I) Protected Areas and Interests
A) Reasonable Exprecation of Privacy: Must have (a) subjective expectation of privacy that (B) society is willing to recognize as reasonable. Katz v. United States, (Harlan concurrence)
1) Prison cell: No expectation of privacy in a prison cell. Hudson.
B) Seizures are subject to Fourth Amendment even without search. Soldal v. Cook County
1) Detention of luggagefor 90 minutes was unreasonable seizure because: United States v. Place
(a) Deprived possessory interest in luggage
(b) Deprived liberty interest in going about one’s day
C) Specific Exceptions
1) Open fields are not protected. Oliver v. United States.
(a) But curtilage is protected. United States v. Dunn. Factors:
(i) Proximity of land to home
(ii) Enclosures
(iii) Use to which land is put
(iv) Steps taken to protect from observation
2) Discarded trash is not protected. California v. Greenwood.
D) Sense-Enhancing Technology counts as a search if: (a) would otherwise require physical intrusion and (b) technology is not generally available to the public. Kyllo v. United States
1) But use of drug dogs does not consitute a search. (Car in Illinois v. Caballes; luggage in United States v. Place)
2) Installation of a tracking beeper does not constitute a search or seizure, but monitoring the beeper does. United States v. Karo
3) Aerial surveillance
(a) Of a 2000 acre chemical plant is not a search, area is not analogous to the curtilage of a home, more comparable to an open field. Dow Chemical v. United States.
(b) Of the curtilage of a home enclosed by a 10’ fence by a private plane does not meet the test of Katz, because cannot expect privacy if items can be viewed from a public vantage point. California v. Ciarolo.
II) Probable Cause
A) Defined: “[R]equires only a probability or a substantial chance of criminal activity” Illinois v. Gates.“A reasonable ground” Maryland v. Pringle.
1) For an arrest, you need probable cause that D committed a crime.
2) For a search, you need probable cause that you are going to find contraband or evidence of a crime.
B) Use of Informants
1) Old rule: Aguilar-Spinelli test. Aguilar v. Texas, Spinelli v. United States
(a) Veracity: The magistrate must be informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an informant is reliable and credible.
(i) Reliable: Past performance of informant
(ii) Credible: Statement against penal interest
(b) Basis of knowledge: The magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information.
) Specifity of identifiers is relevant. State v. Blackburn
(a) Warrant says door to apartment has a numeral 2 and “Ecurb” on the door. Cops get there, and “2” and “Ecurb” are different apartments. The name is a more specific identifier than the number, which could have just been a typo.
2) Mistake in searching is allowable if reasonable. Maryland v. Garrison
(a) Cops searched the wrong apartment. Warrant was valid when it was issued. Officers’ mistake was reasonable.
3) No warrants based on “loose, vague, or doubtful bases of fact.” Go-Bart Importing v. United States
(a) “Greatest care in description is required . . . as when objects to be seized are books or films or indicia of membership in an association.”
4) Warrant applications
(a) Defective warrants cannot be justified by reference to the warrant application, unless the warrant incorporates the application by reference. Groh v. Ramirez
Cops applied for warrant to search for proceeds of a robbery and weapons. Magistrate only granted search warrant for proceeds. Can’t seize weapons. Horton v. California
