WHAT IS A SEARCH
Weeks v US 1914
Case creates exclusionary rule, which is not explicit in the 4th Am. in order to avoid the appearance that the Court is approving of “neglect/defiance of prohibitions of the Constitution”. Court doesn’t want to be an accomplice to unlawful violations of privacy.
Wolf v Colorado 1949
Says a state court and state crime aren’t subject to the exclusionary rule, although 4th Am privacy protection does apply. Illogical!
Mapp v Ohio, 1961
Overruled Wolf, held that 4th Amendment exclusionary rule applied to State prosecution (thru 14th Amendment due process). Significant because most CRIMES are STATE CRIMES.
Katz v United States, 1967
Gov’t listens electronically to conversation by man in telephone booth. Even though no penetration of booth wall (physical invasion of threshold), it’s a search.
Court shows concern for privacy interest: phone booth is place where person reasonably expects to have privacy.
SUBJECTIVE intent to preserve privacy
PLUS, privacy expectation that society recognizes as REASONABLE.
US v White, 1971
Recording of conversation between D and informant is NOT a SEARCH. Presence of informant to whom D speaks makes all the difference. D has no subjective expectation of privacy, assumes the risk that listener will squeal, and electronic recording is no different than if listener wrote it down.
Smith v Maryland, 1979
Use of pen register to find out what phone #’s D called from his home phone NOT a search. NOT REASONABLE expectation of privacy by society standard, because you knowingly transmit the numbers to the telephone company, and you know they use them for business purposes and to stop harassing phone callers. Difference between content of phone calls (private) and numbers called (public)?
gov’t conduct triggering 4th Am: telephone co acting as gov’t agent, on gov’t request.
California v Ciraolo, 1986
Police fly in public airspace over yard of marijuana grower in response to anonymous tip. Not a search, because airspace is public and anyone could observe it that way (naked eye, from non-instrusive position), so no reasonable expectation of full privacy.
Argument that the yard is “curtilage” (“area which extends to the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and privacies of life”) does NOT provide reasonable expectation of privacy if area is visible to public.
curtilage is not protected if you knowingly expose it to public view.
US v Dunn
“Open fields” don’t have reasonable expectation of privacy, even though it’s private land, public goes into it. Even “no trespassing” signs may not help. Court diverges from property rights concept.
Bond v U.S., 2000
Border agent squeezed D’s bag, felt “brick” of meth. Asked permission to open the bag – doesn’t matter because initial “squeeze” search was without permission. D has reasonable expectation that other passengers will touch his bag, but no expectation that there will be a “probing tactile search” – has expectation of privacy because of opaque bag, and placement in overhead compartmen
ormant is credible and his information is reliable.
2 prongs:
1)Basis of knowledge (show where he got his information, what makes it worth believing – secondary sources or police investigation that corroborates, informant’s claim of personal knowledge, self-verifying information (as in Draper))
2)Informant’s veracity (credibility, and other information that shows him reliable, informant’s identity and track record, declaration against interest, corroboration of details)
Illinois v Gates (1983)
Anonymous tip letter describing detailed travel plans of drug runners. Letter supported probable cause, because court throws out the 2-prong test and replaces with Totality of Circumstances. Includes the prongs as “highly relevant” factors, but not rigid test.
Makes sense as a standard because it’s less technical for non-lawyers (police)
Whren v U.S., 1996
Officer pulled over a car that had youthful occupants, and stopped suspiciously long at a light, then turned illegally when it saw the police car. Upon pulling over, officer saw bags of drugs and arrested the occupants. “ulterior motives don’t invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on the basis of probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred.”
