Crim Pro
Spring ‘16
SEARCH AND SEIZURE – AN OVERVIEW OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT
Questions to Consider
Is there state action?
Is there a search? Where?
Necessity of a warrant?
Standard to be applied?
Generally Probable Cause
New Jersey v. T.L.O. – Students smoking in bathroom; Teacher searched purse found paraphernalia, money and lists of ‘clients’.
Public school is considered a governmental entity
Search must be reasonable – balance privacy expectations of the students with the state’s interest
Justified at the inception of search
Reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search’s inception
Exclusionary Rule – evidence unconstitutionally (4th Amendment) obtained must be suppressed and cannot be used in criminal proceedings
Safford Unified School District v. Redding – exterior search for narcs., search of undergarments
A search that is so unreasonable that it offends our conscience is outlawed under the 14th Amendment
The content of the suspicion must match the degree of the intrusion
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE (WEEKS – MAPP)
Weeks v United States – Illegal search for lottery materials
Exclusionary rule only applies to federal action, not state officials.
Silver Platter Doctrine = Federal officials giving illegally obtained evidence to state officials
Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States – government obtained evidence without a warrant, makes copies and gives it back then subpoenas the evidence again
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine = evidence obtained illegally and anything that flows from it cannot be used at all
Independent Source Doctrine = evidence obtained from a completely independent source is okay to use
W has business; H claims she hasn’t paid taxes in years and give records; Police search business without warrant and gain possession of records. Already obtained from H previously so this is an independent source
Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado – [case is overruled by Mapp]
Exclusionary Rule is not extended to states
Rochin v. People of California – D swallowed capsules; the police take defendant to the hospital and have his stomach pumped
Due process clause of the 14th Amendment does protect people against outrageous behavior (shocked the conscience)
Evidence seized by state officials for state action is suppressed for the first time, but not under the exclusionary rule
People v. Cahan – illegal betting league, police officers installed recording devices without a warrant
State applies exclusionary rule based off the state constitution
Jones v. United States – D hides drugs in a birds’ nest, police conduct warrantless search and seize the drugs, STANDING CASE
Standing or expectation of privacy à guest in a home still has certain expectations of privacy and thus standing
Automatic Standing Principle = if you are charged with possession, you automatically have standing in the property [only certain states still use this; it’s been done away with]
Mapp v. Ohio – Illegal, forcible search after police provided paper which wasn’t a warrant
Exclusionary rule extended to the states under the due process clause of the 14th amendment
Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado is no longer controlling
Court using analogy to no forced confessions of criminal activity to no forced seizure of evidence
Eliminates the Silver Platter Doctrine
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – state police stop car because the rear of the vehicle is low, the police find 31 bottles of liquor without the PA tax seal
4th Amendment applies to civil forfeiture cases because such cases are criminal in nature
D gets the car back, but not the contraband [which can’t be used against him in court
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics – rough physical search and strip search without a warrant, nothing is found, D sued for damages
PROTECTED PLACES AND INTERESTS
l inspection à violates reasonable expectation of privacy as seen by the public [expectation of privacy in luggage] 4th Amendment violation had already occurred when consent was given—so irrelevant
Florida v. Jardines – Dog sniff on porch
While police have a license to approach a home to speak with the occupants, it’s only in that area for that purpose; No invitation to enter the curtilage to conduct search (which here it is a search)
State v. Ortiz – drug dog sniff in apartment building
An expectation of privacy only in the apartment, dog sniffs could violate this expectation when the dog sniffs under the door
Consensual Monitoring/Wiretapping
United States v. White – government informant radio transmitted convo with D
Hoffa False Friend Doctrine – no expectation of privacy in communications with other individuals
Monitor must be consented by the false friend (distinction between consensual monitoring and wiretapping)
When no one consents to having the conversation monitored or recorded, it is a wiretap and requires a court order
Consent is the distinction between monitoring and wiretapping
As long as one person consents, then no issues
Can only be done by law enforcement, not private citizens
New Federalism
States can expand rights given by the constitution [] State constitutions do not apply to federal agents
Reverse Silver Platter Doctrine = federal agents can do things the state police cant because of state constitutions, state police give the federal agents information and have them conduct the search
