Crim Pro Cantu Fall 2016
4th amendmentè “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  particularity describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
What is a “search”?
-Not all searches are “searches” protected in the Constitution, courts tend to protect against a physical trespass rather than surveillance in general
-also prefers to protect people rather than places but this doesn’t mean the place is irrelevant
-Trespass Test: when the government trespasses (per property common law) on a constitutionally enumerated proprietary interest to collect information
-questions include; to what extent does state property law control, and how strictly do we read enumerated contexts in 4th amendment determining which areas trigger a 4th amendment search
Katz v. United Statesà 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures of physical items extends to recordings of oral statements.
-“Katz” test, “government conduct is a 4th amendment ‘search’ if the defendant, I light of context and social norms, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information obtained.”
-Context sensitive but common features include: (1) Importance of Physical context (sliding scale; whether home/curtilage/phone booth), (2) Other contextual keys (plain view exposure, nature of specific technology used, and did the officer have a right to be where they surveilled?), (3) Ambiguous contexts (dog sniffs luggage/car), and (4) Categorical exclusions (open fields and garbage)
Kyllo v. United Statesà While an unwarranted search of a private home is generally presumed to be unconstitutional, home owners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the things freely observable by the public and therefore there is no 4th amendment search and seizure if police gain information by observing things in public view.
California v. Greenwoodà The warrantless search of trash left outside on the curb does not violate the 4th amendment, because a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left for collection in a publicly accessible place.
Oliver v. United Statesà Under the open-fields doctrine, a field may be entered and searched without probable cause or a warrant.
-when officers are acting in the heat of the moment, we don’t want to create laws that are so nit-picky that it paralyzed officers
Florida v. Rileyà Aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home from a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet is not a search requiring a warrant under the terms of the 4th amendment.
-what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th amendment protection
-cantu think this ruling is bad
United States v. Jonesà The warrantless placement of a GPA tracking device on the undercarriage of an individual’s vehicle in order to track the person’s movements on public streets constitutes an unlawful search in violation of the 4th amendment.
-2 tests for whether or not there’s a “Search”; the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy test and the Trespass test
Florida v. Jardinesà Using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
Grady v. North Carolinaà Sup. Ct. held that (1) a state conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person’s body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual’s movements, and (2) North Carolina’s program under which recidivist sex offenders could be subjected to satellite-based monitoring constituted 4th amendment search.
Bond v. United Statesà The physical manipulation of a bag on a public bus is a type of search that violates the 4th amendment.
United States v. Placeà Seizing a person’s luggage for an entire weekend until a warrant may be obtained violates 4th amendment as beyond the scope of a valid Terry stop. Also, a sniff by a drug dog that does not require opening of the luggage is not a search for 4th amendment purposes.
When is a Search justified by the 4th amendment?
Seizure of things; “meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interest in their property
Seizure of persons; “detention/arrest, when a LEO, by physical force of show of authority, restrains a person’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied
General Rules governing the propriety of Search and Seizures:
(1) S/Z presumptively unreasonable without a warrant [less true with seizure of persons with arrests],
(2) IF a warrant is required, existence of PC at the time of the S/Z does not retroactively validate the S/Z, and
(3) S/Z MUST be supported by PC…NOT all the time, lots of exceptions; ie Terry stops, RS, administrative searches, and consent searches
Focus more on whether there is the required PC present enough for a LEO to justify search, not so much on whether or not there’s a warrant
PC for Arrest must be “a substantial probability” the (1) crime was committed; and (2) the arrestee was who committed it
PC for a Search must be “a substantial probabi
What happens when the State violates 4th amendment limitations?
42 USC §1983 federal law that allows individuals to sue state officials for violating their constitutional rights while acting under “color” of state law
general consensus that there is no other remedy for a breach of the 4th amendment other than suppression of the illegally obtained evidence
1.2% of cases are granted the exclusionary rule per year
Wolf v. Coloradoà It is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment for state actors to gather evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures, but such evidence need not be excluded from state criminal proceedings.
-Ct. rules exclusionary rule is not a part of the 4th amendment
-most states don’t have exclusionary rule
Mapp v. Ohioà Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the 14th amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings.
This is the idealistic view of the exclusionary rule
United States v. Leonà Evidence obtained through reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant is not gathered in violation of the 14th amendment and such evidence is admissible at trial.
Leon sets objective standard for ER
ER not applicable if (1) a reasonable officer similarly situated have made the same error and, (2) the “reasonable officer” is one with “reasonable knowledge of what the law prohibits” this is an objective standard
Examples of Failures: (1) dishonesty of affiant, (2) clear abdication of “judicial role” by magistrate, (3) where warrant so clearly lacking in indicia of PC such that officer reliance on it is unreasonable
Hudson v. Michiganà The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock and announce rule.
Creates an exception to the suppression of evidence when the evidence in question would have inevitably been found
Herring v. United Statesà Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible.