Investigatory Criminal Procedure
Professor Cook
Spring 2010
I. Chapter 2: The Fourth Amendment and The Deprivation of Liberty
a. §2.01 The Seizure Requirement
i. California v. Hodari D., United States Supreme Court, 499 U.S. 621 (1991)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
2. City of Indianapolis v. Edmund
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.
iii. A Modicum of Suspicion
1. Norwell v. Cincinnati
a. Facts: Norwell is walking home from work ad the cop tried to stop him and get him to identify himself. He shrugged him off and refused to answer and kept going. The officer arrested him under the below code.
b. Rule: Ohio Municipal Code, “No person shall willfu
of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
2. Sibron v. New York
a. Facts: NY has a stop and frisk law. Sibron was seen by an officer standing on the street talking to like 10 known drug addicts. The officer observed him for like ten hours but saw nothing pass between Sibron and the addicts. The officer approached him and said, “You know what I am after” Sibron reached into his pocket and the Officer thrust his hand into Sibron’s pocket at the same time. Inside was a bunch of heroin.
b. Holding: This was not constitutional because the officer had no probable cause to search Sibron and had no reasonable grounds to believe that Sibron was armed and dangerous.
3. 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.
4. 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 indica 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.
