Criminal Procedure
Professor Wilson
Fall 2010
I. Chapter 2: The Fourth Amendment and The Deprivation of Liberty
a. §2.01 The Seizure Requirement
i. California v. Hodari D.
1. State concedes that the officer had no reasonable suspicion to approach or chase Hodari D until the point when he threw the drugs out the window. This is significant because when an individual freedom of movement is interrupted the 4th Amendment is applicable. If the seizure is in violation of the 4th amendment then any evidence gained in that way cannot be used against the individual.
2. The contraband is not the fruit of the illegal seizure of the person rather the cocaine is abandoned property and can be seized by the police when it is plain view. The abandonment occurred before the 4th amendment illegal seizure occurred therefore the abandonment is not the fruit of the illegal seizure. An illegal arrest alone is not reversible error. If you discard the drugs before the seizure then those drugs are fair game.
3. Seizure – requires physical force OR submission to assertion of authority. If police ask you to stop you have not been seized.
4. Arrest – arrest is the quintessential seizure. If you are arrested you have been seized. If you have been seized you have not necessarily been arrested. If you are arrested and break free the arrest does not necessarily continue.
5. Some seizures require PC, some mere RS.
ii. Problem A: The Breakaway Detainee
1. Hodari D. court would say that the evidence is fair game because it was abandoned and the suspect was not being illegally detained at that moment.
2. *Illegal arrest is not reversible error.
iii. United States v. Drayton
1. The officer did not inform the passengers of their right to refuse to cooperate. As the officer approached Drayton and Brown, he identified himself, declared that the police were looking for drugs and weapons, and asked if the two had any bags. Subsequently, the officer asked Brown whether he minded if he checked his person. Brown agreed and a pat-down revealed hard objects similar to drug packages in both thigh areas. When Drayton agreed, a pat-down revealed similar objects. Both were arrested. A further search revealed that Drayton and Brown had taped cocaine to their legs.
2. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches. The Court reasoned that, although the officer did not inform the defendants of their right to refuse the search, he did request permission to search and gave no indication consent was required. Moreover, the Court noted, the totality of the circumstances indicated that the consent was voluntary.
3. Proper analysis – would a reasonable person feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter? Bostick factors – whether officer removed gun/threatened, whether officer advised passenger he could refuse consent to search.
a. Did not brandish weapons, left aisle free, spoke to passengers one by one politely, no application of force, no intimidating movement, no blocking exits, no threat, no command, no authoritative tone.
b. §2.02 The Sliding Scale of Suspicion
i. The Random Stop
1. Delaware v. Prouse
a. A Delaware patrolman stopped William Prouse’s car to make a routine check of his driver’s license and vehicle registration. The officer had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious conduct on the part of Prouse. After stopping the car, the officer uncovered marijuana. The marijuana was later used to indict Prouse.
b. The Court held that the privacy interests of travelers outweighed the state interests in discretionary spot checks of automobiles. The Court found that random checks made only marginal contributions to roadway safety and compliance with registration requirements; less intrusive means could have been used to serve the same ends. Officers must be held to a “probable cause” standard for searches, otherwise individuals would be subject to “unfettered governmental intrusion” each time they entered an automobile.
c. No empirical data to support stops, arbitrariness, unconstrained discretion on part of officers.
ii. The Pervasive Roadblock
1. Michigan Department of State Police v. SITZ
a. Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation.
b. The Court held that the sobriety roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that “no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States’ interest in eradicating it.” The Court then found that “the weight bearing on the other scale–the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints–is slight.” The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program..
c. Important factors: no discretion for officers (policy comes from high-up), purpose not ordinary wrongdoing (public safety now), narrow purpose to roadblock.
d. Most courts have found lawfully avoiding a checkpoint does not give reason to pursue and stop the car.
e. Martinez – illegal immigrant searches ok when close to border.
2. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
a. Roadblock used to discover illegal narcotics is ruled unconstitutional. Even though the roadblock was 6% more successful in discovering narcotics then roadblocks are for catching drunk drivers. The problem is the subject of the roadblock.
b. Holding: Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment.
3. Illinois v. Lidster
a. Highway checkpoint to ask occupants for help/information with crime is not a 4th Amendment violation.
b. Primary purpose was not general law enforcement like Edmond.
iii. Reasonable Suspicion
1. Terry v. Ohio
a. Issue: Whether it is always reasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest.
b. Facts: Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The officer saw him and another man “ca
Search was problematic – even if he had reasonable suspicion, Terry only permits a limited frisk/pat down for weapons, Sibron search was not limited in scope to weapons.
4. Peters
a. Facts: Officer heard a noise at his door and when he looked he saw two men sneaking around. He went after them armed and they took off. He caught one in the stairwell and asked him why he was in the building. Peters said he was visiting his gf. He asked him who that was and Peters refused to answer. The officer patted him down and found a burglary kit.
b. Holding: The court says this is justifiable because they were acting suspiciously, they were in a public place, and the Officer had reasonable grounds to believe Peters may have been armed. They go as far to say that he has probable cause to arrest him.
c. Need to have probable cause to search like that.
5. Alabama v. White
a. Facts: Anonymous tip that White will be leaving building at particular time with cocaine and described the car exactly and where it was going. The cops came and verified the details given to them by the caller and stopped White. She consented to a search and drugs were found.
b. Issue: Whether the tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop.
c. Holding: We conclude that under the totality of the circumstance the anonymous tip, as corroborated, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the investigatory stop of respondent’s car.
d. Reasoning: The court cites Adams v. Williams and mentions that an unverified tip be insufficient to support an arrest or search warrant, but the information may carry sufficient “indicia of reliability” to justify a forcible stop. It goes on to talk about how reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of the information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Both factors – quantity and quality – are considered in the “totality of the circumstance – the whole picture.
e. Important here that tip predicted future behavior. Allowed officers to corroborate, and showed the tipster to be an insider, honest, and well informed.
f. You can create suspicion out of innocent facts just by verifying them. The Terry doctrine is unraveling.
g. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are dependent on the quality and quantity of tips.
Tip factors: anonymity, predictive nature/insider information, quantity of information, quality/reliability, history of providing
