chapter 4

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE LAW

Chapter 4

Searches

SEARCHES• US v. Jacobsen (1984):

-search

-governmental infringement

-legitimate expectation of privacy

-unreasonable to expect privacy

-no warrant needed

-EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY!!

SEARCHES• 4th Amendment:

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 no Warrants 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.

SEARCHES• 4th Amendment:

-individual liberties v. rights of society

-specific place/person to be searched

-specific items to be seized

-vague search warrants unconstitutional

SEARCHES• Exclusionary Rule:

-courts cannot accept evidence

-obtained by unreasonable search/seizure

-regardless of relevance

-Fruit of poisonous tree doctrine:

-evidence from earlier illegal search not admissible

SEARCHES• Inevitable Discovery Exception: Nix v. Williams (1984):

-illegally obtained evidence

-likely been discovered legally

-admissible

SEARCHES• Good Faith Exception: US v. Leon (1984)

-illegally obtained evidence

-may be used

-police not aware violating 4th amendment rights

SEARCHES• Justification for Reasonable Searches:

1.Warrants:

-before a judge

-under oath/affirmation

-PC location contains evidence

-specifically describe evidence

-Probable cause-set of facts/circumstances leading a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed the crime.

-reasonable person v. legal experts

-less than proof

-more than suspicion

-citizens-informants or civic duty

SEARCHES• Informants: Aguilar v. Texas (1964)

-2 pronged test: reliable/believable?

Illinois v. Gates (1983):

-totality of the circumstances test

-sum total of factors

Federal & some states still use Aguilar 2 pronged test

SEARCHES• Warrants: Beyond PC

-reasons for search

-who is presenting affidavit/sworn

-specific items

-specific location

-signature of judge

SEARCHES

Warrants (cont)

-executed promptly

Wilson v. Arkansas-constitutional mandate

-knock and announce

No knock warrant-evidence destroyed/suspects armed

-protect police/evidence

SEARCHES

2. Consent:-voluntary consent

-3rd party

-having authority

-limited to area consented

-no demand

-best written

SEARCHES• Consent (Cont):

-document

-consent can be withdrawn at any time

Denial by on resident: GA v. Randolph (2006)

-one party with authority denies search

-no search

SEARCHES• Consent (Cont):

-1. property owners cannot give consent on tenants/guest

-no suspect present/makes no objection co-occupant can consent

-co-occupants present and one objects-no overrule

SEARCHES

3. Pat down/frisk:a.Investigate suspicious circumstances

b.Identify person matching suspect description

Terry v. Ohio (1968):

-reasonable suspicion

-stop

-frisk-through the clothes

-each action justified/articulated

SEARCHES• Search incident to arrest: Chimel v. CA (1969)

-simultaneously with arrest

-area of immediate control

-luggage, bags, etc out of suspects control-warrant

Gant v. AZ (2009):

-suspect access vehicle at time

-vehicle contains evidence of crime

SEARCHES

4. Exigent circumstances:-PC exists but no time for warrant

-real emergency-immediate action

-evidence not motivation

-emergency/area searched must have connection

-Mincey v. AZ (1978): no delay search if lives in danger

-”reasonableness”

SEARCHES

Vehicles w/o warrants: Carroll v. US (1925):-stop is a seizure/PC of wrongdoing

-lesser expectation of privacy in vehicle

Knowles v. Iowa (1998):

-citation issued instead of arrest

-full search violates 4th

SEARCHES• Passengers of stooped vehicles:-different rights from drivers

-out of car

-arrested joint possession

-incident to passengers arrest

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999): “passenger property exception”

-search passenger’s belongings –driver done wrong

-driver no claim belong passenger

SEARCHES• Roadblocks:Brown v. Texas (1979):

-balancing test

-gravity of public concerns

-degree to which succeed

-severity with which interferes with liberties

SEARCHES• Inventory searches: Police take possession of vehicle

-Protect owner's property

-Protect police from disputes

-Protect police /public from danger

-Determine owner’s identity

SEARCHES• Plain view evidence:

-right to be, right to see

Katz v. US (1967):

-protect people not places

-exposes to public not protected

-seeks to keep private-protected

• Plain Feel/Touch:-patdown

SEARCHES• Plain Smell:US v. Lueck (1982):

-gasoline/marijuana

• Plain hearing:

-overheard w/o enhancing devices

• Building searches:Illinois v. McArthur (2001):

-occupants held outside until warrant

Kyllo v. US (2001):

-thermal scanning outside private home-search needs warrant

SEARCHES• Trash/Garbage:CA v. Greenwood (1988):

-containers

-public property

-no warrant

Curtilage: extension of home

-part of property not open to public

-owner/family use

-expectation of privacy

SEARCHES• Dogs:Ill

Illinois v. Caballes (2005):

-dog sniff not a search

US v. Place (1983):

-dog sniffing luggage not a search