Diehm
Criminal Procedure
Spring2011
I. Overview of the 4th Amendment
a. NJ v. TLO
i. Reasonableness standard
1. Search must be justified at its inception and must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
ii. 4th amendment does not apply to private action
iii. If no warrant is required, what is the test?
1. Probable cause
2. Individualized suspicion
3. Reasonable under all of the circumstances
b. Safford
i. Need a reasonable suspicion that relates to the search
II. Development of the Exclusionary Rule from Weeks to Mapp
a. Weeks
i. Exclusionary Rule – evidence that is seized in violation of the Constitution is excluded
1. Application is determined at a suppression hearing
a. If the evidence is suppressed the person cannot be prosecuted
ii. Only the federal government must abide by the ER
b. Silverthorn Lumber
i. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine – Illegally obtained evidence may not be used, not may any evidence that is fruit from the poisonous tree
1. Other evidence not from the “poisonous tree” may be used
a. Independent source doctrine
ii. Best evidence rule – if one cannot get originals, then copies are considered the best evidence
c. Wolf
i. Refused to extend the ER to the states through the 4th and 5th amendments (via the 14th amendment)
d. Rochin
i. If state police action shocks the conscience of the court, then due process has been violated and the ER should apply, even to state conduct
1. If states do something outrageous, courts will suppress evidence based on the 14th amendment due process clause, not the 4th amendment
ii. Wolf is still good law at this point, but begins to chip away at Wolf
1. This case doesn’t extend the 4th amendment to the states, instead it says the 14th Due Process clause does
e. Cahan
i. State of California made its own ER
1. Start of ER being applied to the states under state constitutions
ii. Arguments against ER:
1. Evidence illegally obtained is just as good as legally obtained evidence
2. Guilty person goes free and we shouldn’t have people getting away if they are guilty
3. Doesn’t punish the officer’s bad conduct
iii. Arguments for ER:
1. Law enforcement officers have incentive to do the right thing by example
2. If we want people to obey the law, then officers and the government must obey the law too
iv. Prior to the imposition of the ER by the states, there were no repercussions
1. Public policy concerns led to establishment of ER in the states
f. Jones
i. Need standing to contest a search
1. Cannot charge someone for possession then contest the standing issue
a. (this later changes in Rakas)
ii. Automatic standing – by the virtue of being charged
g. Mapp
i. ER is now applied to the states, and the states must now apply the US Constitution in state courts
1. Evolving standard
a. 4th amendment concept within the 14th amendment Due Process clause, so the 4th amendment can now be extended to the states
2. Purpose is to deter and compel respect for the Constitutional guaranty
3. Rid of the Silver Platter Doctrine
ii. Silver Platter Doctrine – allows federal judicial use of evidence seized in violation of the Constitution by state agents
1. Used state agents to illegally obtain evidence
2. Joint situations with federal agents and state police since the state police could illegally search and seize evidence but the feds couldn’t
a. If prosecuted in state court prior to Mapp, then the fed were off the hook
iii. Issue with applying ER to the states was that many people were convicted on illegally seized evidence and sentenced to lengthy prison sentences
1. 22/54 – prisoners claimed state conviction was illegally obtained so they tried to go to the government, have the evidence suppressed, and get out of jail
2. RETROACTIVITY
a. Linkletter w. Walker (pg. 50)
i. ER was not applied to overturn convictions that became final on appeal BEFORE Mapp was decided
ii. Fairness of trial was not under attack. The Petitioner in Linkletter claimed evidence was inadmissible, not reliable, and irrelevant, but that was not questioned in the case
iii. Decided the law is NOT retroactive
1. Mapp ONLY applied ER to FUTURE cases
a. put an arbitrary time on cases and people did not get out of jail if their conviction was finalized before the Mapp decision
h. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan
i. 4th amendment applies, even in forfeiture actions
1. Extension of the 4th amendment
i. Expanded drug testing to “any” extracurricular activities
1. Vernonia – athletic activities only require drug testing
ii. Probably wouldn’t be upheld if the school system tried to test every student
iii. Look to:
1. Nature of privacy interest compromised
2. Character of intrusion by the policy
3. Nature/immediacy of government concerns and ethicacy
d. Ferguson
i. It is ok to do drug testing in some cases because if there is no government action, people could be forced to take involuntary drug tests
1. Hospital was subject to the 4th amendment because it was government action
2. Urine screens were deemed as searches and were unreasonable
ii. Tried to use law enforcement in this case to force women into therapy (but this argument failed)
1. The evidence generated was to be used in court as a sanction
iii. Drug tests are sometimes a protected interest
1. Drug tests are ok as long as they don’t go to law enforcement
e. Cohen
i. criminal contraband is a protected interest
1. need a warrant to search
ii. Hudson – prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy
f. Place
i. Dog sniffs do not constitute a search
g. Bond
i. Travelers personal luggage is protected by the 4th amendment
1. Reasonable expectation of privacy that society views as reasonable that your luggage will not be tactically manipulated
2. Fruit of the poisonous tree
ii. Even though Bond consented, there was a tactile touch which led to fruit of the poisonous tree
iii. Society recognizes that a persons personal luggage is expected to be private
iv. Katz test
1. Subjective expectation of privacy?
a. If yes
2. Is it one that society views as reasonable?
a. Most decisions go off of this
