Professor Diehm
Criminal Procedure
Spring 2017
Overview of the 4th Amendment
4th Amendment
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized
TLO
4th amendment does not apply to private action, only public action
public schools are considered government actors
balancing test
balance need for the search against reasonable expectation of privacy
reasonableness standard
search must be justified at its inception
must be reasonably related in scope to circumstances
Safford
Must balance the seriousness of the search against the scope of the search
Not included in 4th amendment protection
Children and parents
Prisoners and guards
Exclusionary Rule (Weeks to Mapp)
Weeks
Exclusionary rule – evidence that is seized in violation of the constitution is excluded
Only applied to federal government
Silverthorne Lumber
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine – illegally obtained evidence may not be used
Independent Source Doctrine – evidence illegally obtained that is also obtained illegally, completed divorced from the taint, may be used
Best evidence rule
Wolfe
Refused to extend exclusionary rule to states under 4th amendments (via the 14th amendment)
Rochin
If state police action shocks the conscience of the court, then exclusionary rule should apply, even to state conduct
4th amendment not yet extended to the states, instead through the 14th amendment
Cahan
CA’s adoption of the exclusionary rule
Jones
Need standing to contest a search
Automatic standing when charged
Mapp
Exclusionary rule incorporated against the states
Overruled Wolfe
Applies the 4th amendment through the 14th amendment
Silver Platter Doctrine – allows federal judicial use of evidence seized in violation of the constitution by state agents
Retroactivity – Mapp does not apply retroactively
Plymouth Sedan
Exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture proceedings
Bivens
Persons can sue for damages for violation of 4th amendment rights
Only applies to federal actions
Three theories of exclusionary rule
Deterrence
Personal right – restores victim
Judicial integrity – court doesn’t condone violations
Immunity
Absolute
Qualified – as long as acted in good faith
Protected Places and Interests
Oglialoro
Need an expectation of privacy and need the expectation to be one that society thinks is reasonable
Reilly
A person who knowingly exposes himself to public cannot claim a 4th amendment violation
Plain view doctrine – something in plain view, no privacy expectation (Coolidge)
Hicks Case – limits, can’t move things around
Greenwood
Open Fields Doctrine – even if an officer trespasses onto
sence of coercive police procedures
Extent and level of defendant’s cooperation
Defendant’s awareness of right to refuse consent
Defendant’s education and intelligence
Defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found
Rodriguez
Police are entitled to search a home if there is a reasonable belief that the person consenting to the search has the ability to consent
Consent Issues
Consent
Mutual consent – if two people have control over property, one can give consent
Vicarious consent – if property is left at someone else’s house, they can consent to a police search of the property
Waiver of a constitutional protection needs actual consent, not merely apparent consent
Minors
Parent can consent to search of minor’s room
Minors cannot consent to search of parent’s domicile
Scope of consent
Objective reasonableness – if consent to search a car, can open bags and containers in car
Hotel Rooms
Clerks does not have actual or apparent authority to consent to search of a guests room
Exceptions
Emergency
After guest leaves
False Claim of Warrant
Unacceptable
Deception
Posing as drug dealer is ok to gain consensual entry to premises
