Fall 2014-Adcock-Crim Pro
4th Amendment- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
· 4th Amendment guaranteesĝ protection only in four areas: persons, houses, papers, and effects
· Wrongdoer must be a govt agent
· Protects against unreasonable searches & seizures
· Warrantless searches presumed unreasonable
I. WHAT IS A SEARCH?
When governmental conduct constitutes a search or seizure of a person, house, paper or effect and therefore triggers 4th Amendment protection.
Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable
Step 1: Has there been a search or seizure?
Step 2: If there is no search or seizure 4th Amendment doesn’t apply
· Rule: Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable
· Exception: Unless a warrant exception applies
Step 3: Determine remedy: search/seizure deemed unreasonable =evidence is excluded
PRE-KATZ LAW
· Court adhered to a “property rights trespass doctrine” (Olmstead case)
· 4th Amendment limited to search & seizure of tangible property, was not applied in the absence of a physical intrusion.
Katz v. United States (Electronic Eavesdropping)
Facts: Govt attached electronic listening and recording devices outside of a public phone booth.
Rule(s): Harlan’s two prong test 1) a person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy 2) that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Majority’s test 1) what a person knowingly exposes to the public even in his home or office is not subject of 4th Amendment protection, 2) what he seeks to preserve as private even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally protected.
Holding: No warrant was secured, 4th Amendment violation
United States v. Jones (GPS)
Facts: Officers obtained a warrant authorizing installation of a GPS device in DC within 10 days. On 11th day in Maryland a GPS was installed on Jones’ vehicle. Officers monitored Jones’ movements for about 4 weeks.
Rule: Where the government installs a GPS device upon a suspect’s effect by way of trespass, and subsequently uses that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, a search has occurred. No need to do Katz analysis. Factors to consider: 1) length of surveillance (28 days or more) and 2) crime of investigation
Holding: Use of GPS constituted a search
CURTILAGE V. OPEN FIELDS
· The term “houses” includes the home’s interior and its protected “curtilage” but no more.
· Protection against physical entry begins at the curtilage.
· This term does not include open fields, even if private land.
· Not all trespasses trigger 4th Amendment protections.
· House (full 4th amendment protection)
· Curtilage encompasses within the term “house” (receives similar 4th amendment protection)
· Open fields are not protected by the 4th amendment, even if private land, entry into these areas is not a “search”
· To determine where the curtilage begins, apply the 4 Dunn Factors:
1. Proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home
2. Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
3. Nature of the uses to which the area is put
4. Steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by
General Rules:
· If the officer is standing in an open field at the time then the 4th Amendment provides NO PROTECTION
· If the officer is viewing from the curtilage from a lawful vantage point this will not constitute a search
· If the officer has breached the home’s curtilage then the 4th Amendment applies and ask whether officer had a warrant and if one of the exception applies
United States v. Dunn (Curtilage)
Curtilage: the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home. The area that extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.
E (enclosure)
D (distance)
E (effort to obstruct observation)
N (nature of use)
California v. Ciraolo (Aerial Surveillance-Airplanes)
Facts: Police flew over defendant’s backyard and observed marijuana plants growing.
Rule: Non-sense-enhanced aerial surveillance by the government of activities occurring within the curtilage of a house does not constitute a search if: 1) occurs from public navigable airspace (should be indicated by facts); 2) conducted in a physically nonintrusive manner ;and 3) does not reveal intimate activities traditionally connected with the use of a home or curtilage. Officers need not shield their eyes from information or activities knowingly exposed to them even in the curtilage of a house.
While physical entry into the home’s curtilage is a “search” observation of the curtilage from outside the curtilage is typically not a “search”
Holding: Aerial surveillance of backyard within the curtilage of the house did not constitute a search. Objective prong of expectation of privacy standard was not satisfied.
Florida v. Riley (Aerial Surveillance-Helicopters)
Facts: Officer observed the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in Riley’s backyard while circling 400 feet above the greenhouse in a police helicopter.
Rule (s): Non-sense-enhanced aerial surveillance by the government of activities occurring within the curtilage of a house does not constitute a search of the surveillance 1) occurs from public navigable airspace 2) conducted in a physically nonintrusive manner and 3) does not reveal intimate activities traditionally connected with the use of a home or curtilage.
Holding: not a search no violation of 4th Amendment, same holding as Ciraolo because helicopters are permitted to fly at this altitude.
Kyllo v. United States (Thermal Imaging)
Facts: Govt used a thermal imager to scan to defendant’s home. Device was aimed at Kyllo’s home from a public street to detect relative amounts of hear within the home. Govt used info obtained from the can to secure a warrant to search Kyllo’s residence.
Kyllo Rule: Obtaining 1) by sense-enhancing technology 2) any information regarding the interior of the home, 3) that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search, 4) at least where the technology in question is not in general public use.
Holding: Info obtained by thermal imager was a search
California v. Gr
son to be arrested
Sources used to establishing probable cause include:
· Information from a victim or witness
· First-hand information by an officer
· Information from other police
· Information from informants (known or unknown)
Aguilar-Spinelli Two-Prong Test
1) Basis of Knowledge
· Details regarding exactly how informant claims to have come by the provided information
· In detail how did the informant get this information?
2) Reliability/Veracity
· Facts to demonstrate that the informant is credible or reliable
· In detail why should the magistrate believe this person?
Overall Probable Cause Test
Abandoning the element bases approach of Aguilar-Spinelli, the issuing magistrate must “simply make a practical, common-sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
Totality of Circumstances Analysis
1) Begin by analyzing both critical aspects of the informant’s tip
2) Next, examine any police corroboration of the tipster’s allegations
3) Finally, factor in all other incriminating information received by police
Illinois v. Gates (Anonymous Informant)
Facts: Bloomingdale PD received by mail an anonymous handwritten letter which stated: names and address of Defendants and the details (dates/location) of their drug buys. PD corroborated details of the letter and obtained a warrant to search the Defendants’ home and automobile.
Rule(s): Court held that it is wiser to abandon the “two pronged test” and replace it with the“totality of the circumstances”analysis. A magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information , there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
Holding: A partially corroborated anonymous tip by itself did not provide the basis for a finding of probable cause.
Note: An unknown informant who supplies a large amount of detail where much of that detail is subsequently corroborated by police will strengthen the probable cause claim.
Whren v. U.S. (DWB)
Rule/Objective test: If a reasonable police officer would have found probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has been committed, then the stop is valid.
Holding: Vehicle stop was reasonable under the 4th Amendment.
