Rt 2 B Let Alone: 4th Amend.

4th Intro

  1. 4th Amend.
    1. Rt of the people 2 B secure in their persons, houses, papers, & effects against unrsbl S & S (srch & seizure), shall not B viol'ed & no warr's shall issue, but upon p/c supported
  2. Boyd v. US
    1. Holding Dead But Referred
      1. Can't compel person 2 prod. evid. against self which person made / had pers'al attachment
    2. Basic Notions of 4th & 5th
  3. Warden v. Hayden
    1. Only Unrsl S & S & No Distinction of Mere Evid. v. Fruit of Stolen Good

4th Amend.

  1. Analysis of 4th Amend. Quest's
    1. Is S & S Rsbl?
      1. D's legit. expectation of pvcy / 1 soc. will protect in place / item (Standing, Rakas & Rawlings)
        1. Soc. value pvcy in place
        2. D's efforts 2 maintain pvcy
        3. D's subj. expectation
        4. D's prop. / poss'ry int.
          1. Sought / got access
          2. Rt 2 excl
    2. IF YES
    3. Balance Nat. & Qual. of Intrusion v. Imp. of Govt'al Int. 2 Intrude
      1. Factors 4 Nat. of Intrusion
        1. Extent & where
        2. How carried out 2 see if rsbl
        3. Ultimate guilt / innocence in ct.
      2. Factors 4 Imp. of Govt'al Int.
        1. Safety of officer key
        2. Exigencies
    4. After Det. Intrusion, Consid. How 2 Deviate: P/C + Warr.
      1. Deviate in P/C downward
        1. Articulable rsbl suspicion
        2. Drug / school srch where no suspicion if reg'ed / lots of suspicion
      2. Deviate in P/C Upward
        1. Garner where p/c + articulable imm. threat of safety
        2. Rochin where p/c + lead 2 evid. + compelling state needs 4 evid.
      3. Deviate Warr.
        1. Exigency
        2. Consent
  2. Unrsbl Srch & Seizure
    1. Const'al Protected Place
      1. Like house where space that D inhabit deserves Const. protection
    2. Expectation of Pvcy 4 Conversations (Katz v. US)
      1. Subj. / actual expectation of pvcy by what targeted person did subj'ly
      2. Rsbl / justifiable expectation which is assessed by soc's expectation
    3. Conversation
      1. In phone booth protected (Katz)
      2. With informant in electronic surveillance unprotected (US v. White)
    4. Open Fields
      1. Not protected by text (Hester, Oliver Cases)
      2. Factors 2 det. if police pract. invade "rsbl" expectation of pvcy (Oliver)
        1. Framer's intent
        2. Uses of location
          1. Typical
          2. Actual
        3. Soc's value in protection from govt invasion
          1. Positive law
          2. Common Law doc. understanding of pvcy in type of area
        4. D's manifestation of pvcy int. / subj. pvcy expectation
    5. Curtilage
      1. Space btwn house & open field
      2. If becomes part of house, can't srch curtilage w/o satisfying 4th (Dunn)
        1. Close proximity 2 house
        2. Enclosed
        3. Used 4 domestic purposes
      3. 4th Not Shield Visual Inspection
    6. Aerial Surveillance
      1. Expectation of pvcy (FL v. Riley)
        1. Suff'ly common 4 pub. 2 travel @ cert. altitude so that unrsbl 2 not expect would fly so low
        2. FAA reg. not matter (dissent + concur)
    7. Seizure of Person
      1. Two Part Test (CA v. Hodari D)
        1. Est. that rsbl person believe unfree 2 leave (Mendhall test)
        2. C /L rule that there was actual touching by cop / submission by D
      2. Chase alone not seizure (Mich. v. Chesternut)
  3. Warr. Process + P/C
    1. Def of P/C
      1. Outlaw mere hunches, suspicion, intuition, / compl'ly anonymous tip
      2. Fluid concept of lwr than prima facie but higher than hunch b/c rsbl belief
      3. Articulation of facts, trsutworthiness, & rsbl belief on cop's part
    2. Factors 4 Totality of Circ. 4 P/C From Tip: Gates Case (Incl's Spinelli Test)
      1. Track record / veracity
      2. Basis of knowledge
      3. Other factors of circ.
    3. Reqt's 4 Warr. & P/C
      1. Particularity reqt
        1. Person
        2. Item but plain view exception if were w/in scope
        3. Place 2 B srched
        4. Strict rule that need 2 B specif. & srch only w/in scope
      2. X'ing reqt
        1. Per. of X
        2. X of day but exception if believe suspect dang.
      3. Knock & announce reqt but exception if
        1. Fear of escape
        2. Evid. might get destroyed
        3. Hot pursuit
      4. Oath reqt of affiant officer
      5. Mag. reqt
        1. Neutral & detached so det's p/c & warr.
        2. Return / inventory req'ed after compl. srch
      6. P /C
        1. Informants' tips w/totality of circ. test
        2. Encourage indep. investig.
    4. Frank's Rule on Hrg 4 Void Warr. & Excl. Evid.
      1. If D makes subst'l showing that false stmt
        1. Knowingly & intelligently OR
        2. With reckless disregard was incl'ed by affiant in affidavit AND
      2. False stmt nec. 2 p/c then go 2 evid. hrg & if
        1. D est's falsity of stmt by preponderance AND
        2. If w/o false stmt, no p/c
    5. Exigency Sit's Instead of Srch Warr. (Exigency + P/C instead of Warr. + P/C)
      1. Exigency as Justif. 2 Deviate from Warr.
        1. X of essence / emergency circ. creates exigency
        2. If no exigency, then pvcy expectation so can't srch only w/p/c
      2. Homes
        1. Sacred so need warr. unless real exigency
        2. Emergency Circ's (Warden v. Hayden) (refer 2 exigency below)
        3. S & S Limited 2 Exigency (Mincey v. AZ)
          1. Need warr. after get suspect b/c exigencies gone
          2. Dang. of evid. destruction must B in process of being destroyed / likelihood of destruction (Vale v. LA)
      3. Auto Exceptions
        1. Mobility of car creates exigency (Chambers v. Maroney)
          1. As long as p/c can srch on spot / @ station
          2. Dif. from home b/c pvcy expectation lwr
        2. Motor home
          1. Car b/c mobile unless staionery
        3. Containers in Car
          1. Only need p/c 2 srch car (CA v. Acevedo) if srch containers in car
          2. Min. pvcy expectation & eff. policing more imp. than warr.
    6. Arrest Warr. + P/C
      1. Arrest Def
        1. Laid hands on indiv.
        2. Actual custody of indiv.
        3. Control over indiv.
      2. Msdr Rule: Arrest Warr. + P/C But
        1. No warr. if see msdr occurring / in prog. but can't arrest after
        2. If exigent circ's
      3. Felony: Arrest Warr. Reqt Based On Wherever Felon Found
        1. Felony Rule (Watson) where arrest suspected felon w/ p/c but w/o warr. so long as arrest in pub. place
        2. House arrest warr. req's p/c of D committed felony + p/c of D's @ home
        3. 3rd party's house req's 2nd warr., srch warr., b/c double intrusion into pvcy
    7. Plain View Doc: Can Seize Items in Plain View If
      1. Seizable nat. of item is imm'ly apparent +
      2. Cops have legal rt 2 B where they R
  4. S & S Cl. & Warr.+ P/C Cl.: Rsblness & P/C
    1. Totality of Circ. If Cop's Axn Rsbl
      1. Can stop & pat down if articulate specif. rsbl suspicion
      2. If leads 2 p/c, then arrest
    2. Stop & Frisk
      1. Articulable Rsbl Suspicion Stand. (Terry v. OH) Instead of P/C
        1. Specif. 2 facts of case
        2. Articulable 2 say obj'ly what fact was
        3. Rsbl inference 2 base suspicion that's rsbl
        4. Leading 2 concl. crime afoot
      2. Limited Srch 2 Partic. Exigency
        1. Only outer pat down (Terry v. OH) 4 imm'ly usable weapons
      3. Plain Feel Doc.
        1. Can seize contraband by feel as evid. instead of weapon
        2. But must B in course of legit. weapon srch & known just by feel
    3. Srch Incident 2 Lawful Custodial Arrest (SILCA)
      1. Rule: Only Need Lawful Custodial Arrest, No Articulable Suspicion
      2. Srch of Person
        1. Full srch incl'ing containers in poss'n (Robinson)
      3. Srch Arrestee's Area
        1. Only w/in D's imm. control if in house w/o srch warr. (Chimel v. CA) 4 weapon & destructible evid.
        2. But if hot pursuit exigency, then srch entire house 4 weapon & actual person
        3. If arrested outside of car, then can srch entire car incl'ing closed stuff
      4. Auto Exception v. SILCA w/Car
        1. If SILCA, p/c 2 arrest driver so limit srch 2 car's interior + @ X of arrest
        2. If auto exception, p/c 2 srch car so can srch whole car hence broader
    4. Checkpt's
      1. Gen. Concern of Discretion & Subj.
      2. Fixed Checkpt's OK @ Border (Ortiz Case)
        1. No fear / surprise
        2. Min. intrusion
        3. All share burden ='ly b/c all screened
        4. It's @ border so nat'l govt has strong. int. 2 protect
      3. No Random Suspicionless Stop (Brignoni-Ponce)
        1. Huge intrusion
        2. No pub. int. served
      4. Sobriety Checkpt OK (Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz)
        1. State int. high b/c prevent death on road by DUI
        2. Pvcy int. low b/c notice & short duration
        3. Effectiveness of catching DUI
    5. School Testing (TLO)
      1. Axn Justified @ Conception & Rsbly Rel'ed 2 Srch
        1. Level of suspicion of quantum of indiv'ed suspicion
        2. Rel'ed 2 scope of srch
      2. Exception
        1. No suspicion ok when not unrsbl b/c no discretion
        2. Min. intrusion
    6. Drug Testing (Skinner)
      1. No suspicion if actual use btwn drug & safety shown b/c of pub. int.
    7. Higher P/C
      1. Stopping Fleeing Felon (Tenn. v. Garner)
        1. Nonviol. Circ., No Use of Viol. Foce Except
          1. Armed so dang. 2 officer / others
          2. Committed crime which creates threat of dang.
          3. Brandished weapon 2 officer AND
        2. Must Warn Before Using Deadly Force
      2. Bullet Abstraction (Rochin v. CA)
        1. Intrusion on person shocks conscience & viol's D/P
  5. Exception 2 All So No Warr. Req'ed
    1. Exigency
      1. Hot pursuit
        1. Must B cont. +
        2. In pursuit of fleeing felon
      2. Imm. destruction of evid.
        1. Real dang. about 2 B destroyed
        2. Evid. we care about
      3. Need 2 prevent D from escaping
      4. Risk of dang.
        1. Gravity of crime
        2. If D armed
    2. Consent
      1. Giving Permission / Giving Up Something If There's Realistic Alt. Choice
      2. Const'al S & S if
        1. Consent given by
          1. Affected person /
          2. Person rsbly believed 2 have common auth. over place
        2. Consent is freely / vol'ly given looking @ totality of circ's
          1. Police conduct
            1. Present / absent of express / implied coercion
            2. Warning on rt 2 refuse (not req'ed)
          2. D / Consentor
            1. Subj. S/M
            2. Obj. behav.
            3. IQ, schooling, & lang. ability
          3. Env. @ X of encounter
            1. Congenial
            2. D's / Consentor's turf

This material is copyrighted by the author. Use of this material for profit is strictly prohibited without written consent from author.

12/5/1996

Ms. Haeji Hong

Go Back to Law School Notes

Go Back to Crim Pro Outlines 1