Select Page

Criminal Procedure
St. Thomas University, Florida School of Law
Trawick, Daryl E.

Professor Trawick
Criminal Procedure Final Outline
Fall 2017
 
 
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.
Analysis
Was it a search or seizure within the meaning the 4th Amendment?
If so, was the search or seizure unreasonable?
What is a Search?
Trespass Doctrine
Trespass doctrine adopted; Looked to property law
If police in a place that they are not legally able to be then they were trespassing and it was an illegal search.
Ask was there a physical intrusion or trespass by government agents into a constitutionally protected area?
Expectation of Privacy
Katz v. United States-declines the trespass doctrine; instead embraces a test focusing on the expectation of privacy
Two parts to assess whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy:
A person exhibits an actual subjective expectation of privacy
The expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize.
Third Party Doctrine (related to the expectation of privacy Katz 2-prong test)
Individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information or items voluntarily conveyed to a third party
Smith v. Maryland-no expectation of privacy for any phone number dialed by person
Houses v. Curtilage v. Open Fields
House includes: temporary residences, such as hotel rooms or overnight guest of a resident, garages, or commercial buildings
Minnesota v. Carter-does a person have an expectation of privacy in another person’s home.
Three factors to consider:
It’s a purely commercial nature
Short period on premise
Lack of close personal relationship with household
Curtilage: the area that harbors intimate activities associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life
Oliver v. United States-Factors weighed (to see if curtilage):
The area’s proximity to the home
Whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home
Nature of the area’s uses
Steps taken to protect the area from observation
Dow Chemical v. United States-commercial curtilage
Open Fields: land beyond the home and its curtilage
Law enforcement agents are permitted to enter and search property deemed open fields without a warrant
Aerial Surveillance
United States v. Lee- use of searchlight to determine contents of a boat on the high seas is not a search
California v. Ciraolo- use of 35mm camera from a helicopter at 1000 ft. acceptable because officers were in public airspace and plants were visible to the naked eye.
Florida v. Riley- if in public air space then police can be there just as a normal person.
If open, he exposed it to whoever may be watching
Ground Level Surveillance
Texas v. Brown-use of flashlight to illuminate interior of a car doesn’t violate 4th Amendment
United States v. Knotts- no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person traveling on public road
United States v. Karro- no expectation of privacy in the transfer of a drum on the public which carries an electronic surveillance device on it; however, when the drum crossed the curtilage of the home, transmitting must cease.
Electronic Surveillance
United States v. White- 4th amendment affords no protection to a wrongdoer’s misplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides his wrongdoing will not reveal it.
Kyllo v. United States- use of thermal-imaging device from public street to detect relative amounts of heat within home, which led to discovery of indoor marijuana growing operation
Court said that the search under the 4th and it was unreasonable
United States v. Jones- officers placed a GPS monitoring device on the defendant’s car
Court held that it was a unreasonable search because, unlike Knotts and Karo, consent was not given before coming into possession of the defendant
Court emphasized how Olmstead was not overturned by Katz; however, they work together.
Dog Sniffs
Florida v. Jardines- majority opinion looked at through Olmstead trespass doctrine
However, concurrence looked at through expectation of privacy.
Both found that it was an unreason

on.
Arizona v. Hicks- 4th amendment required that police actions in seizing stereo equipment in plain view be related to the objectives of the authorized intrusion, and actions were unreasonable absent probable cause to believe equipment was stolen or was contraband.
If during plain view the illegal nature is evident then it comes in through plain view doctrine (Bright-line Rule)
Thus, if no probable cause to seize the contraband, then must satisfy bright-line rule
Plain view doctrine cannot be invoked when police have less than probable cause to believe an item in question is evidence of a crime or contraband
 
 
Search Warrants
A valid warrant requires three things:
it must be supported by probable cause;
the affiant or the person applying for the warrant must affirm under oath that the facts in the affidavit are true; and
the warrant must state with particularity the place to be searched and the items or person to be seized.
Particularity Requirement: the warrant must state with particularity the place to be searched and the items or person to be seized.
Purpose is to prevent general searches
Maryland v. Garrison- A search warrant that described too broadly the premises to be searched was valid when issued, and the way it was executed was reasonable because officers had made a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place to be searched.
United States v. Grubbs- affidavit stated that officers couldn’t search “unless and until” a certain parcel was received
Failure to include triggering condition did not violate particularity requirement
4th amendment only requires reference to place searched and things to be seized
No requirement that conditions be included on the warrant