I. Fourth Amendment: Arrest, Search and Seizure
A. Introduction
1. two views of the 4th amendment:
a) warrant preference view: search is presumptively unreasonable if conducted without a warrant because warrant clause is connected to the search and seizure clause.
b) separate clauses view: warrant is not necessary if the search is otherwise reasonable because the warrant clause is not connected to the search and seizure clause.
2. Four requirements of a valid search warrant
a) issued by a neutral magistrate
b) based on probable cause
c) supported by oath or affidavit
d) describes with particularity the places to be searched and the items to be seized.
B. Exclusionary Rule
1. Definition – evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment must be excluded at trial.
2. The exclusionary rule applies to the states through the 14th amendment – Mapp v. Ohio
a) overruled Wolf v. Colorado which held that the exclusionary rule did not apply because of federalism concerns.
b) put an end to the “silver platter” doctrine where state agents could hand over illegally seized evidence to federal agents for state prosecution because the federal agents had not obtained it illegally.
c) reasoning: without the exclusionary rule, the 4th amendment has no bite.
3. Exception to the exclusionary rule: Evidence obtained in good faith, but upon a defective warrant is admissible – Leon
a) the reliance must be objectively reasonable – whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal, considering all of the circumstances.
b) police can not be deterred by exclusion if they acted in good faith, so there is no reason to exclude the otherwise trustworthy evidence because of a technical defect.
c) Four Exceptions to Leon
(1) affidavit contained information that the police knew to be false or had a reckless disregard for its truth
(2) magistrate has wholly abandoned his judicial role by failing to be neutral
(3) affidavit so lacking in probable cause that belief in it is unreasonable
(4) warrant is so facially deficient that the officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid.
C. What Constitutes A Search?
1. 4th amendment only triggered by government action.
a) private actors are considered government agents if:
(1) act at the direction or request of the government
(2) act pursuant to government policy or regulation
(3) act with the knowledge, acquiescence, or encouragement of the government
(4) act with a purpose or motivation to be a government actor
2. Katz – two pronged test for whether there has been a search (Harlan concurrence)
a) person has manifested actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
b) expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
c) Example of activity that is not a search under the 4th amendment because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy:
(1) California v. Greenwood – police rummaging through your garbage is not a search because society does not recognize a reasonable it is accessible to the public.
(2) police obtaining your phone records is not a search
rest means that there is a fair probability that:
(1) a crime has been committed; and
(2) the person to be arrested committed the crime.
2. OLD WAY of determining probable cause from an informant’s tip (Aguilar/Spinelli two-pronged test overruled by Gates):
a) veracity prong – must be evidence that the informant himself was reliable
b) basis of knowledge prong – must be facts showing the particular means by which the informant obtained the information
c) this test was too rigid and impractical for laymen police officers
3. Illinois v. Gates – totality of the circumstances determines whether an informant’s tip is sufficient basis for probable cause
a) the veracity of the informant and the basis of his knowledge are merely considerations, along with corroboration.
b) strong showing in one area (for example, informant’s history of reliability) can make up for weak showing in another area (for example, no description of how the informant got the information).
E. Warrants
1. Warrant procedures
a) person issuing the warrant need not be a judge or even a lawyer (could be a court clerk for misdemeanor cases) – but can’t be part of the police department (must be neutral).
police must present a satisfactory affidavit which sets forth facts and circumstances which
