Select Page

Criminal Procedure
Villanova University School of Law
Poulin, Anne Bowen

1.      Introduction
a.       Pages 1-32
b.      US constitution 4, 5, 6 and 14
                                                     i.      Three interests protected by the 4th
1.      Privacy
2.      Possessory
3.      Liberty
c.       US v. Watson
                                                     i.      A postal inspector received stolen credit cards, the police arrested him and he let them search his car where they found some of them. The police exercised discretion here.
                                                   ii.      One thing that was distinguished here but unrelated to this case is that all cases are jurisdiction specific, meaning that federal courts and state courts are separate
                                                  iii.      search and seizure n. examination of a person’s premises (residence, business, or vehicle) by law enforcement officers looking for evidence of the commission of a crime, and the taking (seizure and removal) of articles of evidence (such as controlled narcotics, a pistol, counterfeit bills, a blood-soaked blanket). The basic question is whether the search and seizure were “unreasonable” under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution (applied to the states under the 14th Amendment), which provides: “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Thus, searches and seizures must be under the authority of a search warrant or when the officer has solid facts that give him/her “probable cause” to believe there was evidence of a specific crime in the premises and no time to get a warrant. Evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is not admissible in court, nor is evidence traced through such illegal evidence.
2.      Arrest, search and seizure: fourth amendment
a.      The exclusionary rule
                                                     i.      Wolf v. Colorado
Facts of the Case: The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a number of convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a federal court.
Question:             Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion: In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not have to be excluded from trials in all cases. The Court reasoned that while the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other

                                 i.      Katz v. US—phone booth tapping
1.      Facts of the Case: Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.
Question: Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? Does there have to be a physical intrusion? In that the person is no longer secure in their person, house, effects and things.
yes