Crim. Pro
Essay
– Explain everything step by step (as if talking to a 12 yr old)
– Compare All similarities of the Case facts w/ Every detail / “Quote” of exam facts
– Contrast the Ct.s main Issue/Rationale against the exam scenario case
· (mention all subtle differences btwn both cases)
§ Tainted Evidence: evidence obtained in violation of a constitutional provision. it also Excludes:
i. Fruit of a Poisonous Tree: anything derived from the tainted evidence)
4TH AMENDMENT
i. “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches & seizures, shall not be violated, & no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, & particularly describing the (place to be searched), & the (persons or things to be seized)”.
Applies to Gov actors (crim. law), not private citizens (civil law)
Probable Cause + Warrant/Exception + Reasonable Search (EoP)/Seizure = OK
REASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE
a) Reasonable:
1. Requires P.C + Warrant or Exception, otherwise presumed unreasonable
2. Limited scope, depending on the context, otherwise unreasonable
3. Must Balance Privacy & Law enforcement concerns
a) Cops made Reas. Efforts to balance Restraining husband 2 hrs from trailer (limited time) v. belief he would destroy the pot. (McArthur)
4. 4th protects People not Places, But location factors into reasonableness.
b) SEARCH: Impeding on a person’s reas. expectation of privacy(2 prong Test)
1.(must be limited in time, to a certain area)
è The Threshold Q: is it a search?
1. Consequence:
i. If its not a Searchà 4th doesn’t applyà no need for a warrant or exception & do not get to the question of reasonableness.
ii. If it is a search à 4th applies & protects ppl from unreasonable Searches, which is A search w/o warrant or applicable exception.
2. Rule: (Justice Harlan’s -2 prong test)
i. Person has Actual Expectation of Privacy (Subjective)
1. (Cant knowingly expose to the public)
ii. Society is prepared to recognize privacy as Reasonable (Objective)
a. Ex: Reasonable EOP à Private à 4th applies:
i. Phone Booth: Shuts door behind him & pays fee 4 use of phone
ii. Thermal Imager: Tech. not in gen. pub. use & shows details of home (where there’s reas. EoP) otherwise, unseen w/o phys. Intrusion
iii. Hidden Bug: no knowledge/consent from either law abiding party
iv. Feeling Luggage: Reas. Expected 2 b moved & handled by passengers, but Not 2 be Felt in Exploratory Manner. (Same 4 Plane, Train, Cab etc..)Bond
v. Suspicious smelling Mail/pkg: Domestic mail
vi. Loose Drug Dog in home: typically no but depends whether door open etc
vii. WireTap on a home: Search – b/c u have a reas. EoP in a home
Kats (Phone Booth)
i. Facts: Katz sent gambling info to another state via public phone booth Cops placedListening device on top of Public phone booth, Booth closed on all sides, with door shut, No search Warrant
ii. Issue:is placing a listening device on outside of a public phone booth = a search?
1. 4th protects ppl from unreasonable searches: unreasonable is search w/o valid warrant or warrant exception.B/c cops lacked a warrant & P.C, evidence is inadmissible if placement of device is deemed a search.
iii. Rule: Ct. says -4th protects people not places, (but place is important factor if evidence is collected where:
1. Person has Actual Expectation of Privacy (Subjective)
a. (Cant knowingly expose to the public)
2. Society is prepared to recognize privacy as Reasonable (Objective)
iv. Analysis: subjective: Yes likely b/c ofillegal activity & Door was closed behind him à He expects his conversations to be private.
1. Reasonable (Objective) expectation: Supreme ct already addressed…
a. Similarities: Listening Devices & Telephones
b. Distinguish:
1. PUBLIC PHONE V. PRIVATE PHONE: Cell: person has more reas. Expectation of priv. On the other hand: fact can be interpreted in opp. Way b/c Widely understood that cells are easier intercepted than land line.
2. CLOSED PHONE BOOTH (though you can see) V. OUTDOOR PLACE/CAFÉ: ct reasoning: when Katz entered &Door shuts behind him & pays fee for use of the Pub. Phone à he too reasonable steps 2 make sure conversation was private àthere’s a reasonable expectation of privacy.
v. Conc: B/c expectation was reasonable à search à 4th applies…
Kyllo v. U.S (thermal imaging device to see inside house)
i. Facts: Feds used a thermal imager to monitor inside of house to see if D was growing weed indors. They saw unusual amounts of heat coming from garage Cops used detector + informants + heating bill to get a warrant. Cops Found Weed & arrested D.
ii. Issue: whether use of thermal imaging devices to detect the heat emanating from the dwelling constitutes a search?
a) 4th protects against unreasonable Search. Unreasonable is a search w/o warrant or exception. B/c there was no warrant; evidence would be inadmissible if deemed a search.
iii. Rule: Use of Technology, that’s not in Gen Pub. Use, by Gov. to explore details of home that’s otherwise unknowable w/o physical intrusion is a search & presumed Unreasonable w/o warrant. Harlan reasonableness test
iv. Analysis: Subjective: Yes Likely b/c this occurred in his home while growing MJ.
a) Objective:
1. Similar: Technology
2. Distinguishable: Future technology if generally accessible may be allowed 2 invade 1’s EoP.
a) My reasoning: [On 1 hand P can argue/On the other hand D can argue:
b) Ct’s Reasoning: state argued that like the dog sniff case ,the heat it was emanating outside the house. However, this device reveals intimate details of the house (such as at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna
simple no trespass sign. Erecting those fences you are trying hard to keep the area private.
§ Beery: The several barb wire fences surrounding the house are used as factors but the only real fence used in the courts. Determination – is the last fence surrounding only the house, w/the barn outside of it by ½ football field.
a. JUST STAY AWAY FROM HOUSE CURLIGE & ITS OK TO SNOOPà not a search! Also OK to FLY over curtilage IF ur w/in proper altitude
Ø Conc: Ct. found no reasonable EoP. [evidence collected in plain view is not a search & -à admissible]
Cali v. Ciraolo(fixed wing aircraft) – aerial observation
i. Facts: Cops got anonymous tip thatD had marijuana plants in his backyard (curtilage). Cops couldn’t go in b/c its in the curtilage. (& b/c it was protected by 2 fences, 6ft inner & 10 ft outer) à they used a fixed wing aircraft to fly PAST the prop at a legal altitude of 1000 ft (& snapped pict., but obtained warrant based on the naked eye observation, b/c the photo didn’t give a “true representation” of the color of the pot)
ii. Issue: Is flying over a person’s prop. & looking at it a search? (Main issue objective)
a) 4th protects against unreasonable Search. Unreasonable search is 1 w/o warrant or exception. B/c cops didn’t have warrant, evid. is Inadmissible if deemed a search
iii. Rule: Harlan test.
iv. Analysis: Subjective: Yes Likely b/c growing drugs à Reasonable EoP
1. Objective:
1. Similarities: Flying, Pot, Curtilage (à Reas EoP)
2. Distinguish: Flying @ illegal altitude. (maybe toy plane w/ camera à no FAA regulation issues)using visual aids/binoculars instead of naked eye. (But prof. says not necessarily)
a. My reasoning: [On 1 hand P can argue/On the other hand D can argue
b. Ct’s Reasoning: ppl expect aircrafts to fly above prop at legal altitude (w/in FAA regulations) in the public airways. & observe what’s visible to the naked eye à Not reasonable EoP
v. Conc: not a search à 4th doesn’t apply.
Florida v. Riley (helicopter) – Aerial Observation
1. Facts: sheriff got anonymous tip & circled greenhouse (1/2 exposed), w/pot plants in it, using a helicopter hovering 400 ft over backyard à w/in curtilage (à no open fields doctrine) warrant obtained based on visual observation. (same rule applies)
2. Issue:
