Halushka
Crimpro
Fall 2011
General Information.
· Supervisory authority
o US Supreme Court (SC) has control over what federal courts can do because they have control over cases arising under federal law.
o The SC cannot tell state courts what to do unless there is a violation of the constitution.
§ Lower courts are not permitted to use non-constitutional supervisory law to upset the interest in previous constitutional decisions.
· Protections to Defendants
o State courts are free to grant defendant’s more protection than the federal constitution requires
§ Federal constitution provides the minimum level of protection that the states have to apply to protect a D
· The federal government sets the floor
· The state government sets the ceiling.
o Michigan v. Long:
§ Federal judicial review of state court decisions in invalid when the decision is based on “adequate and independent” state grounds for their decision.
· 4th Amendment
o 2 clauses: Reasonableness clause and warrant/probable cause clause
§ Reasonableness clause:
· The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
§ Warrant/Probable clause:
· No warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th Amendment Seizures:
· Focus on this question:
o What conduct by the police will constitute a seizure to trigger the restrictions by the 4th Amendment.
· There are four types of seizures:
o 1) Consensual
§ This has no 4th Amendment ramifications.
o 2) Minor league type of search and seizure
§ Terry v. Ohio
§ Must be reasonable (degree of individualized suspicion).
o 3) Full blown arrest
§ Which requires a finding of probable cause + warrant; or
§ Warrant exception
o 4) Administrative or special needs search
§ Only thing requires is that it be reasonable.
§ Inventory, drug testing, check lanes, etc…
· When is a person seized? This is the General Rule:
o A seizure requires either
§ Physical force or
§ Submission to the assertion of authority – Terry v. Ohio
· Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized that person.
· Physical force is not needed; show of authority is enough if it prevents the person from walking away
Minor League Seizures:
· Examples of Minor League Seizures:
o Seizure = whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away – then that person is considered seized and a 4th Amendment analysis is triggered.
§ Defined by Terry v. Ohio
o Stop and Frisk
§ Requires reasonable suspicion
o Enclosed space
§ Would a reasonable innocent person feel free to decline an officer’s request or otherwise terminate the encounter?
· Florida v. Bostice – no seizure
o D got on the bus, police asked to see his bag, they found drug, OK, look at TOC
§ Did the suspect voluntarily put him self in the enclosed person?
· Use the Reasonable innocent person standard.
o Fleeing suspect:
§ No seizure unless suspects submits to the assertion of authority.
· Example: shooting at D and missing is NOT a seizure if they keep running – they must submit to the assertion of authority!
§ Pursuit of a suspect
· Not a seizure if no physical force is used or no submission to the assertion of authority
o Might be a seizure if there is a lawful show of authority or submission to authority.
o California v. Hodari D
§ Suspect ran, tossed crack, no seizure because he didn’t submit to the show of authority – he was not seized.
· How do we figure out when one of the minor league seizures are reasonable under the 4th Amendment?
o 1). Balancing test: GI v. DI
§ Government Interest:
· Officer’s actions justified at inception?
o Government interest in crime prevention and officer safety.
§ Degree of Intrusion: into suspects privacy
· Reasonable related in scope?
o Must be limited to the scope of the original justification.
§ i.e.: in Terry limited to a pat down search for weapons. In terry the justification is that the officer thought that he was armed and dangerous and that criminal activity was afoot.
o 2) .The officer must point to specific and articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.
§ Objective standard
§ Remember, reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause.
o 3). The officer must have reasonable suspicion that:
§ Criminal activity was afoot
· Stop justified to investigate possibly criminal behavior even though no PC for arrest.
§ The suspect was armed and presently dangerous to officer and citizens?
easonable frisk, because the scope of a frisk under Terry must be limited to pat down of outer clothing in order to find weapons.
· Facts:
o The frisking officer felt a small lump in the suspect’s front pocket. The officer continues to manipulate it and finds out its crack.
· Plain touch/plain feel doctrine:
o If he has been a narcotics officer for 20 years and he immediately hears the crinkling of the cellophane paper and determines that crack cocaine is in the paper – now he has probable cause.
o Past Criminal Activity:
§ What is the test to apply to determine if a Terry stop is justified to investigate past criminal activity?
· US v. Hensley
o The Specific and articulable facts providing reasonable suspicion might be based upon past criminal behavior.
§ GI = in solving crime and catching bad guys.
o RS could be based on the fact based on past criminal activity as well.
o May a Terry type weapons frisk be extended to the passenger compartment of a lawfully stopped vehicle?
§ Michigan v. Long
· Search of passenger compartments where weapons may be hidden is permissible if the officer possesses reasonable belief on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences of the suspect and danger.
· Facts:
o Two deputies saw a car swerve into a ditch. The officers went over and in plain view they saw a large hunting knife. Long got out of the car and weed was discovered under an armrest.
· Limitation on scope of search
o They can search the passenger compartment of the vehicle for a weapon that may be hidden or where a D may gain access or control of it.
· What was the trigger?
o Reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.
· Example:
o What if Long was locked in the back of the police compartment, could the officer then come back and search the passenger compartment of the car for weapons?
§ No, because he no longer has immediate access to weapons in the car.
