CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
4TH Amendment
I. 4TH Amendment – protects the people from unlawful search and seizures
a. Police are free to conduct a search and/or seizure, but only if they have been approved in advance by an independent magistrate, who has determined that the police have probable cause to conduct the search
b. Unless the particular search or seizure is one that is an exception to the warrant and/or probable cause requirement
II. How to get a Warrant?
a. Who can issue one? – A magistrate judge
b. Agent/officer will present information that supports the probably cause – in an affidavit
c. Goal of officers is to compile enough evidence to convince judge of probable cause
d. Judge will look at info. And determine if it is probable cause so that warrant will be issued
e. Judge will issue warrant for the items being searched for/or to seize a person
III. Who uses their 4th amendment rights?
a. Most that use the 4th amend. rights are criminals
b. Hard to protect bec. few want to let a major criminal go free bec. the evidence that proved it was against 4th amendment (exclusionary rule)
c. No form of remedy for the innocent – can’t protect yourself from something you have no notice of – have to either submit or risk arrest
d. Could sue the individual person (officer) if civil rights were violated – but costs money to sue and not likely to recover much
PROBABLE CAUSE
I. Probable Cause
a. Definition – “reasonable ground for belief of guilt” – “less than evidence that would justify condemnation” – less than what would be needed for trial
i. Officers have gathered reasonably credible information and that would warrant a reasonable belief
ii. Based on a probability – always a chance that it won’t be there
iii. Must have probable cause at the outset – doesn’t matter if they do/don’t find anything – would violate amendment from the beginning not after the search/seizure
b. Brinegar v. United States – “Rum Runner case”
i. Ct. sd (Sup. Ct. affirmed) that they didn’t have probable cause to originally follow him but the later action of D’s vol. admission was probable cause to search the car – the (admission) overruled the need for probable cause
ii. Difference bt. home and the car – no time to get warrant for a moving car
iii. Difference bt. being searched on public highways and crossing an international boundary – one entering a country must present themselves as entitled to come in and that belongings and effects are legal
c. Draper v. United States
i. Informant had very detailed information about place, time char. of suspect etc.
ii. Majority says that background on how the informant go the information is not necessary – bec. of the high amount of detail and corroboration
d. Spinelli v. United States (phone gambling case)
i. Worried about the basis of knowledge – again no background information about how the informant got the information
ii. There was a warrant in this case – but not necessarily probably cause
iii. Matters whether the tip is anonymous our comes from a known source
iv. Opinion points out that in Draper – could reasonably infer that due to the detail that it is more likely the information was reliable
v. Sd affidavit was short of requirements set out in Draper and was no sufficient to find a basis for probable cause
vi. Aguilar Test (2 prong): 1. Basis of Knowledge – how informant got the knowledge 2. Reliability of the Informant – (Used in this case)
e. U.S. v. Grubbs
i. Anticipatory Warrant issued after D ordered child pornography – but wouldn’t use it until the video was taken into the residence – observed by agent
ii. Anticipatory Warrant – warrant based on affidavit that with probable cause – certain crime will be anticipated at a certain place
iii. All warrants are in some ways anticipatory – because probable cause requirement looks to whether evidence will be found when the search is conducted
iv. Two part requirement for anticipatory warrants:
1. Must be true that if the triggering condition occurs there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
2. Also, that there is probable cause to believe that the triggering condition will occur.
v. Majority says not required to give a copy of the warrant at the beginning of search
f. Illinois v. Gates
i. Police received letter saying a couple dealt drugs and gave details of her trips to Florida and when he/she would come back. Officers, executing a search warrant, found marijuana and other contraband in their house and home.
ii. Courts thru state supreme said letter didn’t meet two-prong test in Spinelli.
iii. Supreme Court reversed – sd don’t need two-prong test bec. probable cause doesn’t deal with certainties, but rather w/ probabilities
iv. Two prong test is too structured, proper test is the totality of the circumstances.
v. Test can be used to illuminate the totality of the circumstances ex.) Basis of knowledge prong helps establish whether info meets requirements for probable cause – one strong prong can outweigh the other weaker one
vi. Totality of the Circumstances Factors:
1. Veracity – how well it is corroborated/matched the actions.
2. Reliability – how reliable informant has been
3. Basis of Knowledge – where they got the information
vii. Totality seems to give magistrates more flexibility in issuing warrants.
g. Massachusetts v. Upton
i. Drafted application for search warrant, including affidavit and reports from two burglaries and what was taken. Magistrate granted search warrant. Upon execution, cops found items described by tipster.
ii. Upton claimed no grounds for search based on 4th A. Mass. Supreme Court ignored Gates and focused still on Aguilar and Spinelli, finding there was not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant and reversing D’s conviction. USSC reversed
iii. Again, to consider the tip within the context of the “totality of the circumstances.” The hypertechnical dissection of tips isn’t in keeping with the practical, common-sense decision of a magistrate.
iv. Important: Stevens, concurring: Problem was they based their decision on 4th A rather than considering whether the warrant violated the Massachusetts constitution. If so, then the work of all the courts was all for not.
v. When he went to corroborate, he doesn’t corroborate unlawful activity. He corroborates the innocent facts that appear suspicious in light of the tip.
vi. The federal constitution is a floor below which no state can go. But every state can provide its citizens with additional rights. Or can offer the exact same level of rights.
h. Con’t Commonwealth v. Upton, Supreme Court of Mass
i. After per curiam from USSC, case back to Mass. Reversed based on state constitution and a modified Aguilar-Spinelli test.
ii. Whether the “totality of the circumstances” rule used by the USSC is an acceptable standard to judge “probable cause”?
iii. Mass sd. No. Too vague and, although flexible, is also unacceptably shapeless and permissive.
iv. Mass opts to provide more rights under the US Constitution.
i. Maryland v. Pringle
i. Officer stopped a speeding car permission to search; granted. Cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest. First, none would admit owned drugs, later Pringle confessed.
ii. Pringle said drugs were the fruit of an illegal arrest – USSC said there was reasonable ground for belief of guilt.
iii. Possession – exercise of control over a thing
iv. Pringle could argue for D that he was in a guilt by association situation, like Ybarra – but was really guilty of being in a common enterprise bec. of proximity of the car and not a public place.
THE NEED FOR A WARRANT
I. The Need for a Warrant
a. Who can issue a Warrant
i. must be neutral and detached and must be able to determine whether there is probable cause – can be a court clerk or judge (Shadwick)
ii. Can’t be neutral and detached if Justice of Peace is involved in prosecuting the case the warrant is asked for (Coolidge v. New Hampshire)
iii. Can’t pay a magistrate for approved warrants – definitely not neut
dment in the first place
d. Welsh v. Wisconsin
i. P was seen driving erratically – drove off the road – walked home – drunk
ii. Police found out where he lived – entered the home & arrested w/o warrant
iii. Searches and seizures inside of home w/o warrant are presumptively unreasonable – would have to be exigent circumstances to make it valid
iv. State’s argument: Safety concern that he was threat to public safety – preservation of blood-alcohol evidence – hot pursuit
v. USSC says not hot pursuit – bec. wasn’t followed from scene of crime to home – no threat to public safety bec. didn’t have his car and was at home
vi. Plus – the gravity of the underlying defense was relatively minor by WI laws – so exigency claimed was really non-existent
e. Minnesota v. Olson
i. Police had a lot of good evidence that Olson was in the house (unlike Payton) – house was not his own – he was an overnight guest – still needs an arrest warrant – enough of an interest in the privacy w/in the house by Olson
ii. Court determined again – no exigent circumstances to justify the arrest
iii. What if did have warrant for arrest but w/o warrant to enter home – this situation is different bec. whose interests are at stake? Whose 4th rights are violated? Cannot assert vicariously the rights of another person – ex.) if a person’s 4th rights are breached, but find evidence there implicating another person in the home – that 2nd person can’t claim breach of 4th amendment rights because it wasn’t theirs that was violated
III. Force in Effectuating An Arrest
a. Tennessee v. Garner
i. 8th grader shot & killed by officer after burglarizing home – after being told to halt
ii. Ct. concluded that TN statute was invalid insofar as it gave officer the authority to act as he did – unconstitutional as it applied in this case
iii. But not unconstitutional if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm – armed
iv. Seizure – “officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away”, an “arrest”, and “deadly force”
v. Shooting a non-dangerous fleeing suspect doesn’t outweigh the possessory interest that individual has in his own life
b. Graham v. Connor
i. When (probable cause) and How(reasonableness) the arrest or seizure should be held is at issue “reasonableness standard”
ii. Must be reasonable in both when and how
iii. To determine reasonableness have to weigh the severity of the crime, his behavior when they detain him (whether he resisted)
iv. Hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force should be analyzed under the 4th amendment and its reasonableness standard
v. An officers evil intentions has no bearing on whether a particular seizure is “unreasonable” under the 4th Amendment
c. Problem on pg. 113
i. Motorcyclist with a passenger eludes police, crashes killing passenger – can decedent’s estate sue under Garner and Graham?
ii. Sup. Ct. sd 4th amendment didn’t apply – bec. the chase wasn’t an actual search/seizure
