2. Issue a. Was it a Terry Seizure or Defacto Arrest when the police transported him to the police state for interrogation from neighbors home without a warrant or PC? b. Seized Lawfully? 3. Held a. Arrest (acts like a duck, qwacks like a duck = its a duck) i. something more than Terry ii. was not told not free to go. iii. Didnt feel he is free to leave b. Requisite balancing centuries of precendent = seizure are reasonable ONLY IF supported by PC. c. Indistinguishable from an arrest i. Didnt feel like he was free to leave 4. Rule a. GR: require PC to make arrest reasonable under 4AM. b. Terry Exception to GR requiring PC c. Arrest: i. Need a warrant, ii. IF warrant then need PC. (I) Arrests in Public PC (II) Arrests in Home PC +WR. d. Level of intrusiveness* 5. Dissent a. Arresst i. Consented voluntary movement to police station ii. seziure b/c Free of 1) physical force & 2) show of authority B. Note 1. Took him out of his front yard to the car = maybe a Terry Seizure 2. Took him into his home = ? a. Do you feel free to leave? b. Can you be seized in your own home c. Against his will* d. Spectators looking embarrassing C. FL v. Royer 1. Facts a. Miami Airport b. Gender & Age of suspect c. Paid cash for one way ticket

17

Crim Pro

d. Asked for ID took it & Kept it e. Asked D to accompany them + retrieved Rs luggage from airline i. Consent to search it. 2. Held a. Arrest b. Serious intrusion of personal liberty vs. mere suspicion of criminal activity c. an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. d. Things the DEA could have done to avoid the too intrusive boundry i. Returning the ticket.. then all susquent requests & consents would be valid ii. Reasons for safety and security would justify moving a suspect from one location to another during investigative detention. iii. Use of other means to search dog sniff to search luggage detect presence of contraband vs. other private items. D. Penn v. Mimm 1. Facts a. b. c. 2. Held: a. b.

Traffic Citation Large bulge under Ms jacket O Frisked M felt gun & seized it

Terry Seizure Balancing the competing interests i. interest in police safety legitimate & weighty vs. ii. having been lawfully stopped vs. permited to stay in car c. when the police legally stops the driver on the highway he may order the driver out of the car w/o further justifcation E. Maryland v. Wilson 1. Seizure of Passengers in cars 2. Issue: does a passenger in the car have to comply with the officer, when he orders her out of the car too? 3. Hold: YES! a. Balanced interests. b. Rationale: the passenger is inevitably seized when there driver is stopped. c. Minor additional intrusion + police safety outweighs it. F. US v. Sharpe 1. Facts a. Camper + Pontiac i. Pontiac pulled over ii. Camper kept going b. Suspicious camper truck + Police smelled weed from the truck + opened it + found bales of weed & arrested him. 2. Issue: a. length of the detention + police diligently pursue investigation 3. Held: OK based on 3 temp factors. a. The length of the detention alone Transformed from a Terry Stop De Facto Arrest b. Investigation diligent & reasonable manner. i. No delay unnecessary to leg investigation

18

Crim Pro

c. Yes there are alternatives that are non- intrusive howvever when it comes to police safety at stake using other methods may be unreasonable. 4. Rule a. Investigative detention must be: i. temporary and last no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. ii. Evaluation of stop : (I) common sense & (II) ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria. iii. Asses if too long Technique used to investigate (I) did the police diligently propose a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly during the time was nec to detain . G. IL v. Caballes 1. Facts a. Speeding (criminal activity is a foot) vs. Drugs 2. Length of Duration Terry 3. Held: Terry a. use of the dog did not i. extend the duration to an unreasonable seizure ii. change the character of the traffic stop* iii. constitute 4th AM search EVEN THOUGH- the use of the dog was unrelated to the original justification for the vehicle stop. b. Possession of contraband - leg. ex. Of privacy c. Gov conduct ONLY reveals the possession of contraband in the car but nothing else. d. Arizona v. Johnson i. Temporary Seizure (I) Stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene and inform the driver & passenger they are free to leave. (II) Does not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, SO LONG AS those inquires do not measurably extended duration of the stop. e. When the dog came in it became a De Facto arrest f. Warning* Ticket can became unlawful if beyond the time (extension of duration) i. SO LONG AS the inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop. ii. Has the ticket been written = is so, your business is done iii. If prolonged then becomes an De Facto arrest if the avg time is shorter. 4. Defense(great arg) a. The use of the dog converted citizen police encounter from a lawful traffic stop into a drug investigation b/c the shift in purpose was not supported by any RS that D possessed drugs. b. Exposed to embarrassment & intimidation of being investigated. c. Police stationed at long traffic lights circle cars waiting for red signal to turn green ppl will be w/o C protections H. Notes/ Problem 1. Ballon Swallower Columbian Citizen [US. v. Montoya de Hernandez]

19

Crim Pro

a. Facts i.

Xray or return to home country (I) Refused xray b/c she said she was prego ii. Excrete into wastebasket watchful eye of two attending matrons. iii. 16hrs to defecate. iv. Authorities ordered Preg Test which was negative. v. Rectal examine vi. Detention = 24hrs/ b. Holding = Terry Seizure. i. Lawful Seizure (I) Terry Stop (II) Columbian dry trade boarder secruity. ii. Unlawful search (I) Consent? [1] Took off clothes [2] Handed over the drugs (II) If she said she would like to go = seizure 4th AM protection (III) If the Cops said it would be better for your to stay = Grayarea must look at the factors. V. Seizure vs. Not a seizure? A. US v. Mendenhall 1. In view of all the circumstances would have believed that they are not free to leave. 2. Facts a. Airport LA Detroit b. Asked for ID -Diff names on ticket & Dlicense c. Took ID & gave it back d. Consented i. STOP / Seizure of Person= Asked Q & went to DEA office ii. Search of Person = Strip search (I) Handed over the drugs e. DEA is trained to recognize drug traffic behavior/ suspicious activity. 3. Issue a. Whether D (she) was unlawfully seizd? b. IF YES, then consent was invalid. 4. Rule a. Seizure of Person R: by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained. b. Mendenhall Rule i. All circumstances surrounding the incident, Reasonable Person would have believed that he was not free to leave (Objective Standard) ii. Guidelines (4 Factors) to determine if there was a seizure of person (I) Threatening presence of several officiers (II) Display of weapon (III) Some physical touching of person of the citizen (IV) Use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officiers request might be compelled

20

Crim Pro

iii. Totality of all the Circumstances (I) To determine if consent was voluntary- free from duress or coercion-express or implied. (II) Gov has the burden of Proof. 5. Rationale a. pts out the age and gender etc. b. asking for D. License i. need RAS (at least) ii. can run the license w/I the stop = Terry Seizure iii. can not run fingerprints = De facto arrest (I) IF the stop has no PC THEN anything consensual act is thrown out / not valid. 6. Concurrence a. Rule: RAS of criminal activity when stoped D in public place & asked for ID b. Stop = Seizure to ask Questions. B. US v. Drayton 1. Facts a. b. c. d. 2. Issue a.

Bus Sweeps 2 guys (D & B) wearing heavy clothing for location Cops on bus Cocaine thighs

Was it an unlawful seizure? i. IF YES, then anything they consented to would be supressed. b. Did the police need RS to get on the bus? NO then Cops can come on and ask questions. c. Search of Items & Person? i. Voluntary Consent to search? (I) What does the person need to do to assert you are not consenting? ---Leave/ Flee? (depends on the facts) [1] Wardlow - flight alone is not enough RS BUT in high crime area = RS that crime is afoot. (a) Is the person dressed like a runner 3. Held a. Seizure i. No show of authority OR (I) Did not remove gun (II) Told they could refuse to conset ii. No show of Physical Force (I) Did not block ale. (II) Off Hs position in front of the bus does not tip the scale in favor. b. YES Search = Reasonable Consent > based on T.C (I) Brown on notice from Draytons experience c. Rule i. For Seizure: Would the RP be incine to terminate the encounter ? ii. Arrest of one person does not mean that everyone around him is seized by police. iii. Schneckloth b. Bustamonte- CONSENT = OK/ Reasonable Seizure.

21

Crim Pro

(I) Police do not always have to inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search. [1] Knowlede 1 factor: to be taken into consideration BUT gov does not need this to est. consent. iv. Presumption of invalidity vs. T.C (I) Totality of circumstances controls v. FL v. Bostick (I) per se rule: cramped confines onboard a bus act of Q would deprive a person of freedom of movement & constitute a seizure under 4AM [1] Approaching ppl on the streets or public places & putting Q to them if they are willing to listen [2] If RP would feel dree to terminate the encounter not seized. [3] Look at ALL circumstances surrounding the encounter. [4] RP TEST: is objective & pressuposes innocent Person. vi. INS v. Delgado.= no seizure (I) Factory Sweep for illegals. 4. Dissent a. Contrasts airtravel w/ ground travel/ transportation. b. Atmosphere is different C. California v. Hodari D. (1991) 1. Facts a. Flight + tossed rock of crack. b. Tackled - $ + pager. 2. Issue a. lawful seizure? When was HD seized? b. If running When does a seizure occur? i. When D stops or ii. Tackeled. 3. Various Issues a. If Seized w/o RS or PC? i. THEN the rock of crack would be excluded. b. Duration of a seizure- Once D breaks free? i. Not seized IF get to the house vs. block down the rd. (I) How far does he have to run before a seizure ends? 4. Holding a. No seizured until submission to authority OR lay of hands i. did not comply SO he was not seized until tackled ii. abandoned rock not a fruit of the seizure. 5. Rules a. Seizure Test i. Seizure of person occurs when Arrest requires either: (I) Physical Force OR absent physical force (II) Submission to the Assertion of Authority b. IF the subject does not yield after a show of authority NO seizure! i. stop in the name of law fleeing suspect continues to flee

22

Crim Pro

D.

E. F.

G.

c. mere grasping or application of physical force w/ lawful authority, whether or not successful = Seizure. d. See Wardlow flight + high crime area = RAS. i. Flight Terry = RAS. e. Dissent for exam old / traditional Def of Seizure i. Taking possession bring withing physical control ii. umcomplied with show of authority was a CL arrest. 6. Dissent a. Maj Court created new subcategory rule show of force arrests only i. Sounds of sirens, flashing lights & freeze command Brendlin v. Cali (2007) 1. Seizure of person: a. Through means intentionally applied b. Willful and not merely the consequences of an unknowing act 2. Adopted Mendenhall touchtone PLUS added Traffic Stop seizures 1. Driver & passenger is seized* 2. Guilty by association Traffic jam not a show of authority incidental restriction of freedom of movement. 1. Fn6 : problem with Passenger rule taxi cab / bus passengers when driver is pulled over. a. Relationships are different b/w common carrier v. private transportion. Problem 1. Flashed red lights + pulled up to home driveway 2. 8 mile Road in Detroit- racial tension

VI. Terry Extended A. Maryland Buie 1. Protective Sweeps 2. w/o PC or RS B. US v. Place C. Michigan v. Long 1. Automobile frisk 2. Rule: limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden is permissible IF police posses a reasonable belief that suspect is dangerous & may gain access / immiedate control of weapon 3. Applications articulable facts- justified O to enter into the car to search for weapons a. Late at night b. Area was rural c. L appeared intoxicated d. O already observed hunting knife in car e. L intended to re-enter the car D. NJ v. TLO 1. Special Needs Doctrine Searches at public school students 2. Facts a. Caught smoking in the school bathroom b. VP opened the purse cig paper used to make weed cigs c. search implicated in the sale of weed d. Handed evidence to the police & unsed in juvneille court 3. Dont need PC or WR

23

Crim Pro

4. Balancing test 5. Held: Vp may search students w/o WR if 2 Conditions: a. Resonable grounds not nec PC for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student violated or is violating either the law or rules of the schoole b. Search is not excessively intrusive E. Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz 1. Sobriety Checkpts 2. Avg detention 25seconds 3. No individualized suspicion to any particular car occupant 4. No violation of 4th AM 5. It is among the reasonable alternative law enforcement technique F. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond 1. Anti Drug interdiction checkpt 2. Criminal vs. non criminal law purpose distinction 3. Each driver informed that stoped for drug check pt 4. Dog sniff 5. Violation of 4th AM a. Drew a line b/w border stops vs. sobriety checkpts b. Bootstrapping under the border & sobriety umbrella not permissible. 6. Primary Purpose *** reason was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing a. Primarily general crime control purpose at chpts stops can ONLY be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion. b. Cannot use a label to escape needed elements c. Difference b/w secondary vs. primary purposes 7. Elements of chpts-must be a. Appropriately tailored b. Must involve imminent danger 8. General Crime Control Rule G. Il v. Lidster 1. Roadblock set up & question motorists about fatal hit & run accident 2. Under Edmond- individualized suspicion requirment is not needed. 3. Type of information sought at stop is not the kind that involves susipicion for each individual H. General 1. Adminstrative Searches a. Commerical b. Closely regulated business c. Dont need individualized suspicion of wrongdoing ONLY reasonable* d. Discovery of evidence of criminal wrongdoing merely incidential to the purposes of the administrative search 2. International border searches and seizures a. At the border i. WR ii. Suspicion of wrongdoing iii. person lawfully stopped at the border for routine inspection may be detained further if the agents have reaosnable suspicion of criminal activity iv. substantial national interests outweighs person freedom

24

Crim Pro

b. Near the border i. Fixed checkpts ii. Fixed interior checkpts (I) May be stoped at fixed checkpts & briefy detained for questioning w/o individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. 3. Automobile Inspection & Checkpts a. License and vehicle registraton inspection i. Car LEP ii. Must have RAS that motorist is unlic or car is not reg iii. If stopping in order to check lic & reg w/o RAS not reasonable under 4th AM 4. Special Needs S&S a. General i. PC & WR is impracticable ii. reasonableness balancing standard iii. gov interest always trumpts the requirements of WR or PC or even RS b. Searches directed at public employees i. Noninvestigatory work related intrusion v. investatory search for evidence ii. Reasonable at the inception - Reasonable grounds for suspecting iii. Scope- not excessively intrusive in light of nature of the misconduct c. Directed at probationers i. Reasonable grounds 5. Drug & Alcohol Testing a. Suspicionless al or drug testing is C reasonable (by bloodm urine, breath) of some workers and public school students) w/o WR or indvidualizes S. i. As along as testing must not be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes* ii. Consistent with admin searches iii. Societal reason for identifying drug users and abusers iv. Random testing has more approval v. Scrupulous care dignity of persons b. OKAY to Test i. Public Employees (I) Evidence of al or drugs is elminated from body quickly WR would be silly (II) Balance of interests ii. Public School Students (I) Urine analysis of sports program (II) Signed waiver (III) Balance of interest [1] Children [2] Athletics reduced expectation of privacy c. Not Okay to test i. PC I. Standards/ Definitions
25

Crim Pro

A. General Definition 1. less than preponderance of the evidence PC description. 2. Dont have to prove that the crime occurred just look at the probability that the crime occurred. 3. Presumption: S&S conducted absence of PC = unreasonable B. Defintion of PC To Arrest.. 1. Exists where the facts & circumstances within police knowledge and 2. of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves 3. to warrant a man of reasonable caution 4. in belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested C. Definition of PC to Search 1. Same Def applies except replace w/ evidence subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched D. Arrest & Search W/O Warrant 1. Various args by D (1) violated 4AM b/c no warrant (2) lacked PC 2. J must decide whether the police had adequate evidence PC BEFORE they conducted the warrantless search or arrest 3. J place a higher burden on gov. to prove PC in warrantless circumstances E. To get a WR. 1. Need PC. II. General TESTS/ RULE A. Informants/ Tips (Type of Information -1) 1. Spinelli v. US (1969) a. Facts i. Informants tip: Wagering gambling information from IL to Missouri prohibits gambling + 2 telelphones b. Issue i. Whether the 4 items was enough for PC ii. Was there enough PC to get a warrant? Was the warrant valid? c. Holding: i. Both prongs failed. (I) Unable to evaluate informants reliability for the mag to grant WR (II) No investigtion done to corrobrate the information [1] Source of the information was not given [2] Not alleged that informant personally observed S at work in bets. ii. Draper Needed more support - Details (I) Two phone is not susipicious of criminal activity vs. Unusal number of telephones or abnormal activity observed (II) Spinelli known to FBI as gambler not sufficient basis for mag finding of PC. d. Rule i. Aguilar (I) 2 prong test- measure probative value

26

Crim Pro

[1] Veracity Prong [2] Basis of Knowledge Prong ii. Magistrate Test (I) is obligated to render judgment based upon common sense reading of the affidavit [1] Evaluate the truthfulness of the source of the information---Judging the integrity of a person [2] Evaluate the adequacy of the factual premises furnished by that source to support the validity of the sources conclusion ---Judging the logic of a proposition. (II) PC must be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate- Police are too invested in solving the crime iii. Draper v. US (I) Facts [1] Train station- traveling with heroin [2] Infromant gave detailed info about dress and travel plans. (II) Rules [1] Detailed Information Test (a) Magisrate confronted with such detail could reasonably infer that the informant had gained his information in a reliable way [2] Independent Police work in the case corroborated much more than small detail provided by the informant (III) Limited special circumstances [1] If sufficiently detailed infer reliability of information = Detailed information is better to find PC [2] Detail must rest on personal observation of informant OR someone else [3] Not ususal day to day conservations. iv. The informant reliability evaluation (factors) (I) Magistra could require the informant to confirm the information. (II) How many time did they use this informant [1] 1st time use of information (III) Testimonials from friends and neighbors (IV) 1st hand knowledge vs. hearsay. (V) Police corraboration (VI) Detailed information (VII) Source of Information e. Concur i. Nathanson v. US (I) Cops honesthy oath is enough. ii. Piggy back reliability. (I) If 9 minor facts are verified than it can (II) be said the 1 major fact can be verified by the 9 others verification

27

Crim Pro

2. Spinelli + Aguilar two prong test- measure probative value a. Veracity (relability) Prong b. Basis of Knowledge Prong 3. Gates a. Facts i. Anonymous handwritten letter drug dealing couple from IL to FL ii. Cops Corrobration (I) Examined certain finanical records (II) Assigned police to the Airport / checked reservations of flights (III) Mercury vs. Hornet Station wagon license switched. iii. Warrant was issued based on the facts. iv. Diff b/w the letter & reality b. Issue i. Whether PC was sufficient for a WR? c. Holding: YES i. Reliability Prong (I) No identity (II) Unsigned ii. Basis of Knowledge (I) Corraboration + tip verified. d. Rules i. Totality of the Circumstances: to determine whether an informants tip establishes PC (I) 2 prongs of S&A are taken together as circumstances whose totality must be appraised. [1] Veracity Prong (has 2 spurs = Doctrine of Corroboration (a) Reliability (b) Crediability [2] Basis of knowledge Prong (a) Self Verifying Detail (II) evaluate by T.C a deficiency in one may be compensated for in determining the overall reliability of a tip by a strong showing as to the other OR by some other indicata oreliability. ii. PC Standard (I) It is a practical, non technical conception (II) Fluid concept turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular facutal context. e. State v. Boggess child abuse case i. TC do we conside the crime? (I) Ie: murder vs. drug dealing? f. McCray v. IL i. DPC does not require a J in every PC or evidence supression hearing to compel disclosure of the informants identity B. Police Personal Observation (Information Type 2) 1. Maryland v. Pringle

28

Crim Pro

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

a. Facts i. 3 occupants in car ii. Rolled up money in glove compart + 5 baggies of cocaine in backseat armrest. b. Issue: whether the Police had PC to arrest either one of the passengers? c. Holding: YES i. Reasonable inference from the facts all three had knowledge of and excerised dominion and control over the cocaine. d. Rule i. Constructive Possession. (I) Knowledge + (II) Dominion & Control ii. Common Enterprise (I) All have an interest in concealing fruits of their wrongdoing. Schmerber v. Cali (1966) a. Facts i. Blood collection + drunken mororist arrested + test Al level. b. Holding i. taking blood sample intrusion of human body = Offensive Search, requires a clear indication that such evidence of intoxication will be cound. c. Rule i. Probable Cause Plus ii. General Balancing Test: (I) Threat of Health / Safety (risk) (II) Dignity Interest / Bodily integrety (III) Community interest US v. Gray (5th Cir) (class addition) a. They had a WR b. Even if WR still come back and analysis the S&S reasonablness of the exact S&S) Winston v. Lee- searching for bullets in the body a. Intrusion of an area which society recognizes a significantly heightened privacy interest the more substantial justification is required to authorize a search. Devenpeck v. Alford a. Police state of mind is irrelevant to the existence of PC. b. PC objectively exists to arrest for Crime B i. Crime A PC mistaken BUT this PC transfers to Crime B. Hypos a. Twins i. PC that one of them committed the crime ii. One knows he/she didnt committ the crime b. 3 drunks in the backseat i. IF it says LAWFUL SEARCH dont fight facts (exam) c. 100 houses vs. 1 bomb i. balance interest ii. dont have EC to search 100 homes (I) NEED PC before EC iii. Consent

29

Crim Pro

(I) If found drugs arrest is okay: b/c they consented. d. Molestation of Child accusation by Mother i. Reliability Factor (I) Mother is known to the police? (II) Relability of the 3yr olds statement the mothers (III) Look at the type of crime alleging. III. EX to PC A. Consent B. EC C. Warrants I. WARRANT REQUIREMENT A. Generally 1. Presumption of Unreasonable a. Searches conducted outside Judicial process w/o prior approval by J or Mag = Per se unreasonable b. Default position until compelling justification for an exception 2. Warrantless FELONY arrests in the home (not permitted) absent PC & EC 3. Gerstein Hearing = Proceedings after a warrantless arrest: a. Arrestee may not be remain in custody pending trial w/o judicial determination that the arrest was lawful i. On the Scene assessment of PC Is there PC to detain ii. Off the Scene Assessment of PC Is there PC to keep person detain pending further proceedings (I) Judicial determination of PC as prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest b. timeline requirement i. Jx MUST provide PC determination w/I 48hrs after warrantless arrest ii. Absent Bona fide emergency or (I) Other extraorindary Circumstances c. Use of force - Executing an Arrest: i. Method of Arrest Unreasonable = Unreasonable seizure (I) Arrest even based on PC constitutes a unreasonable seizure of the person IF method for making arrest is unreasonble * ii. Tennessee v. Garner (I) Shot in the Back while fleeing (II) Held: Unreasonable seizure of arrestee [1] Could not reasonable believed posed a threat (III) Rule [1] To prevent a fleeing felon is unreasonable UNLESS [2] PC to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to police or others - Ie: threatens police with weapon iii. Scott v. Harris (I) Rammed car off the road quadriplegic (II) Held: OK end a long public endangering car chase.

30

Crim Pro

B. Rules 1. Warrant Requirements (3 Major): ALWAYS PC* a. Neutral and Detached Magistrate Rule i. Magistrate Requirements Issuing a WR (I) Person who signs off on the WR does not need to be L (II) Mag cannot involve themselves in the search must be neutral (III) Cannot leave WR open ended. (IV) Mag Cannot be paid to issue WR [1] Connelly v. GE: It would be difficult to est. neutrality if paid (V) Attorney General not really neutral (VI) Must read it - Avg time: 2. 48 sec = OKAY. (VII) Technology electronic signature. b. Oath and Affirmation. i. Franks v. Delware: (I) To Challenge truthfullness (limited Cirucumstances allow) [1] D must show preliminary showing that the false statement was made knowingly / intentionally OR w/ reckless disregard for the truth. (II) If the remainer of the content (w.i the Affd) is insufficient of PC WR valid & fruits of search excluded. c. Particularity i. Open-ended warrants / prevent general searches. ii. Seizure of items = particularly describe the things to be seized iii. Search = the place to be searched. (address; if duplex need to be sp enough) (I) Principles tolerating General Descriptions: [1] If the nature of the object to be seized could not realistically described more specifically (a) Paperclips, strings [2] allowed in contraband cases (a) Drugs* [3] demanded if other objects of same general classification are likely to be found at search site (a) cartons of womens clothing wil not do if the police are searching an entire warehouse [4] scrupulous exactitude. (II) Particularity by incorporation [1] Groh v. Ramierz (a) Cross-refering other documents (b) Maj Courts: may construe a warrant w/ ref to supporting application or aff if the warrant uses appropriate words of incorporation AND if supporting doc accmpanies the warrant. 2. Warrant Validity a. 10 days valid [time execution]

31

Crim Pro

SOME jx bar nighttime execution of WR UNLESS judge for GC(good cause) expressly authorizes- nighttime execution. b. Outstanding arrest warrant c. Arrest w/o warrant done after the fact? i. Felony Crime = YES when (I) PC: that she committed a crime + felon (II) In public. ii. Misdomeanor Crime = YES when (I) Can only arrest if committed (the crime) in the presence of the cop b/c the cop saw it --- can arrest w/o a warrant 3. Arrest WR Requirements a. Arrest in public i. PC, WR b. Arrest in Home i. PC + WR ii. K&A UNLESS EX EX + RS c. Search for someone in Someone elses home i. Search WR 4. Execution of a Search WR a. Warrants based on PC b. Need Notice? General Rule GR Knock and Announce rule CL i. General (I) Applies to the home* (II) Absent special circumstances cop cannot enter to execute WR ii. Rule: requirements (I) Knock (or somehow indicate presence ring bell) (II) Identify himself as a cop (III) State purpose for entering (IV) Request admittance and IF refusal. EX applies & can enter* c. Exception EX to K&A (Knock and Anounce) Rule i. Wilson v. Ark indirectly gave list of circumstances (I) 2 circumstances to enter w/ notice [1] circumstances present threat of physical violence in hot pursuit cases [2] police have reason to believe evidence would be destroyed IF advance notice given (a) Wilson v. Ark case by case inquiry +PC (b) Richards v. Wisconsin RS* - created loophole. ii. To justify a NO-KNOCK entry: (I) Richards v. Wisconsin [1] Police must have RS (reasonable suspicion standard) that knocking and announcing their presence under particular circumstances (a) would be dangerous or futile OR (b) is would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime ie destruction of evidence. (II) Time requirement

i.

32

Crim Pro

[1] Reasonableness * must be evaluated as of the time they enter: 15-20 sec wait time. (III) Methold [1] Depends on the time (IV) Remedy [1] if police violate K&A Rule- evidence still not be excluded* [2] remedy sought 1983 C. Types of WR 1. Anticipatory Warrants vs. Ordinary WR. a. General i. WR based upon an affd showing PC that at some future time certain evidence of crime will be located at specified place. b. 2 prerequisties i. must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidene of a crime will be found in the particular place ii. there is PC to believe the triggering condition will occur. c. Anticipation of Execution i. General (I) police may wish to cordon off the area in anticipation of the WR BUT action may itself consistute a warrantless seizure of the property ii. IL v. McArthur (I) Facts [1] Police had PC to belief illegal drugs in trailer home [2] Until WR was obtained, Police did not allow him to reenter trailer unacccompained by cop [3] 2 hrs later. (II) Held: OK- WRL (warrantless) temporary seizure of propery = Reasonable (III) Rule: Look at cumulative circumstances(T.C) Temporary seizure =RR, While anticipating execution of WR. [1] PC [2] Prevent loss/ destruction of evidence [3] Police made reasonable efforts to reconcile their Law enforcement needs w/ personal privacy (avoided significant intrusion into home) [4] Police diligently obtained WR in a reasonable period of time 2. Arrest Warrants in Home a. Payton v. NY (+Riddick) i. Facts (I) PC established P killed gas station attendant (II) Son opened door for the police ii. Issue (I) Warrantless arrest of suspect in home? iii. Holding (I) Not permitted

33

Crim Pro

[1] HOME IS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE C ** [2] Homes are different Mans Home is his Castle (a) Boyd v. US: Sanctity of mans home & privacies of life. (II) Dissent [1] 4AM intended to protect People NOT places. iv. Rule (I) Arrest in Public place [1] Need PC, But WR (II) Arrest in Home [1] Need PC + WR [2] IF NO WR- Arrest w/o WR. (a) In Hot pursuit (b) Exigent Circumstances (EC) (i) Absent EC warrantless entry to search for weapons OR contraband is UnCon EVEN when felony has been committed & there is PC to believe incriminating evidence will be found within. v. Analysis (I) Searches in the home [1] Stuff in Plain View would have been admissible IF police were lawful present where they were (a) However Arrest in home w/o WR, therefore No. (b) Search was unreasonable. [2] Arrest WR for the home - Protects against searches of the home- b/c home is expressly stated in the C. 3. Exceptions to the Payton Rule WR arrest in Home a. Minnesota v. Olson i. Rule : A warrantless intrusion may be justified by: (I) Hot pursuit of fleeing felon OR (II) imminent destruction of evidence OR (III) the need to prevent suspects escape OR (IV) risk of danger to police or other person inside or outside dwelling ii. absent Hot pursuit need PC to believe one or more other factors justify entry.(plus factors) (I) Assessing the risk of danger (II) Gravity of the crime (III) Likehood that the suspect is armed should be considered. 4. Arrests in 3rd Persons Residence: The Steagald Principle a. Steagald v. Us i. Narrow Issue: whether an arrest warrant as opposed to a search warrant is adequate to protect 4AM interests of person not named in the warrant, when their homes are search w/o consent & in absence of existent circumstances ii. Arrest vs. Search warrants = protect diff intersts
34

Crim Pro

(I) Arrest: issued by Mag upon showing PC exists to believe that subject of the warrant has committed an offense & thus warrant primarily serves to protect an individual from unreasonable seizure (II) Search: issued upon showing of PC to believe that the legitimate object of search is located in a particular place & therefore safeguards an individuals interest in the privacy of his home & possession against the unjustified intrusion. iii. Rule Need to have a search warrant to arrest someone in someone elses home b. Hypo i. When staying in an Apt but dont actually live there (I) How long/ duration comes to the pt that police need an Arrest WR to arrest in that residence. 5. Search Warrants a. Lo Ji Sales, Inc v. NY (1979) i. Rule: Elements of valid Search Warrant: [1] Open-ended warrants items particularly describe the things to be seized (a) = Particularity (i) Principles tolerating General Descriptions (see above) [2] Must be authorized by neutral & detached judical officers (a) = Neutral & detatched magistrate ii. Facts (I) Adult bookstore obsence material in violtion of NY Laws. (II) Mag involved/ accompany him/herself in the police S&S of the bookstore. [1] Made determinations on the material if passed undert the Warrant as obsence material being collected. iii. Issue: Whether the Warrant was sufficent when it failed to list particular items to be seized and the Mag availed himself in the S&S by police? iv. Holding: NO b. Wilson v Arkansas i. Rule: Excecuton of search Warrant (I) 4thAM contains an implicit Knock and Announce rule CL [1] K&A Principle is apart of RR under 4th AM (II) HOWEVER (Exceptions) flexible requirement of reasonableness [1] Threat of physical violence [2] Demand & refusals senseless ceremony [3] Preservation of evidence (a) Ie: drugs. c. Richards v. Wisconsin i. Rule: RS loop-hole under EX to K&A princple

35

Crim Pro

(I) Police only need RS vs. PC to justify NOT K&A (B/C it strike an appropriate balance b/w law enforcement & privacy interest) [1] 2 Circumstances (a) would be dangerious or futile OR (b) would inhibit effective investgation of crime b/c it would allow destruction of evidence (II) Reasonableness * must be evaluated as of the time they enter ii. Facts (I) Dealing drugs out of hotel rooms (II) Police K&A as maintenance man chain on door + R slammed door b/c saw cop behind maintence man (III) Police K&A kicked / ram as Cops iii. Held: Special Circumstances drug culture = EC (I) exceptions will likely gobble up K&A requirement d. US v. Banks i. Rule: Time Requirement (reasonable) + Method of Entry (force) AFTTER K&A given (b/c: RS + EC) (I) Time? [1] IF EC 15-20 seconds OK (usually in drug search cases) v. [2] IF EC reasonable wait time may be longer (ie: stolen piano search) (II) Method of Entry? [1] Immediate forcible entry = RR AND [2] Police donot need heightened justification to enter or wait longer b/c damage they may cause to the premise [3] In sum: may damage premises so far as nec * (III) Damage via Entry? [1] GR: Exigency justifies immediate force entry [2] HOWEVER EX: Damage is relevant when immediate entry IS NOT required = reasonable wait time* before causing damage may be longer than if the door to the house is open. ii. Facts: (I) Search WR for drugs in apt (II) B in the shower didnt hear K&A (III) Police waited 15-20 sec + broke open door w/ battering ram iii. Held: OK (I) 15-20 seconds w/o response + police could suspect drugs would be gone if waited longer + forciable entry ok (II) B in shower irrelevant vs. if B wasnt- would be aware of police purpose of entry & attempt to flush drugs e. Ybarra v. IL i. Rule: Search of Persons while Executing WR premise open to (general) PUBLIC (I) Requirements [1] Must be named individual

36

Crim Pro

[2] PC [3] At the time of WR issued (II) Absent being named in Search WR / Warrantless Search OK IF: [1] Cop has independent PC AND [2] Justification ie: Consent OR EC OR [3] Use Terry Principle: need RS to believe Y is armed & danagerous ii. Issue: Under what circumstances, may cops execute valid Search WR of premises open to public & search persons who are found at the scene, who are not named in the WR? iii. Held: Not C (I) Persons mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity DOES NOT w/o more give rise to PC to search that person [1] No evidence Y is linked to criminal activity of tavern search (II) Every customer had individualize 4th AM protection (III) Does not mean cops have to bypass ppl present at scene. (IV) Could have used Terry Principle BUT lacked RS that armed or dangerous. iv. Facts (I) Search WR of Tavern + bartender named, for drugs. (II) Frisked each customer + while frisk of Y felt cig pack, opened it and found packets of herion f. No case listed* i. Rule: Search WR execution of Persons in PRIVATE HOME. (I) Even if RS required should be easlier to justify limited Patdown search b/c [1] On adversarys turf [2] Occupants likely are connected to the suspected activing OR [3] Incentive to protect criminal interests of resident. g. Michigan v. Summers i. Rule: Detention of Persons during Searches = OK (I) Brightline R for detaintion of ppl during Drug search in home - WR to search for drugs (contraband) includes limited authority to detain all occupants of the premises to be search while executing the WR. ii. Issue:Whether evidence of search should be excluded b/c it was fruit of an unlawful detention w/I home? iii. Held: No, Temp Seizure = RR. (I) 3 justifications [1] avoid flight of occupant & evidence [2] reduced risk of bodily harm to cops & others [3] faciliate the search. h. Muehler v. Mena handcuff for 2-3hrs i. Rule: Seizure of persons during WR searches ii. Reasonable method + Durations b/c of the circumstances (I) Search for weapons + of a wanted gang member = inherently dangerous situation

37

Crim Pro

i.

j.

(II) Handcuffs excessive force b/c min risk of harm BUT it can be painful after certain pt. No case listed i. Rule: Scope of the Search defined by = Particularity required * (I) If WR describes place to be searched can search+ Seize items listed [1] Entire place [2] Containers found w/I AS LONG AS law enough to contain object of search (a) Ie: jewelry box hold fruits of robbery crime? (i) Coins vs. TV [3] Once item is found listed in WR, execution of Search WR ceases! (II) Seize any item NOT listed in WR IF [1] Observe in PV item [2] while they had the authority to search in that area [3] PC to believe itme is subject to seizure Maryland v. Garrison i. Rule: Erroneous WR + Erroneous Execution (I) Court has recognized the need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes

II. EXCEPTIONS A. Exigent Circumstances 1. General Princples a. Def: A situation requires immediate action b. Burden of Proof i. Search is unreasonable (I) On the Def- you Gov / cops didnt have a WR ii. for Exception to WR (I) On the gov to demonstrate EX to WR -EC (II) Prove EC to overcome the presumption of unreasonableness c. Type of Crime matters* Welsh v. Wisconsion i. Minor vs. Felony (I) Minor = PC EC (II) Felony= PC + EC ii. factor to consider when determining whether any exigency exists * the gravity of the offense for which the arrest is being made iii. Held: The need to preserve evidence (alcohol blood level) is insufficent as an exigency (I) 1st offense as driving intoxicated is non-criminal 2. In the HOME a. Murder Scene = NON-Exception Mincey v. Arizona i. Scene of homicide: (I) prompt Warrantless search is okay to see if other victims or if killer is still on premises (II) police may seizure evidence in plain view during the course of the legitmate emergency activites.

38

Crim Pro

ii. Exigencies justify initiation iii. Community caretaking function Vs. investigating crime. b. Emergency Doctrine [community care taking function- CCTF] i. CCTF: WR & PC do not apply vs. Crime investigation = PC / WR ii. Need to assist person who are seriously injured OR threathened with such injury iii. Render emergency assistance to protect from imminent injury iv. Ongoing violence occuring w/I the home Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart (I) Objectively reasonable belief: injured person might need help & violence is beginning. (II) Role of peace: to prevent violence & restore order (III) Manner:- K&A -cops are free to enter. c. Minnesota v. Olson i. Rule: Standard identifing 4 types of EC justifying WRless entry into HOME (I) Hot pursuit of fleeing felon OR [1] Absence of HP?- Need at least PC to believe FACTORS (a) Risk of danger (b) Gravity of the crime AND (c) Likelihood that suspect is armed (II) Imminent destruction of evidence OR (III) Need to prevent a suspect escape OR (IV) Risk of danger to the police or others inside or outside the dwelling d. Warden v. Hayden i. Facts: (I) Armed robbery + suspect entered home (II) Cop1 found suspect & gun in flush tank (III) Cop2 washing machine clothing fleeing man wore (mere evidence = remember: seizable evidence) + mattress of bdrm pistol & cap ii. Held: Full- scale search was justifed. Search for the fleeing felon robbery supect & for weapons = justified by EC (I) In hot pursuit felon & armed/ dangerous (II) Police had the right to search any place in the home where the felon / weapons may be found [1] Cop knew the robber was armed BUT did not know when he was apprehended that some of the weapons were already WHEN he found other evidence in the washing machine iii. Rule: EC- an EX Search WR of Home (I) The right to search ended as soon as felon is discovered & threat is ended last as long as the exigency * e. Hypos i. #1 imminent destruction of evidence? = Still need PC* (I) if someone see the cop see the weed in the house THEN

39

Crim Pro

(II) Cop can come in the prevent the destruction of evidence [1] HOWEVER does not give the cop the authority to search the entire house ii. #2 Imminent destruction Police Creating the EC? (I) home owner make drug deal, owner swallows something outside the home (II) occupants inside the home see the police arrest home owner (III) is there EC that ppl who saw arrest, destroy the evidence? [1] Did the police create the exigency? (a) Ie: announce he was a cop inside the home [2] Companions around to destroy evidence is the EC (a) On adversarys turf (b) Incentive to protect homeowner? iii. #3 Imminent Destruction creating the EC? (I) Drugs on the coffee table & noone saw the police [1] Need PC (a) Veracity (b) Basis of knowledge [2] Need WR iv. #4 nun in the closet EC? (I) EC to protect the person who was kidnapped (II) EC ends once the police enter & no reason to believe someone else there (III) Closet locked SILA [1] Arrested suspect outside w/ donuts [2] G+L (grab and lung area) Chimel 3. In the BODY a. Intrusions inside the Human Body i. Schmerber v. California (I) Held:Warrantless taking of blood sample = okay [1] Alcohol in the bloodstream would have been lost if police required to get WR [2] Exitgency = evidence being destroyed as Ss body elimintated it from the system. (II) Rule: intrusive bodily search violated 4M UNLESS: (2 requirements) [1] The police are justified in requiring the individual to submit the test AND (a) PC there was a clear indication that evidence would be discovered. [2] The means & procedure employed to conduct the test are reasonable (a) Highly effective, commonplace and rarely painful or traumatic. (b) Performed in reasonable manner: by doc, at hospital, under accepted med practices ii. Winston v. Lee (I) Held: w/o consent Removal of a bullet under left collarbone [1] Procedure is extensive intrusion on bodily integrity

40

Crim Pro

[2] Medical risks [3] Gov. failing to prove it had a compelling interest for the bullet to prove the case. (II) Rule: 2nd requirement searches under the skin should be authorized with caution [1] depends on a case by case approach Balancing (a) privacy & security vs. society interest in conducting the procedure b. External Searches of the body i. Cupp v. Murphy (I) Held: Search= OK - Exigency justified forced scraping of blood under the fingernail [1] PC [2] Very limited intrusion [3] Ready destructibility of the evidence B. Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest [SILA] 1. General Overview a. General Rule i. Police who make a lawful custodial arrest may conduct a contemporaneous warrantless search of: (I) Arrestees person (II) Area within arrestrees immeidate control Grab / Lunging Area. AND (III) if the arrest occurs in the home closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched (IV) if the arrest occurs in the car passenger compartment and containers of occupants at the time contact (Belton) + of any recent occupants (Thorton) + Gant b. PC? i. Search PC (I) generally required flows automatically from the arrest itself ii. Seizure = PC (I) Items /evidence found during lawful search EVEN IF unrelated to the arrested crime (II) BUT need PC to believe object constitutes constitutionally seizable evidence (contraband, instrumentality, fruit or evidence of crime) c. SILA elements* i. Arrest (I) Full Custodial [1] Knowles v. Iowa (a) SILC Minor offenses traffic citation (i) No destruction of evidence of traffic violation (b) Lawful vs. Unlawful search / arrest* (i) Search must be related to the crime arrested for or sweep for danger/ destruction of evidence.

41

Crim Pro

[2] Atwater v. Lago Vista (a) Misdemeanor punishable by sm fine (b) Held: taking misdemeanants into custody = OK & cop was authorized to search drivers immiedate control area (II) Lawfulness of Arrest [1] PC+WR [2] Even if there is a statute prohibiting arrests BUT the police have PC = lawful ii. Contemporaneousness of the Search (I) Area within Arrestees immediadate control [1] Must take place after the arrest vs. justified on SILA if car is towed to police garage (II) Closets and other speaces adjoining the place of arrest [1] Once D is removed from the home SILA (III) Of the Person [1] post arrest too late [2] vs. paint chips case SILA may be conducted later when E arrives at jail (a) privacy not invaded (b) paint chips in grab area incentive to coneal / destroy (c) 10 hrdelay okay to get E change of clothes (i) HOWEVER: why not get a WR? (ii) BUT: Arrest inventory search (EX) would have covered this issue too d. Scope of Search i. Person (Chimel + Robbinson) (I) Exterior of body [1] Clothing- pockets [2] Containers found on person immediate associated with person ie: purse [3] As long as the containers are large enough to conceal a weapon OR evidence of crime (II) Interior of body [1] Ie: blood evidence most personal and deeply rooted expectation of privacy may not be justified under ordinary SILA doctrine. Vs. other grounds (a) Strip search & Body cavity search ? uncertain if can be conducted SILA. ii. Area within the Arrestee Immediate Control (I) 3bdrm vs. might justify the search of rm that arrest occurred + containters found in the room that could hold weapon & evidence. (II) Grabbing Area Factors [1] Handcuffed back or front [2] Size & dexterity of the arrestee [3] Size of rm [4] Containers in the room open or shut [5] Shut containers via lock or unlocked [6] # of cops in comparison to the suspects.

42

Crim Pro

(III) One room rule vs. Houdini Rule Thornton v. US [1] Movement of D Cop can stay at his elbow & search new grab area -Washington v. Chrisman [2] Ie: arrested in bathrob in livingrm clothed in bdrm. iii. Cars (Belton, Thorton, Gant) (I) NY v. Belton GRAB AREA RULE FOR CARS* [1] Police may contemporaneous to arrest of an occupant of car (a) At intital contact with police, arrestee was an occupant or recent occupant of the car* (i) If D steps outside the car just before contact with police = applies vs. (ii) Is near unoccupied car when police arrive w/o occupying it recently = SILA grab area applies vs. Belton Rule (b) Contemporaneous = substantially contemporenous [2] Search the passenger compartment and all contrainers found therein [3] Regardless if the containers are open or closesd. (a) = Luggage, clothing, boxes (b) Trunk& engine compartment iv. Protective Searches for Dangerous Persons - Maryland v. Buie (I) Immediately Adjoining the place of arrest: PC / RS (II) This allows the police to look beyond the immediate grad area (III) b/c this is a search for persons weapons or evidence = search only spaces large enough to contain human being * Person* 2. Chimel v. California SILA RULE scope: (1) person and (2) Grab / Lung Area. a. Facts i. Cops show up at home + Warrant for Arrest burglary of coin shop ii. D not home / at work + Cops wait (10-15mins) iii. Full on search for evidence & seizure coins + tokens 45mins b. Issue : Does the EX to WR of SILA justfiye searches of the entire house ? c. Holding: NO! beyond scope of SILA where he could grab weapons i. Interesting Pt/ police tactic (I) If the police arrested him at work vs. home = no search of house could have been made w/o search warrant (II) Ones papers are safe only so long as one is not at home. d. Rule: SILA SCOPE i. Lawful custodial arrest + Police can conduct a substantally contemporneous search of (I) Person AND (II) immediate surrounding area = grab/lung area (immediate control) [1] might gain possession of weapon or

43

Crim Pro

[2] conceal or destructible evidence (a) IF LOCKED Container Search vs. (b) IF UNLOCKED = Search ii. Factors to Consider (I) How accessible are things around the home (II) # of cops around him (III) Characteristic of Def (old v. young) iii. Burden of Proof (I) gov must to justify exception. iv. 2 Rationale - Arrest Warrant - triggers a threat to police (I) Safety [1] Concealed weapon (II) Preservation of evidence [1] Destroy evidence hidden e. Dissent: the arrest created EC no compansions arounds to destroy the evidence f. Hypo i. Arrested & handcuffed at doorway + excuse to go in house- have D put on shoes + moved him around in the house + shakes pairs (multiple) of shoes + discovers gun in one pair. (I) PC to arrest (II) WR (III) is the arrest lawful? before we get to EX: SILA (IV) Was a search okay?Handcuffed + shoes shaken in grab area [1] Lawful v. Unlawful? (a) Just b/c a cop does an unlawfuls search, does not mean there wasnt a lawful search at some pt* (V) Arg: search was too broad for SILA: shook too many shoes (VI) Handcuffed how? Front vs. back [1] Front- would allow more search= G&L area (VII) Movement of Def in the home [1] Can search the GL area of new locations aka shopping around ii. Threshold Q: the arrest in the doorway b/c need PC+ WR to arrest in home* (I) Could have arrested outside vs. inside BUT there is not requirement that police must arrest outside when opportunity 3. Washington v. Chrisman a. Rule: SILA movement of Def + G&L Area i. Once Def is moved into new location = new G&L area is create Police can search that new G&L area ii. Police can remain at his elbow. 4. Kentucky v. King (2011) a. Rule: Police create the extincy EC + need PC i. Generally (I) Court allowed the police to create the extincy + with PC to believe evidence is being destoryed. (II) (fn) Allowed to w/o WR + WR sound reasoning b. Requirements / Set up i. PC to think Criminal activity is going on

44

Crim Pro

ii. Can arrest someone in public iii. Cannot search shomeones home w/o Arrest WR UNLESS (I) EX to WR [1] EC (a) Kentucky v. King Rule: EC can be prompted by the police officers own conduct. 5. US v. Robinson justification of the SILA- full search of person = Reasonable Standard* + Added to Chimel Containers on the person can be searched a. Facts: i. Traffic arrest ii. 3 phase search of D (I) pat down (II) pock jacket-cigarette pack [1] could have seized it and eventually relationship b/c inventory search + SILA would have discovered whats inside. (III) inside cigarette pack= 14 gelatin capsules of white power heroin b. Rule: SILA of Containers on Person i. SILA containers (I) PC for Arrest = SILA is lawful [1] Vs. Terry need RS (II) Custodial arrest (must be arrested) full search of person [1] Vs. Terry can only if protective frisk (for weapons) (III) Containers on person can be search EVEN THOUGH not searching for evidence of crime for which you are arrested [1] (vs. Gant- car search ONLY for (if RB) evidence of the crime arrested for) ii. 2 basic functions SILA (I) Removal of weapons the arrestee might use to resist arrest OR effect escape AND (II) Seizure of evidence or fruits of the crime for which the arrest is made to prevent concealment of destrcution [1] Seiziable items (a) fruits, (b) instrumentalities or (c) contraband probabtive of criminal conduct c. In Class- Cali i. Allows police to search cell phones for txt msgs. C. Arrest Inventories EX Second Searches 1. Requirements/ Rationale: Can be done w/o WR + PC = justified a. To protect the arrestee from theft w/I jail b. Reduction of false claims of theft c. Contraband & dangerous instrumentalities that cops could have missed in 1st search as not smuggled in. 2. SILA & Inventory Search Relationship a. Once SILA fate is usually seals b/c a 2nd search is coming regardless* 3. Inventory vs. Adminstrative Searches = Exemption from need for PC

45

Crim Pro

a. Inventory OR i. Search of property lawfully seized AND ii. if there is clear regulatons + policies allowing for it. b. Adminstrative regulation i. Inspection of business premises. Car D. Arrests of Automobile Occupants- Automobile + SILA 1. NY v. Belton a. Facts i. 4 suspects v. 1 cop (cop didnt have 4 sets of handcuffs) ii. stop for speeding BUT drugs charge smelled weed & plain view of envelope supergold term associated with weed. iii. Searched passenger compartment + backseat search leatherjacket pocket cocaine. b. Rule: Car Grab Area i. SILA + of occupant in the autmobile + contemporaneous incident of that arrest Search ii. G/L Area: (I) Passenger Compartment [1] Police may search the passenger compartment of car [2] EVEN if not inevitably within the area into which arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary item (a) Glove compartments, consoles etc. (II) Containers [1] Police may examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. [2] Can search whether it is open or closed. (a) Ie luggage, boxes, bags clothing (b) TRUNK is off limits. [3] Hype + Fn 4 [EXAM] (a) Interior of the passenger compartment vs. (b) Pass through to the trunk (i) Can you reach it? grab / lung area? (ii) However if there is no pass through then cannot search the trunk iii. Applies to occupant of the car at the time of contact. c. Dissent: Factors to consider SILA scope of car & rationale i. # of cops vs. occupants of the car ii. manner of restraint iii. ability of the arrestee to gain access to a particular area or container. iv. Timing of the Search? 2. Thornton v. a. Facts
46

Crim Pro

i. T was outside the car when O fist accosted him ii. O searched car and found handgun under the drivers seat b. Issue: whether Belton is limited to situtation where the O makes contact with occupant while occuant is inside the car OR does it also apply when the O makes contact after the occupant (latter) stepped out of car? c. Extended Belton * i. Belton applies SO LONG AS an arrestee is the sort of (I) recent occupant of a vehicle + (II) that recent occupants G/L area [1] = search of car is okay 3. Arizona v. Gant a. Added a different spin to the car SILA Circumstances unique to car context justify a SILA when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the offense arrest might be found in the car b. Facts i. Car= mobile, less privacy, worried about comrades (ie: Chimel the wife as an accomplice) destroying evidence b/c access to them is possible (ie: Atwater friend came to take charge of the children). ii. 1 D vs. 2 cops (I) Handcuffed and placed in the back of the patrol car. iii. Stopped for a suspended license. (I) Wont find evidence in the interior of the car of a suspended license. iv. Cocaine in the pocket of the jacket in the backseat. c. Threshold Question: Whether the police may conduct a SILA at all once the scene is secured? d. Rule: Gant Two Part Rule i. Police who arrests a car occupant or recent occupant may search the passenger compartment IF (I) The arrestee is w/I reaching distance of the car at the time of search OR (II) Cop has reason to believe tht the car contains evidence of the offense of arrest [1] this is the add / different interpretation of belton e. Rationale i. Safety Focus use grab area concept (I) Cannot search If the D is arrested / handcuffed in the patrol car ii. Evidence Focus - Not concerned with the grab area - threw out the Chimel rationale b/c cars are different vs. home is special* (I) Can search even if the D is arrested/ handcuffed in the partrol car b/c concerned about the presence of 3rd party/ accomplice. f. Dissent : Doctrine of Stare Decisis should be followed UNLESS Special justificiation for abandonment i. FACTORS (I) Engendered Reliance (II) Change in circumstance (III) Unworkable (IV) Undermined by later decisions (V) Badly reasoned.

47

Crim Pro

g. Hypo i. Warrant for arrest robbery (I) Can you search passenger compartment? YES [1] Tools of the robbery (II) Can you search the trunk? [1] Vehicle v. Passenger Compartment? (confusing language from Belton fn 4) (a) Interior of passenger compartment vs. passthrough to the trunk* - Can reach it? (b) However, if there is no passthrough then cannot search the trunk- Cant reach it? 4. Atwater 1983 action a. The cop does not need to know the difference b/w the crime (whether he can or cannot arrest) too many crimes to determine if it is a permissible action via statute. b. Virgina v. Moore i. An arrest based on PC, although in violation of state law IS LAWFUL for purposes of 4AM c. Facts i. Driving truck with children - 3yr old son & 5yr daughter no seat belt. ii. Arrested Atwater & booked her at the police station iii. Atwater filed suit 1983 d. Issue: whether warrantless misdemeanor arrests neeed C attention? e. Holding: NO i. Line b/w jailable vs. fine only is difficult 5. Knowles vs. Iowa a. Rule: Element of SILA must be a LAWFUL search/ LAWFUL arrest. i. If you give someone a traffic citations unlawful search of full car ii. If you arrest someone = must be lawful? (I) If the state says that you cant arrest but the cop has PC then its okay the search becomes lawful * b. Facts i. State authorized police to arrest for traffic violations BUT the cop issued a traffic citation ii. After the issuance the police searched (full search) the weapon EVEN THOUGH the cop had no reason to believe he would find a weapons or criminal evidence in the car (I) Bag of weed + pot pipe. c. Issue: Lawful vs. Unlawful Custodial SIA? d. Held: Search of car violated the 4AM i. Arrest creates danger(Robbinson) BUT a traffic stop is different* ii. Min additional intrusion = OKAY Terry Stop vs. Full Field type search OKAY. iii. Crime must fit the search (I) Wont find evidence of the traffic violation (II) No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person or in the passenger car compartment.

48

Crim Pro

6. Mincey v. Arizona: mere fact that law enforcement may be more efficient can never by itself justify disregard for the 4AM* E. Pretextual stops and Arrests (Particularly in Automobiles) 1. Whren v. US Pretext + Whren is a PC vs. Terry RS a. Issue i. Whether the temporary detention of a motorist who the police has PC to believe has commiited a civil traffic violation is inconsistent w/ the 4AMs prohibition against unreasonable seizure UNLESS a reasonable cop would have been a motivated to stop the car by desire to enforce the traffic laws? b. Does the 4AM bar pretextual police conduct? NO c. Rule i. Pretext Stops Permissible? (I) YES if there another reason for the stop (vs. DWB- race cannot be the sole reason) (II) Once the Stop is permissible + cop get to come up to the car (plain view) and see whats going on [1] Once see crime PC to arrest & search futher for evidence of that crime arrested for. (III) Police can also follow the car UNTIL traffic violation occurs. ii. US v. Villamonte Marquez (I) Dismissed the idea that an ulterior motive might serve to strip the agents of their legal justification. [1] Substantive vs. Objective Motive? (a) Subjective intentions play NO ROLE in ordinary PC 4thAM. (b) Reasonable matters | subjective motive iii. Traditional CL (I) PC justified a S&S F. Cars and Containers - AUTOMOBILE EX (+ containers in car empassed AutoEX) 1. Overview / GR / Summaries a. Searches At the Scene i. Police may conduct immediate WRL search of car + PC to believe contains (contraband, fruits, instrumentalities, evidence of crime) IF (I) Stops car on the highway/ public road (II) Car is readlily capable of use on the highways (readily movable) found in a setting that objectively indicates that the car is being used for transportation (more like home vs. car?) AND stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes(no home attributes) ii. Search = immediate + only portions of car for which the police have PC to search WHEN stop car on Public Road* vs. b. Searches Away from the Scene c. PC Requirment i. WR EXCEPTION

49

Crim Pro

(I) (1) Carroll Chambers Carney: permissible IF police have PC to search the car (II) (2) Belton / Thorton Occupant (or recent occupant) of an autombile is arrested police may sometimes conduct incident of arrest, a contemporaneous search of passenger compartment of the car EVEN w/o PC to search (III) (3) SD v. Opperman:Automobile Inventories: PC or WR. d. Balance interestsDriver interests (3) i. Locomotion ii. Control over property iii. Secrecy of car contents. e. Containers in Cars i. Chambers + Coolidge + Carney criminal evidence in car was open f. Containers i. GR: all containers will be treated alike ii. EX: by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectation of privacy (I) Kit of burglars tools / gun case (II) Transpant case ex of privacy (III) Give off distinctive odor ex of privacy 2. Carroll v. US Mobility Rationale = Diff b/w Car vs. Home v. office | At the Scene Search a. Facts i. On the side of the highway + might be moved later Cops did not move the car ii. finding weed in the car when search compartment SILA iii. then have PC to believe that more drugs would be found in the trunk of the car b. Rule: Car Search At the Scene i. Cars & other conveyances may be searched w/o WR based on circumstances that would not justify the search w/o a WR of home / office, (I) Rationale: Distinction b/w stationary structures v. cars. [1] Immobile vs. mobile (a) Home official warrant may be obtained (b) Car not practicable to secure warrant b/w quickly moved out of locality (i) Ready mobility of car justifies lesser degree of protection of those interests ii. Must be PC to believe that car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seized. (I) Not dependent on the right to arrest BUT dependent on RC (reasonable cause) the seizing cops had belief contents of car offend against law. [1] Circumstances (a) GR: Lawfully w/I country entitled to use public highways & right to use free passage wo interruption / search UNLESS

50

Crim Pro

(b) EX: known to compentent Cops & authorized to search, b/c believe car is carrying contraband & illegal merchandise. c. Rationale: i. At the Scene searches = exigenty = immediate search is Constitutional. (I) PC give cops authorizations for search + (II) Search WR Unnecessary b/c: [1] PC + [2] Car is movable, occpants are alerted & cars contents may never be found against if a warrant must be obtained 3. Chambers v. Maroney a. Facts i. Armed robbery of service station (2) + Green sweater on P + trench coat in the backseat + right hand glove. + blue station wagan ii. arrested men + seized car + moved to the police station iii. Searched seized car at Station : 2 .38 caliber revolvers + right hand glove w/ change + ID card of service station person. iv. C arg: search of trunk 90 mins after is valid under (I) SILA OR (II) automobile EX to trunk b. Issue: Whether the incriminating evidence found is admissible when the search was conducted long after a possible SILA? YES c. Holding: Yes. Taking car back to the station Cops moved the car = OK i. PC to evidence is in the car w/o WR (I) That robbers were carring guns & fruits of crime had fled scene in light blue car ii. Same practical consequnces if searched when stopped vs. bring it into the police station. iii. PC = reasonable under 4AM (applied & remained in either situation) iv. (level of intrusion) Lesser vs. greater intrusion debatable Q & depends on variety of circumstances. d. Analysis i. SILA EX b/c needs to be immediate search / contemporateous with the arrest. ii. PC to seize it? (I) Terry Stop RS [1] Criminal activity is afoot + investigate [2] PV see green sweater = PC (II) Developed PC to arrest for crime* iii. Why does Terry no justify the STOP? (I) Limited to patt downs only (II) RS to stop IF armed and dangerous* 4. Coolidge v. NH a. Facts i. Investigation of a murder 14yr old girls ii. Arrested at home- based on cops belief sufficient evidence iii. Warrantless Seizure of cars (2)

51

Crim Pro

iv. Search cars 3Xs (I) 2 days later (II) 1yr later (III) 5months later after yr. b. Holding: 2/ 3 searches were improper i. No exigent Circumstances (I) No D bent on flight (II) No fleeting opportunity on highway after hazardous chase (III) Seizable items? [1] No contraband [2] No stolen goods or weapons (IV) No condederates waiting to move the evidence ii. No inconvenience of special police detail to guard immobilized car. iii. The PC police had to car ? iv. It was practical to secure a warrant & car exception here is irrelevant v. Automobile EX (I) EX no longer applies after the last two searches (II) Too long* 5. Cali v. Carney a. Facts i. Mobile home + Weed in exchange / sale of sex = GROSS! ii. Police had uncooraborted information - Tip iii. Corraborated information Investigated straight from the source of known suspect, the youth (I) Youth Did the Police Need Authority to talk to Youth? [1] Terry Stopped need RS if authority needed to T.Stop vs. [2] Police can talk / asked Q dont need authority for something like this iv. Cops requested youth to return to the mobile, Carney outside of mobile (I) Gov Agent ? (II) WR for home? (III) Car WR v. Searches 2 (I) 1st search Police searched the mobile- Weed, plastic bags, scale = Automobile EX [1] Carney arrested & mobile seized (II) 2nd search - more weed in cupboards & refrigerator = SILA? vi. Lawful where he was (police)? YES (I) Carroll + Chambers: Police could have sat down in the car* b. Issue: Is mobile home subject to the automobile EX? Is it more like a car v. home? i. IF Home Payton applies (I) Need Arrest WR [1] There wasnt on (II) SILA fails

52

Crim Pro

[1] If arrested outside the home then no longer have access (to search which is what the police want) to the items in the home ii. IF Car Chambers applies (I) PC that Evidence inside will be found c. Held: This is a Car * look at factors i. Mobility? (I) Readily mobile ii. Expectation of Privacy (I) Licensed to operate on public streets (II) Subjected to extensive regulation / inspection iii. Location (I) Served in public places iv. Attributes / use (I) Used like a car vs. home d. Rule: Home vs. Car (Hybrid) What would a RP (reasonable person) believe? i. Factors to consider: (I) Location? [1] Convenient access to a public road. (II) Mobility/ Readily mobile ? [1] If mobile = Car [2] IF mobile = home (a) Elevated on blocks? (b) Connected to untilities? (III) Mode of Construction? [1] Home ordinary living / substantial living space = expecation of privacy requirement (a) curtains large & opaque inhibit viewing of activities inside from exterior (b) Frigde, sleeping area, eating area. ample space for food etc. [2] If Car EPR (a) Regulations/ policies (IV) Common use? [1] Temporary abodes [2] Analogy to: hotel / cabin / vacation home / Tents / Rentors (a) RV less like a home vs. Tent more like a home ii. 2 Elements help to distinguish (I) Use: used on the highways OR readily capable of such use and found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes temporary or otherwise [1] 2 Justifications (a) (1) the vehicle is obviously readily mobile by the turn of an ignition key, if not actually moving (b) (2) there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from its use as a licensed

53

Crim Pro

motor vehicle subject to a range of police regulation inapplicable to a fixed dwelling. (II) Characteristics: To distinguish b/w motor home vs. car in application of Car expection depends on: [1] size of the car AND [2] Quality of its appointments iii. Reduced Expectation of Privacy Concept in Cars (I) Function is transportation (II) Little capacity for escaping public scrutiny e. Dissent: warrantless search of living quarters in a motor home is presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances (EC) 6. SD v. Opperman a. Facts i. Os car towed to city impount lot b/c ticketed 2x being parked in restricted zone ii. inventory of car contents routine / Standard procedure iii. Searched Glove compartment weed b. Held: Routine inventory searches are reasonable. c. Rule: Automobile routine inventory searches EX i. Dont need PC or WR (I) PC = for criminal investigations vs. (II) PC routine non-criminal procedure ii. Must be routine vs. pretextual concealing an investigatory police motive. (I) Ie: Florida v Wells: no policy to allow opening locked containers encountered during inventory search (II) Dictum: police may be allow sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or should not be opened in light of the search / characteristics of container itself. (dangerous- bomb?) d. Rationale (3) i. protections of owners property while remains in police custody ii. protection of police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property iii. protection of police from potential danger. 7. US v. Chadwick a. Facts i. Footlocker + train (San Diego Boston) ii. Dog signaled presence of drugs iii. Footlocker was in trunk trunk open + car engine started/running iv. Seized locker + under exclusive control of cops (1.5hrs) + no risk of removal by 3rd or D party. (I) EC (II) WR obtained v. Opened/ Searched Locker w/o belief + found Weed. (I) Explosives/ inherently dangerous items contained OR (II) Items insde would loose value unless opened.

54

Crim Pro

b. Issue: Whether the warrantless search of the footlocker which was seized & secure at the station w/o WR and w/o a belief that there was EC is reasonable? c. Hold: NO EX, should have gotten WR i. Footlocker is like Home v. Car? (I) its a Car luggage is like/ analogous the car [1] 4AM protects people NOT places Katz v. US [2] Fundamental purpose safeguard. [3] inherently mobility [4] exported to public = no ex of privacy (II) Its a home/ repository of personal effects* [1] Anaology Home: lock doors to keep intruders out [2] luggage contents is not open to public view EXCEPT: border entry [3] Luggage not subject to inspection [4] Luggage primary function is to hold personal effects vs. car is to travel. (a) Footlocker was already immobilized unreasonable to undertake additional + greater intrusion. ii. Grab area SILA.- Contemporaneously w/ respndents arrest. (I) Search is remote in time / place from arrest (II) more then 1hr after exclusive control (III) no exigency d. Rule: Seized Closed Containers in Trunk - inside car v. outside car = Expectation of Privacy i. Personal effects that have been confiscated by the police incident to an arrest cannot be searched w/o WR UNLESS EC. ii. Peopl have a greate ex of privacy in containers vs. than in their cars iii. Require WR + PC to open & search container. 8. Acevedo a. Facts i. FedEx package from Hawaii + inspection (prior) cops new weed inside ii. Surveillence D take package to home + warrant to search home iii. Cops watched D put bag in trunk & drive iv. Feared loss of evidence + stopped D + opened Trunk & bag weed b. Held: i. PC to search did not extend beyond the closed paper bag ii. O had PC to search trunk BUT ONLY so that they could find paper bag. c. Rule: Searching container in car inside of car = Automobile EX extends to containers* = Automobile EX allows cops to search a trunk i. 4AM does not compel separate treatment for car search that extends only to container w/I car (I) IF Police had PC to believe evidence of weed is in that bag (container) which is in the cars trunk (Car compartment) = that PC allows WRL search of paper bag (II) BUT does not extend to the entire car w/o PC b/c that would be unreasonable under 4AM.

55

Crim Pro

[1] Police may search a car & containers w/I it where police have PC to believe weed or evidence is contained. ii. * All you need is PC 9. Wynoming v. Houghton a. Facts i. Police stopped car + 1 m , 2 f ii. PC to search for drugs + seized illegal syring from driver admitted for drugs + purse in back seat no PC to suspect drugs & driver was not arrested. b. Rule: Containers belonging to passengers + reduced Ex of Privacy. i. Police w/ PC to search car may inspect any passengers belonging found in car that are capable of concealing the object of the search. ii. Passengers + drivers have reduced expectation of privacy to property they transport in the car 10. Hypos a. Contract by Gov (regulation / policy) Gov Actor / Agent? (I) Jiffy Lube agent of the gov when checking admission vs. Not when changing oil [1] Change label when roles change? b. Red laptop bag on person + Cops stoped her found drugs + arrested her i. Questions (I) Was what the police did authorized? (II) Is there PC? YES [1] Known tip (a) Veractiy can be confirmed b/c no concerned about anominity (b) Identifiable witness (c) Predicted future behavior [2] Arrest in public [3] SILA can search bag (III) RS under Terry? [1] If it looks like a gun case can search it vs. Brief case- cannot search it . c. Could the police Search footlocker that is w/I the trunk of car but peeking outside? i. Chambers: Cannot search container footlocker when (I) Not in the car OR (II) Not SILA ii. Chimel: b/c it is locked iii. Robinson = Maybe (I) It is like a closet w/I G/L area but locked? vs. (II) purse (attached to person- can search things on person) [1] Can seize it IF can inventory w/I clear policies of any containers that come into the station* d. Red laptop bag on a boat i. Chambers + Carney = mobility issue (I) Can be taken out of jx. ii. Attributes? iii. Location? (I) On river vs.

56

Crim Pro

[1] Flowing / less permanent (II) Lake [1] Less flowing / more permanent iv. Carney (I) More like a car [1] Mobile [2] Lesser expectation of privacy (a) Regulated (II) Like a home [1] 75% of the world is water location irrelavent v. boarding the boat? (I) If like a car = okay (II) If like home okay e. Taxi cab concept* Ex of Privacy higher vs. personal car? i. What is the difference b/w a Suitcase vs. Car? (I) red laptop bag in the trunk of taxi cab [1] pull over + Search trunk + red bag [2] why was the taxi cab pulled over? (II) Plasma box in trunk- can search b/c big enough to find bag inside box (III) Purse in trunk cannot search b/c need PC to search the red bag ii. Expectation of Privacy (I) Paying for a service vs. (II) Not while in personal/private car [1] Citizen who enter car surrenders the right to initial PC determination of car search f. Watertax? (combo car & taxi) i. Expectation of Privacy? (I) Like walking down the street. V. subway G. Plain View (touch) Doctrine 1. Overview a. PV elements ( item in PV is subject to WRL seizure IF Police: i. Observe from lawfual vintage pt (lawfully there) 4 days (I) During execution of search WR (II) During execution of in-home arrest WR (III) Search justified EX [1] In hot pursuit in home [2] WL consent ii. Has a right of physical access to it (I) Cannot enter home if see weed from the street must have other EX to get O through the threshold of the doorway (II) Washington v. Christmas [1] Public place arrest for drinking [2] C claimed to be of age get ID from dorm [3] O saw weed inside rm + entered & seized (a) permissible b/c R: has a right to remain at the arresstees elbow, therefore had authority from the outset to follow C into dorm.

57

Crim Pro

(III) No distrubing / moving anything else iii. its nature as an object is incriminating AND is immediately apparent when observed it = PC to seize it* (I) Contraband (II) Fruit (III) Instrumentality (IV) Evidence of crime [1] Hicks: immediate apparent means O must have PC to seize the article in PV. b. WR v. WRL Seizure EX v. Justification i. GR = Warrant Requirement (I) Seizure w/o a WR = pre se unreasonable. ii. PV is not a EX to WR iii. HOWEVER, functions are a justification for police conducting a WRL Seizure of evidence PV. 2. Horton a. Facts: WR for 3 rings + Seized weapons before / while searching for rings i. Mag gave search WR for ring + coins BUT not guns (I) Hypo: [1] what if the WR was only for the gun? [2] What if the gun is broken down into parts maybe could search for parts where they could fit/be located. b. Holding: i. Search authorized by WR ii. Seizure authortized by PV. c. Set up / Analysis i. Answers the Q whether the Police is lawfully present (I) Is there a WR? (II) Is WR valid? ii. Is the Evidence in PV immediate apparent to be incriminating? d. Rule: PV Doc (EX) i. Criteria (2 conditions) (I) Evidence MUST be in (a) plain view AND (b) incriminating evidence must be immediately apparent (II) Police must be (a) lawfully located in that place AND (b) lawful right of access to the object itself ii. Scope of the Search *in PV Doc (I) Is at the outset evidence of 3 rings found & in police possession No more search for weapons via PV can take place (II) BUT if not found yet search can continue & all found in PV is = okay. iii. Inadvertently is a characteristic but not a necessy condition of the Doctrine. (I) It is fine if the police hopes ot find different thing SO LONG AS he abides by the WR. e. Rationale i. PV Ex of Privacy / invasion of Privacy

58

Crim Pro

ii. Arg against: Violation must occur B4 the object came into PV for there to be a claim of invasion of privacy 3. Hicks a. Facts i. Bullet through Floor of Apt = EC (I) Police lawfully there b/c EC EX ii. Observed Stereo & turntables serial number (out of place in squalid apt) (I) recording vs. (II) moving/ distrubing the object. b. Issue i. Was it a search when the cops read & wrote down the serial numbers? ii. Was the Search reasonable? iii. Was there PC in order to invoke the PV Doc? c. Holding i. NO mere recording of the numbers a search ii. YES moving the equiptment = search separate & apart from the search for the shooter (not connected to the reason why police are in the apt) (I) Moving it was not a seizure b/c did not consitute meaninful interference w/ Hs possessory interest iii. YES search is reasonable under certain circumstances IF meet 2 elements ( lawful presence) iv. NO police only had RS less than PC & Need PC (I) Just b/c the police came across the item in a lawful manner does not mean PC is supplanted to meet the PC requirement d. Rule : PV doctrine PC requirement i. NEED PC always* (I) PC to search + PC to seize [1] RS enough - Need PC: Just b/c the police came across the item in a lawful manner does not mean PC is supplanted to meet the PC requirement (II) Certain Circumstances = seize evidence in PV w/o warrant (coolidge) (III) Operational necessities ii. PV Doctrine (I) taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion which exposes to view concealed portions of contents = invasion of privacy / created a new invasion that did not exsit when police were authorized in the apt (via EC) [1] looking v. moving. (a) mere recording of the numbers a search (b) moving the equiptment = search separate & apart from the search for the shooter (not connected to the reason why police are in the apt)

59

Crim Pro

e. Dissent: Cursory inspection vs. full-blown search- Drew a line at Distrubing the property- HOWEVER no precedent. 4. HYPO a. WR to search computer files i. J. Peg ii. File names Expanding using OTHER Senses (smell, touch, hearing) 5. Minn v. Dickerson a. Facts i. O observed D acting weird near crack house ii. Terry S+F O pat down b/c believed D may be armed and dangerous b. H: During frisk immediate apparent to O = contraband --- O can reach into pockets and seize it w/o WR. i. Difference b/w (I) Terry [1] Sm. Lump = should end b/c not weapon (II) PTDoctrine c. Rule: Plain Touch Doctrine i. Polcie may seize contraband detected based on Os sense of touch (its like PV) (I) O had a right to touch it + (II) upon tactile observation (III) identity as contraband was immediately apparent 6. Plain Hearing Doctrine a. Person cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding oral communications IF can be heard by someone else, lawfully positioned, w/I ear shot 7. Plain Smell Doctrine a. Person cannot legitimately expect O will not use sense of smell to detect incriminating evidence from lawful position i. HYPO Bent over to smell weed (I) R: Plain Smell doctrine (II) H: OK/ a search b/c avoided mainpulating it vs. picking it up = search b/c disturbes it. A. Consent = Dominant EX ( PC WR) 1. General a. Elements of Consent to Search - (GR) i. Must be granted voluntarily ii. Obtained from someone with real or apparent authority to provide consent AND iii. Scope of the search conducted must not exceed the consent granted b. Valid Consent allows seizure i. O may seize it w/o WR ii. Pursuant to the PV doctrine (I) Relationship b/w consent & PV c. Voluntariness *

60

Crim Pro

What does it mean ? duress or coercion (I) HYPO: prevent boat from sinking- throw off stays = voluntary vs. necessity? d. No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy i. b/c consented search is not really a search at all. OR ii. b/c you consented the search is deemed reasonable e. Consent vs. Waiver not the same: elements & principles vary i. Waiver: must be intententional reqlinquish / abandonment of known right or privilege (I) Vs. Consent: WRL Search is okay EVEN IF consenting party does not know that he may refuse. ii. Waiver: 3rd party rule A cannot waive Bs 4th AM rights* iii. Waiver: does not explain apparent authority f. Burden of Proof = on Prosecution g. Consent applicable on your behalf via 3rd party i. 3rd party cannot consent for you. h. Limiting Consent i. Scope: area (I) you may search my kitchen and living rm BUT not the bdrm [1] RS? But not able to do anything b/c need PC under Automobile EX once consent limits search ii. Nature: time. (I) you may search my house for exactly 2 minutes & no more i. Denial of consent i. Raises suicipion BUT its not PC* to push it forward j. Withdrawal of Consent i. Person may withdraw consent after it is granted UNLESS ii. Pre-withdrawal search gave O independent grounds to proceed. 2. Scheckloth v. Bustamonte a. Facts i. Pull oved at 240am + O asked B to step out of car ii. O called for backup 6 suspects in car iii. Driver had the authority to consent to search b. Issue: do we have to prove consent is voluntarily give? i. * special warning: look out for the indigent & minority ppl c. Held: Yes consent was voluntary i. when subject of search is not in custody + consent is voluntarily given + w/o duress or coercion (express or implied) ii. voluntarness is a question of fact determined from all the circumstances (T.C) standard to test Voluntariness* iii. while subjects right to refuse is a factor BUT not determinative or necessary to take into account, Prosecution does not need to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisitie to est. voluntary consent d. Rule: Consent Elements + look at the T.C (Totality of Circumstances) i. Consent Elements (I) Must be voluntarily given [1] Meaning:Free from coercion / duress (II) From someone with real or apparent authority

i.

61

Crim Pro

T.C (Totality of Circumstances [Standard to test for Voluntariness] (I) Factors to consider: [1] characteristics of accused (a) age, race, sex, level of education, emotional state, mental condition, [2] details of interrogation (a) nature of police Q: repetitive request for consent after initial refusal (b) Show of force by police, display guns may showt they are not free to refuse consent (c) Presence of large number of cops iii. Knowledge is a factor but not determinative. (I) Consented WRL Search may be upheld even if consenting party does not know that he may refuse. [1] Dont need to have Knowing consent [2] Dont need the police to tell them that they have a right to refuse informlity of the process (a) Vs. Miranda Warning type is not applicable [3] Dont have to tell them they are free to leave e. Analysis i. Was it a Search? (I) Yes [1] 4 AM protection [2] Katz expecation of privacy (II) No [1] 4thAM protection [2] looking not always a search to require 4th AM ii. Is there an EX? (I) YES? [1] Consent iii. Was there Cocersion? (I) No [1] B actually helped O with the search iv. Voluntary? How? 3. Bumper v. NCa. Fact i. 4 wt O + 66yr bl Widow ii. home located in rural area + isolated mile long dirt road iii. O claimed to have authority: O told her I have a WR to search your house + W go ahead b. Issue: Whether prosecution argurment of Consent to justify the search was valid because a WR that police apparently had went missing ? c. Hold: NO instinct & is coercion, State failed to meets its burden of Proof i. State may noe meets its burden of proof that consnt was voluntarily granted by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority d. Rule: Claim of Lawful Authority by Police = NOT Voluntary Consent i. Claim of Lawful Autority via WR

ii.

62

Crim Pro

(I) IF an O asserts authority to conduct a search on the basis of a WR (whether the WR is valid or invalid, or exists) (II) ANY consent granted thereafter is invalid ii. T.C Test of voluntariness (I) Conflicts in this case & consent is not valid vs. (II) No Conflict & Consent will be valid IF [1] Statement indicates that his consent was not linked to the officerss claim of authority (a) Ie: You neednt have brought search WR, you are welcome to search 4. GE v. Randolph a. Facts i. Married couple = common authority over property ii. 1 Consent vs. 1 Refusal = Conflict b. Issue: is there a hierary of consent? Do cops only need 1 person to consent? c. Hold: No d. Rule: 3rd Party Consent Rule Present Non-Consenting person + Conflict in consent which one wins? i. Consent of both parties is required when they are both present * ii. Conflcit of Consent- which one wins? (I) The one which rejects wins! (II) Trumps the consented one iii. EX to Conflict of Consent = EC threatens life or limbs 5. US v. Matlock a. Rule: 3 Party Consent Rule (Common Authority + Assumption of Risk) Absent non-consenting person i. 2 prinples (I) each person with common authority (mutual use of property- joint access, control) over property maintains his own right to consent to search AND (II) because of 1, any person who shares property with another assumes the risk that such consent will be granted ii. Burden of Proof is on Gov to ---establish common authority b. Analysis i. False Friend Concept * - Smith, White Assumption of Risk 6. IL v. Rogdriguez a. Facts i. Informant reported signs of severe beating on child ii. R sleeping in apt+ girlfriend gave consent a. Held: WRL entry of home is valid WHEN it is based on consent of person whom Police reasonable believed that person at that time of entry had the common authority to give consent to search i. Ie: I live here is not sufficient to justify a consent search IF surrounding circumstances show this person does not live here / have common authority- such that the RP would doubt the truth b. Rule: Apparent Authority i. Objective Standard: Reasonableness (I) Would the facts avliable to the O at the moment (II) warrant a man of reasonable caution in belief (III) that the consenting party had authority over the premises

63

Crim Pro

[1] IF YES = WRL search is valid [2] IF NO = WRL search is Invalid 2. Fl v. Jimeno a. Facts i. J was stoped for a traffic citation + O reason to suspect J was carrying drugs in car + J consented to O search car for drugs ii. J arg: did not expressly consent to search the container, only the car b. Issue: Whether Js consent to search the car for narcotics encompassed the container (folded paper bag with cacaine in it)? Hold: It was objectively reasonable for the O to conclude that the general consent to search Js car included consent to search containers w/I the car. c. Rule: Scope of Search- Objective Reasonablness RP Standard i. What would the typical RP have understood by the exchange b/w O and suspect ii. Scope of search is generally defined by its expressed object (I) It would be imporper for the O to open a container too small to high object of the search OR (II) Unreasonable to think consenting to search of trunk, person has agreed to breaking open locked container ie: suitcase [1] Distinction b/w locked suitcase vs. paper bag HOWEVER. (a) Robbins v. Cali: Treated all closed containers alike for 4th AM purposes (i) What one person may put into a suitcase, another ie: homeless person may put into a paper bag 3. HYPOSa. Social guest v. Household inhabitant Roomates i. Legitimate expectation of privacy ii. Temporary quarters (I) Can consent BUT if she says no im not staying here = NOTCE Consent b. Hotel rms v. Consent via customer or owner? c. Called police drugs in the house must search + caller had no AA (Apparent Authority) i. O can search based on consent IF the O reasonable thought that person had AA to give consent. d. AA of Child to give consent? i. Facts (I) Known person reporting the situtation (IL v. Gates a) veractiy b) reliability c) TC of a&b) + Power on kitchen vs. donuts for BR (II) Child lets Police in (similar to fed ex personal) ii. Threshold issue: Limited to enter threshold of home vs. search other areas (I) if the child lets the police in and police see it from where they are in the permitted area which child consented to vs. (II) moving around then see it not permissible b/c outside the threshold of consent. iii. Held: okay for child to let P in BUT not okay to search (I) Limited area of lawful present

64

Crim Pro

[1] Domaine of the doorway vs. go walk about iv. Rule Application: RP would not think child can conset to search v. Analysis (I) If the P lawfully there? Y [1] Sees cacaine in PV e. Child v. Parent = hierarchy of consent? i. Parent can give consent to search 15yr bdrm for drug vs. ii. College student iii. Analysis (I) Is there joint access + control (II) Is the College student paying rent? f. Roomate = Bdrm vs. common area i. Common area = Okay to give consent vs. ii. Bdrm okay UNLESS share a bdrm? g. Husband & Wife i. Husband gives consent to search home ii. Bdrm can be searched (share it) UNLESS iii. locked closet b/c its Wifes Husband has been excluded from it cannot consent to locked Wifes closet II. STANDING DOCTRINE A. General 1. Principles a. Standing is personal + not vicariously asserted i. Each person must prove they possess standing b. Defendant must should victim to invalid S or S c. It was a Gov Actor + Search was unlawful d. Must be a violation to complain about it e. Is evidence being used against them in trial* 2. Searches = LEP a. Homes i. (a) When Owner/Lessor is absent ii. (b) When the owner / Lessor is Present b. Cars i. Searches of your Own car when absent lent it (I) Bailment for short durtation = Owner maintains LEP ii. When Owner is Absent (I) Dominon and Control? (II) Privacy in certain portions of automobile 3. Seizure = Meaninful interference w/ persons possessory interest a. Issue: standing = whether the seizure consituted a meaninful interference w Ds possessory interest. i. Personal/ Person (I) Seizure of person = fruit of the unlawful conduct ii. Object 4. HYPO a. Lazy facebook sign out so police use persons account to send msg to the friend + friend then admits they did the deed i. LEP? (I) Live + public?

65

Crim Pro

(II) Personal + private? b. Road Trip guest in car vs. Overnight guest in home? i. Privacy interest in certain area of the car? (I) R: Some portions of a car in which she is a week-long guest ii. LEP? (I) Car vs. home [1] Homes are special [2] Cars are different = Lesser Legitimate Expectation of Privacy. B. Raka v. IL 1. Facts a. suspects in car match the description of the car used in robbery b. shells in locked glove compartment + sawed off rifle under front passenger seat i. R arg: it wasnt his gun possessory interest * 2. Issue: Does a passenger in a car have standing to challenge a search of areas of the car in which she is riding? 3. Held: No a. These are areas in which a passenger qua b. passenger simply would normally have a LEP (legitimate Expecation of Privacy) i. a person has standing to consent search of car IF has REP (reasonable expectation of privacy) in the the area searched. 4. Rule: Reasonable or Legitimate Expecation of Privacy in ara search = Standing a. Capacity to claim the protection of 4th = whther the person who claim the protection has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place b. Have Privacy in certain portions of automobile i. Ie: trunk c. Factors (Rakas v. Jones distinctions) i. Dominion + Control (I) Sharing driving responsibilities (II) Temporary control lent to friend for 12hrs = Standing + LEP ii. LEP/ privacy interest (I) Home vs. Car [1] Car (a) Friends car vs. Taxi (i) Payment + release of rights? (b) Hitchhiker LEP iii. Claim to property ownership / possessory interest d. + Reasonableness of S&S i. Was the Search lawful/ reasonable? YES, Then no standing Issue ii. Was the Seizure lawful/ reasonable? YES, (I) Terry Rule [1] Can do a car frisk BUT cannot open locked glove box. [2] This is a limited S&S for weapons (II) Passenger + Driver Rule (III) Automobile EX [1] Could allow Search BUT need PC 5. Analysis

66

Crim Pro

a. House guest vs. car guests = distincitions. i. Cars LEP are different ii. Homes= LEP unqiute & express in the 4th C. Minnesota v. Olson 1. Held: overnight guest could challenge 2. Rule: Search of Another Persons Residence a. (a) When Owner/Lessor is absent i. Dominan & control b. (b) When the owner / Lessor is Present i. Overnight guest (I) Hypo: college student living at home D. Minnesotat v. Charter 1. Facts a. O observed D1 & D2 load powder into bags at Xs home 2. Held: No standing a. Overnight guest v. merely present 3. Rule: Merely present = No Right to Challenge Facts a. Purely commerical nature of transaction b. Short period of time on the premises c. Pervioud connection to the owner/lessor 4. Business vs. Guest = LEP? a. Business LEP b. Guest = LEP 5. Type of Property: Commerical vs Residential a. Commerical = less LEP E. Rowlings v. Kentucky 1. Facts: R placed drugs in Xs purse 2. Rule: Consenting Search Resulting in the Seizure of Ones own Property a. R cannot contest the search of Xs purse simply on the basis that he had an ownership interest in the property seized b. R did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Xs purse i. Sudden bailment ii. Never sought or received access to Xs purse iii. free access to purse iv. did not take precautions to maintain LEP for items in Xs purse. III. EXCLUSIONARY RULE A. Generally 1. State can expand the righs & stay IF (ie) violate K&A rule than all evidence obtained is thrown out 2. Not a Constitutional Rule 3. Used as a deterrant B. Precedent Cases 1. Weeks v. US (1914) a. Dissent for Mapp b. Rule: Federal ER c. Held: in Fed trials 4th AM bars use of evidence Unconstituionally seized

67

Crim Pro

2. Wolf v. Colorado (1949) a. Rule: ER for the States i. If the states have another remedy besides ER, can use it ii. States were not compelled to exclude logically relevant evidence from their trials EVEN IF evidence was obtained UnC as a result from unreasonable SorS 3. Mapp v. Ohio a. Civil remedy not working b. ER us essential remedy for unreasonable S&S c. 2 justification for ER i. to deter ii. imperative of judicial integrity C. Changing ER 1. Hudson v. Michigan a. Facts i. Reasonable wait time when executing warrant? b. Issue: whether evidence of K&A R requires suppression of all evidence found in the search? i. Issue is remedy* c. Held: NO ER is not applicable b/c the interest violated have nothing to do with seizure of evidence. d. Analysis i. But for causality is only a necessary, not sufficient condition for supression ii. Regardless of the misstep (if it occurred or not) the police would have had executed the warrant + would have discovered the gun& drugs iii. Too attenuated to justify exclusion* iv. K&A is different does not get the shielding effect. does not protect against including evidence at trial e. Rule: Attenuation + Civil liability suit i. Attenuation: It can occur when the causal connection is remote ii. D. EX to ER- when the ER does not apply 1. Criminal Proceedings a. Non-Trial Proceedings: Evidence seized UnCon may be introduced in grand jury proceedings w/o violation of 4th AM i. Ie: preliminary hearings, bail proceedings, in sentencing and proceedings to revoke parole. 2. At Criminal Trial a. Good Faith Exception i. Rule/Test= Objective (I) Whether a reasonably well trained O would have known the search was illegal despite the Mag Authorization b. Herring v. US i. Facts (I) Neligent bookeeping error by police not valid WRrecalled 5mths earlier ii. Held: GF it was okay!
68

Crim Pro

(I) Even though the mistakes were negligent vs. systemic error / reckless- criminal should not go free. iii. Rule: Good Faith - Look at the actions of the police officer (I) Police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that The exclusion can meaninfully deter it and Sufficiently culpable that such deterance is worth the price paid by the justice system. [1] ER is to deter: (a) Deliberate (b) Reckless OR (c) Negligent conduct systemic negligence. (II) Deterrence & Culpability = objective (III) Whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all the circumstances (IV) Leon Objectively reasonably reliance on WR c. Impeachment Exception i. Rule: State may introduce evidence obtained from a Def in violation of 4thAM rights for limted purposes of impeaching his: (I) Direct testimony (II) Answers to legitimate q put to him during cross-exam (III) cannot impeach witnesses* ii. Rationale: furthers truth- seeking process by deterring prejury 3. Retroactive Rule a. Davis Case (D2L) i. Facts:while he was in jail they changed the law and made what happend unconstitional (I) pull a guy over and he gives a fake name + arrest him and search his car... ii. Issue: should ER apply when the police officers conduct search on a objectively reasonably reliance on binding precedent? iii. Held: evidence obtained during a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent is not subject to the ER 4. Abandonment Doctrine a. HYPO: Has the Def. Abandoned / can it be considered abandoned when ti appeared the house was not being taken care of? i. Analysis: (I) Abandonment (II) Ex of Privacy (III) 4th AM Protection (IV) Police did not violate proptection ii. Issue: can the police say abandonment Defense when the information obtained was when police violated 4th AM iii. Threshold of Home Entry (I) Title was in his name (II) Vacation home analogy iv. Rule: Objective Test (I) LEP can be abandoned [1] Cant claim Ex of Privacy when abandon

69

Crim Pro

(II) Post Facto- Gov can show he did in fact [1] Had he in fact abandon the property when police went in [2] Does not matter on the info receieved before/ after 5. Fruit of Poisonous Tree a. Posionous Tree = 3 doctrines * i. Figure out what your tree is & its fruit (I) The tree is the C violation- 4th, 5th, 6th Am ? [1] Bust into home + find diary with names (II) Fruit is the information *secondary or derivative* evidence from the Tree [1] Sought out the named person inside to testify. b. Independent Source Doctrine i. General (I) Evidence that is not causually linked to gov illegality is admissible = NOT fruit of poisnous tree (II) Applies when? [1] The 1st search vs. 2nd search lawfully obtained the evidence [2] Also IF initially discovered unlawfully BUT later obtained lawfully in manner indep of the original discovery ii. Silverthorn Lumber Co v. US (I) Facts :Without a shadow of authority made a clean sweep of every paper found [1] Returning papers isnt going to be good enough (II) Held: Not merely evidence so acquired shall be used before the court but tht it shall not be used at all (III) Rule: the beginning of independent source rule* [1] If knowledge of them (info in papers) is gained from an independent source they may be proven like any other BUT [2] Knowledge gained by the Govs own wrong cannot be used by the way proposed. iii. Murry v. US (I) Rule: Independent Source Doctrine (II) Facts: police w.o WR entered warehouse & bales of weed+ left without them But surveillanced the place + got a WR based on only lawful information gather before unlawful gatherings (III) Rule: if you use the lawful information vs. unlawful, to get a WR and its granted = ok & independent source* [1] Evidence is admissible despite police illegality, IF evidence seized was not causally linked to the wrongdoing c. Ineitable Discovery Rule i. General

70

Crim Pro

(I) The evidence is causally tied BUT police would have discovered the evidence lawfully, even in the absence of the UnC conduct* ii. Rule: would have been discovered it even w/o unlawfulness (I) Ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means iii. Nix v. Williams (I) Facts: W agreed to show police where the body was+ search team was w/I a few miles of the corpse (II) Held: the body would have been discovered w/I a short time in essentially the same condition even if police had not violated Ws 6th AM right d. Attenuted Connection Principle i. General (I) Pt at which the detrimental consequences of illegal police actions become so attenuated that the deterrent effect of the ER no longer justifies its costs. ii. Wong Sun v. US (I) Rule: Attenuation (or Dissipations of Taint) Doctrine) [1] if the evidence is far enough removed (consider 4 factors) from police conduct = likely admissible [2] Attenuation Factors (a) Temporal Proximity (i) Shorter the time laspe b/w initial illegality & acquisition of challenged evidence = tainted (b) Intervening Events (i) the more factors that intervene b/c the initial illegality and the seizure of challenged evidence = evidence will be admittedb/c the causal chain of event lengthens (c) Flagrancy of Violation (i) ER will apply is takes long to dissipate = causually linked (d) Nature of the Derivative Evidence (i) Type verbal vs. physical- ie: Wit testimony more likely to be free from taint. (II) Application [1] Obtained statement from T in his bedrm RIGHT AFTER he was unlawfully arrested [2] Intervening Events (a) I act of Free will (i) W was released from jail & he voluntarily returned to the police station & gave written statement (ii) UNLESS Kaupp v. Tx issue p.406unlawful arrest & statement will not dissipate b/c of MR= T.C

71

Crim Pro

(b) Statement obtained AFTER unlawful entry of home (i) Person is not immune from prosecution merely b/c he is a fruit of an illegal arrest Harris Evidence --------------| 4 Factors | ---------------- Unlawful Conduct

Confessions: The Voluntariness Requirement

I. Torture and Confessions
A. General 1. I: whether it is voluntary* B. Hector (slave) v. State (1829) 1. Concepts a. Reliability Factor b. Mind Freedom c. Voluntary Factor * 2. Rule: Voluntariness a. Involuntary Confression = Coerced = cannot be used against you. 3. Involuntary vs. Miranda distinction 4. Distinctions a. Hector = not okay vs. b. Brown = okay. i. H: cannot have a fair trial if obtained information involuntarily DPC issue Police Interrogation without torture A. Lisenba v. Cali (1941) 1. Double indemity (Wife 1 + 2 died) 2. Statements were calculated 3. L3-4 days interrogations = came in B. Spano v. NY (1959) 1. 8hrs interrogation = cannot come in 2. Analysis / Application of the Factors.* a. Length of the interrogation [Duration] b. Friend baiting [Reduced Mental freedom/ Deception] c. Education + Foreign Born [Characteristis of the suspect] 3. Rule: Factors to determine wherther the interrogation was coercive/involuntary vs. voluntary. a. Factors - Totality of the Circumstances i. State Actor (I) Characteristics [1] Age [2] Education [3] Foreign (II) Actions of police [1] Removal from family and friends [2] Deception (III) Duration* [1] How long was the interrogation ii. Involuntariness Factors (I) Characteristics of suspect

II.

72

Crim Pro (II) Morality of police conduct

5TH AMENDMENT
I. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION A. Miranda The Self Incrimination Clause 1. Chavez v. Martinez a. Rule: DPC Voluntariness Requirement i. 5th AM DPC violation? (I) Information collected must be used as information against you in a criminal trial in order to have a 5th AM claim. (II) DP is not violated no matter how ergregious police conduct if the statements obtained from the suspect are not used against him at his criminal trial ii. Civil Action DPC violation? (I) Vitctim of polic brutality could bring civil action based on claimed violation of DPC EVEN though the statements involuntarily were not used at his criminal trial (II) Due Process Civil Cases Shock the Conscience Test 2. Bram v. US a. Rule: Definition of Involuntariness* i. Confession in order to be admissible MUST be 1) Free and 2) Voluntary (I) Confession must not be extracted by any sort of threat or violence nor obtained by an direct or implied promises nor by exertion of any imporper influence 1. IF any degree of influence = inadmissible. ii. Voluntariness of a confession based on T.C (I) Characteristics ov the accussed AND (II) Detailed of the interrogation. iii. Voluntariness Factors = DPC (I) Actual or threatened use of physical for ce (II) Psychological pressures (III) Promises of Leniency and threats of harsh legal treatment (IV) Deception iv. Involuntary Confession (I) Cannot be used against you for all purposes 1. Case in Chief 2. Impeachment b. Facts i. Case brought the common law CL rule under the umbrella of the 5th AM (I) At the time it was not considered a FR, so bram did not apply to the states ii. compelled statements were inadmissible in Fed criminal trials as a matter of constitutional law 3. Miranda v. Arizona a. Rule: Statements cannot be used UNLESS demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination i. Custodial Interrogation = (I) Questioning initiated by police (II) AFTTER the person has been taken into custody OR deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way ii. GR: individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself

73

Crim Pro iii. EX: UNLESS adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings b. Rule: i. Rights the Suspect has in the Interrogation Room (I) Self Incrimination 1. CI is the trigging mechanism of Miranda (II) Right to Counsel 1. In custody suspect also has a right to consult counsel before questioning and have counsel present during interrogation ii. Procedural Safeguards : the MR (I) Police must in clear and unequivocal terms indicate that the suspect has a right to remain silent (II) It must be explained to the suspect anything you say can be used against u (III) Must be clearly informed and that he has the right to counsel (IV) Financial ability indigent lawyer iii. Waiver MR (I) Volunariness of the Waiver (II) Intelligence of the Waiver 4. NY v. Quarles a. Rule: Public Safety Exception 5. Oregan v. Elstad 6. Missouri v. Seibert B. Custody 1. Oregon v. Mathiason a. Facts: Parolee + voluntarily came in for questioning b. Issue: Whether the D was in custody and therefore making his confession inadmissible i. Focus on free to leave? ii. Is the statement voluntary (I) Cocerive envirnoment to help against it provide rights & warnings. c. Holding: No not in custody No MR he was told not under arrest & left station after Q i. No deprivation of freedom to depart ii. Voluntarily showed up at the patrol office/ station iii. Coercive environment *- elements so pervasive as to require a Miranada type warning (I) False statement about fingerprints d. Rule: Free to Leave? i. When Police should give Miranda Warning (I) ONLY adminster when there has been such a restriction on persons freedom as to render him in custody ii. Free to leave custody* iii. Rule: MW before questioning are required ONLY Where there has been such a restriction on a persons freedom as to render him in custody 2. Berkemer v. McCarty a. Facts: Traffic Stop Terry + Questioning i. Questioning resumed in jail w/o Miranda warning /no right to remain silent or consult attorney b. Issue: Roadside questioning of motorist detained traffic stop constitute custodial interrogation triggering Miranda doctrine.

74

Crim Pro Held: Questions admissible not in custody routine roadstop questions i. RP would not have believe that he was under arrest or in functional equivalent of formal arrest. (I) Traffic stops are brief + in public + less cops involved d. Rule: Definition of Custody i. what a RP in Ms shoes would have understood to be in his situation- in the posituon of being questioned freedom of action? ii. Custody = Free to Leave? (deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way) (I) 5 Factors 1. language to summon person 2. extent to which D is presented w/ evidence of guilt 3. physical surroundings 4. durations of interrogation 5. degree of pressure applied to detain iii. MW are required prior to CI for any criminal offenses NOT misdemeanor *** iv. Person is not in custody for purposes of MW IF he had only been seized in Terry way e. HYPO i. Terry Stop- police stop you and ask questions custody ii. Warrant for arrest & questions = custody iii. In prision in custody iv. Handcuffed in the patrol car & no MR (I) As long as there is no questioning = nothing violated v. Driving you down to the station and cop says nothing and you give yourself up (I) No violation b/c --- voluntary utterance* vi. Arrest & Booking sheet + Ask common ID Questions (I) No violation = routine booking questions are okay. vii. Custody in the home? (I) Maybe look at the factors. 3. JDB v. NC a. GR: Individual characteristics cannot be considered vs. b. EX: Age is a factor that may be considered* C. Interrogation 1. Innis a. c.

Facts i. Driving to the police station + drive pass school of handicapped children ii. Police talked to him about weapon and safety for children. b. Issue: whether the handicapped children statement by the cops consituted interrogation as to violate the cease interrogation rule. c. Rule: Interrogation Definition i. Express Questioning OR ii. Functional eqivalient (I) Any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are resonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from suspect. 2. Elicit Incriminating Statements Standard a. Negligence* II. MIRANDA + Voluntary Analysis * A. Waiver 1. Butler Rule: Intentionally and knowingly relinguish / abandon rights or privilege a. Elements i.

75

Crim Pro B. Invoked C. Exceptions 1. Public Safety 2. Elstat & Seibert III. RIGHTS A. Counsel 1. R: To Invoke R to Counsel Elements a. Unambigious b. Affirmative statement i. I want a laywer = invoked ii. I think I should get a lawyer no invoked 2. Edwards a. Rule: Invoked Interrogation much stop UNLESS i. Suspect initiates OR ii. Counsel is present 3. Shatzer a. Rule: Invoked - 14day = Cleansing Period i. After 14days of released from custody + Of can initate interrogation M and the suspect can either (I) Waive OR (II) Invoke can wait another 14days B. Silence 1. Invoked Requirements a. Unambigious Requirement b. Cannot be silent to invoke 2. Mosely a. Rule: 2 hrs + Diff Crime + Diff Dept

6TH AMENDMENT
I. ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED. A. Massiah II. DELIBERATE ELICITATION A. Henry B. Colmen III. RIGHTS A. Right to Counsel 1. Powell v. Alabama a. Facts i. Effective counsel issue in pre-trial ii. Got Counsel the day of trial iii. Captial Offense murder b. Narrow Issue: Whether an indigient (ignorant, young, illiterate) def has the right to effective counsel in the pre- trial phase? c. Held: Yes Right to Counsel = Court limited it to Captial Offenses* i. Failure to give reasonable time & opportunity to secure counsel = Denial of DP d. Rule: i. The right to effective counsel in 14th AM i. Factors / facts [1] Ignorant, young & illliterate

76

Crim Pro [2] Pre-trial critical phase to help [3] Captial cases ii. Pre trial Phase = Critical Phase i. Preparation ii. Building a rapore with client iii. Regardless of being guilty or innocent you have the right to counsel e. Analysis i. 1 L for all (9) was a conflict ii. 2 different groups had 2 conflicting stories/ defenses

IV. WAIVER A. Williams B. Patterson

14th Amendment-Due Process

I. General A. How Judges make laws / choices = 3 Factors 1. security vs. individual rights = Protect Public (from ourselves, gov, national harm) a. 9 II 2. Federalism a. Red vs blue states 3. Racism B. 14th AM + Incorporation C. Due Process 1. Hurtado v. Cali NOT Overruled! a. Right to grand jury indictment is not part of DP i. States are not required to provide grand juries* 2. Maxwell v. Dow a. Right to jury of 12 in crim cases is not part of DP state C required jury of 8 3. Twinning v. NJ - Overruled! a. DP did not prohibit an instruction to the jury that is could draw a negative inference from s failure to testify D. Developing Standards of DP 1. Palko v. Conn TESTfor What DP requires of a state criminal Process (p. 38) a. Whether the lack of right subjected the to hardship so acute & shocking that our policy will not endure I b. Nor would may rights qualify as fundamental principles of liberty & justice which lie at the base of all our civil & political institutions II. RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL A. Powell v. Alabama 1. Rule: a. should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure cousel of his own choice b. TC failure to appoint effective counsel (one that is prepared, within reasonable time before trial) is a denial of DP w/I 14th Am c. DP of Law Equal Protection of Laws 14th Am: i. (1) given a fair, impartial & deliberate trial ii. (2) Right to Counsel with the accustomed incidents of consulation & opportunity of preparation for trial and especially IF (I) is Ignorant + illiterate + Youth (II) it is a captial case. iii. (3) jury cannot systematically excluded s race. III. COERCION + CONFESSION

77

Crim Pro A. Brown v. Mississippi not overrule! 1. Facts a. Coerced confession via police i. Sheriff of the county of the crime i. heard the whippings BUT had no personal knowledge of it ii. that came before him was limping ii. 3 witness ( 2 Sheiffs + one other witness) = used to establish confessions & admitted into evidence agsint the objections of 2. Issue: Whether a confession received by the use of violence and brutality is inconsistent with the DP 14th AM? 3. Held: YES a. Violated a s fundamental right + violated the DP 4. Rule: States have power to govern UNLESS hurt principles & tradition of justice Fed step in a. GR: States regulate / proceedure how ever you want b. EX: if it affects the the principles & traditions of justice Court will step in and correct the issue & repair s fundamental rights** 5. DP clause: a. Requires state action to be consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty & justice b. Duty to maintain C rights of person on trial for life raises above rules of procedure AND when Court is clearly satisfied violated existed it will refuse to sanction such violation & will apply the corrective. 6. Analysis a. Fundamental vs. Not Fundamental b. Truth of the matter & Accuracy of Trials i. 12 jurors n ii. cocered confession = y 7. Rationale a. The whole pt of trial is to get at the truth b. Accuracy is an issue if force is applied to get confession IV. JURY TRIAL RIGHT A. Ducan v. Louisiana 1. Facts a. wanted jury trial for simple assault b. jury trial offered for serious issues =DP 2. Issue: Whether the denial of a jury trial for a simple assault was a violation of DP under 14th AM? 3. Held: YES a. Selective Incorp [J. White] WINS! b. Right to JT is graned to Crim to prevent oppressio by Gov. 4. Rule: Right of jury trial in all criminal cases tried in a Fed court comes w/I 6th Ams guarantee

78