Governed by: The Fourth Amendment
Amendment IV: 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.

4th Amendment and the Exculsionary Rule (see end of this page for more explanation)
Exclusionary Rule not in the 4th Amendment but sup ct said evid must be excluded from a criminal proceeding if it was obtained in viol of the 4th amendment

4th Amendment applies to seizures even if not made pursuant to a search
(4th Amendment crux - reasonableness)

probable cause
if search warrant, probable cause = substantial basis or fair probability that search will turn up evidence of crime
if no search warrant, then prob cause is judged at the moment of the arrest or search

Exception:
Objective Good Faith Exception to searches and seizures
In other words, the evidence will not be excluded from court if the police acted in good faith.

The police can't claim Good Faith Exception IF:

1) police dishnonest or reckless in preparing affidavit (then they cannot claim "good faith" exception to probably cause)

2) police could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause
                ex: if information "stale" (fed - 10 days or older is stale)

3) magistrate is NOT neutral/detached
                ex: moonlighting as a prosecutor; inv w/ law enforcement
                a magistrate that is involved with law enforcement is not neutral

The exclusionary rule was created to act as a deterrent for police, but if the police are acting in "good faith" than excluding the evidence provides no deterrent value.
ex of a good faith error: clerical error; also, exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation hearing; staleness may defeat good faith (staleness is when the information that the police use to apply for the search warrant is over 10 days old, usually)

Reasonable Expection of Privacy - subjective, but must be objectively reasonable; guy in phone booth -->  tapping excluded, no warrant - here there is a legitimate expectation of privacy in one's conversation in a phone booth (if the person closes the door)

Reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation but not in trash

2 interests protected by 4th Amendment
When talking about 4th look to see if
Searches - expectation of privacy infringed upon
Seizure - some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in property

Can a Search Warrant Issue to search the prop of an innocent 3rd party? Yes, must be probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found (crime that someone else committed).

4th Amendment warrant issued - to be valid need:

1) Neutral and Detached Magistrate

2) Particularity Requirment
    particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be searched for
    particular description of:
    a) places searched
    b) items to be seized

searches w/out a warrant
officers can effectuate an arrest (and do a search incident to arrest) without an arrest warrant in a public place if probable cause to believe that a felony has been commited

pretext stops are okay and subjective intent of police is irrelev if stop is reasonable (an example of a pretext stop is when a cop stops you for going 4 miles an hour over the speed limit when his true purpose is to ask if he can search your car).

If police have a valid search warrant, validly issued, and walk in house to find people not named in warrant, in order to search those people not in warrant, police need reasonable suspicion.
(Ybarra - bartender and tavern; Ybarra was a customer in the bar. Police had a warrant to search the bartender and decided to search Ybarra, too, even though Ybarra hadn't done anything to raise suspicion. Police found contraband on Ybarra and arrested him. The evidence was excluded because Ybarra was not named in the search warrant and he had not acted suspiciously, so there was no reasonable suspicion for the police to be able to search Ybarra.)

Reasonable suspicion - specific, articulable facts that lead the police officer in light of his experience to believe that person has weapons or contraband

Reasonable Suspicion considerably less than preponderance of evidence (lower standard than probable cause)

Plain View Doctrine (When Police are searching with a search warrant, but find things not named in the warrant)
Requirements needed for police to seize items not named in search warrant but found on premises:

1) Officers have to be lawfully on the premises
            (ex: valid search warrant w/ probable cause, properly executed)

2) Items in Plain View
            Where police officer would lawfully be allowed to search
            EX: drugs on table is plain view. If searching for guns, drugs hidden in a small jewelry box is not "plain view"

3) OK even if discovery is not accidental or inadvertent

When NO warrant, #3 is OUT and therefore must be inadvertent

(So, if there is a warrant, then the discovery of items in plain view does not have to be accidental. If police do not have a warrant, then the discovery of items has to be accidental).

Plain View Exception (Don't need Plain View/warrant if):
1) Hot pursuit
2) Exigent Circumstances (emergency situation)
3) Discovery Inadvertent

Search Warrant Analysis
1) Was there a search warrant?
2) If not, was there a valid exception to the search warrant
    where was stuff found?

if warrant, presume search lawful and Defendant has the burden in court to show not lawful
If no warrant, presume search unlawful and prosecution has the burden to show search falls under exception

Exigent Circumstances as an independent exception to search warrant requirment
arrest does not supply its own exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless search outside the immediate vicinity and, even so, search has to be contemporaneous with the arrest.

* A seizure reasonable at its inception may become unreasonable due to its duration
When there is no search warrant, a detention cannot last longer than necessary to verify or dispel officer's suspicions and must use least intrusive means

Checklist for Exigent Circumstances
* Degree of urgency
* Reasonable belief that contraband was about to be removed
* Did culprits know that police were on their tails?
* How easy it it to destroy this contraband and did officers know that the contraband was easily destroyed?

Dorman - Another list of exigent circumstances to support home search w/out a warrant
* Grave Offense
* Reas Belief that suspect is armed
* Reas Belief that susp commited the crime
* Strong reason to believe that suspect on premises
* Likelihood that suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended
* Circumstances that the entry, though not consented to, was made peaceably

More stringent guidelines for homes. Absent exigent circumstances, police cannot enter home to make an arrest w/out arrest warrant.

Automobile exception to warrant requirement - cars less protected than homes
1) car mobile, can be quickly moved
2) Reduced expect of privacy in car than home
3) pervasive regul of vehicles capable of traveling on public highways
mobile home as car when it is readily capable of being used on highway

Acevedo rule: police may search an automobile and the containers w/in it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.
Previously opened container once police open container, expect of privacy disappears unless there is a subst likelihood that the contents of the container have changed during the gap

Search incident to arrest and automobiles: Bright line rule -
as a contemporaneous search incident to arrest, police can search passenger compartment of car, including closed containers and glove compartment (but not trunk).
No Search incident to citation (Police cannot search person or his car when just issuing a traffic citation. Police can ask: "Can I search you car?" but the person can refuse)

Inventory exception to search requirment (ex: car left in police garage after person is arrested)
Police do not need a search warrant to search the car of a person who has been taken into custody when that car is left in the police garage. This is an "inventory" search of the car and, in order to be valid:
1) must be a dept procedure governing inventory searches otherwise police can't do it.
2) must be done in "good faith" and not solely for criminal investigation
            insure claims of loss, stolen, vandal prop
            protect police against claims or disputes about lost or stolen prop
            prot police from potential danger

Full-Body Search
It is reason to conduct a full-body search once lawful, custodial arrest has been made (no warrant needed for full-body search once lawful custodial arrest made) --> don't want contraband introd into the jail
So, once you have been arrested and taken into custody, the police can do a full-body search on you without a warrant.

Search incident to a lawful arrest: No Warrant needed
officer's can search area on arrestee's person and area within the immediate control of the arrestee from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destroy evidence (area within the immediate control of arrestee where the arrest takes place)
Exception: Protective sweep - police can look at other areas beyond "search incident to arrest"
Protective Sweep - look where a person may be hiding from which an attack may be launched. Must be immediately adjoining the place of arrest (no probable cause or reasonable suspicion needed)
If Def endant needs to get dressed, police can also search drawers, etc, where suspect will have access to look for weapons
rationale:
1) need to disarm suspect in order to take him into custody
2) need to preserve evidence for later use at trial

Plain "Smell" can give reason suspicion to look beyond those areas. (i.e, plain smell of smoke/marijuana)

Florida v Bostick - bus sweeps (police going onto loaded bus and asking to search the passengers)
Bus sweeps are not per se unconstitutional
No seizure happens IF a reasonable person would feel free to leave or free to decline officer's request or otherwise end the encounter (definition of seizure - when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or feel free to decline officer's request or otherwise end the encounter).
Consent valid only if: knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; but, it is not necessary to inform suspect that he has a right to refuse
reasonable person test presupposes an innocent person
No individual suspicion req'd - if person refuses consent, that does NOT provide reasonable suspicion

Hodari landmark supreme court case.  Hodari defines seizure as follows:
Seizure = show of authority, and
1) physical force
or
2) Def submits to authority

Officer stopped Hodari on a hunch, chased Hodari into an alley. Before officer caught Hodari, Hodari threw away a rock of cocaine. This was deemed to be an abandonment of the cocaine rather than a seizure because Hodari threw it away before the physical contact and Hodari never submitted to the officer's authority (running away means he didn't submit). If Hodari had thrown the rock away after the policman caught Hodari, that would have been a seizure because the police man made a "show of authority" by chasing Hodari and ordering him to stop and the police man used physical force to stop Hodari before the cocaine was thrown away. The throwing away of the cocaine was a direct result of the physical force.

Sacramento v Lewis cop stopped suspect by accidentally crashing into him. Ct said no seizure b/c a seizure must be a "government termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied." The crash wasn't intentional, so no seizure.

Plain Feel Doctrine
officer is lawfully frisking outer clothing (see stop and frisk) - feels something that he knows is not a weapon. He cannot squeeze, slide, or manipulate it to find out what it is... but if he feels something he KNOWS is illegal, he can seize it. This is loosely referred to as the plain "feel" doctrine. Identity as evidence has to be immediately apparent, assuming officer is lawfully on the premises of the person's outer clothing.

Michigan v Long (?) Permissible to search areas of a passenger compartment of a vehicle where weapons may be if reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that suspect is dangerous and may gain control of a weapon (?)

Davis and Dunaway - cops cannot take a person to station to interrogate or take fingerprints w/out probable cause (but the person can give his consent to go to the police station and give fingerprints or answer questions)

Public schools do not need a warrant to search students if:
1) assuming reasonable grounds that search will turn up evidence of a rul violation (inception)
and
2) scope is reasonably related to the object of the search and not too intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction (scope)

Consent searches - cop doesn't have to tell person he has right to refuse; person can also limit scope of his consent (in other words, if the cop asks to search your car during something like a routine traffic stop, you can say "Yes, but do not open that container in the backseat". Sounds a bit ridiculous, but that's the law. Since the cop cannot search the car without your consent on just a routine traffic citation, you don't have to give your consent, but, if you do, you have the right to limit that consent).

3rd Party consent - Police have to have reasonable belief that person had authority to consent.  (person does not have to have actual authority over the premises). This comes into play if someone like a housekeeper or ex-girlfriend gives police permission to search the house. If the person has no authority to consent, police have to have had a reasonable belief that the person DID have authority to consent.
            elements:
            * reasonable belief
            * apparent authority

Standing
who has the right to go into ct and ask for suppression of evidence based on 4th amendment?
no vicarious standing; can only ask to suppress on behalf of self - 4th Amendment rights are personal
Standing - only if Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in the area searched (LEPAS)
cars: generally, only owner or driver has LEPAS. Passenger may have LEPAS under a blanket on his lap or if he is sitting on something

~~~~~~~~~~
The Exclusionary Rule
Generally, evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment must be excluded as evidence at trial unless there is an exception.

Exclusionary Rule  - 3 levels of inquiry:
1) Standing/LEPAS?
2) 4th Amendment Violation?
3) Exclusionary Rule - Fruit of the Poisonous Tree = Wong Sun case, 3 exceptions

Wong Sun - Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (used for 4th, 5th, and 6th; not Miranda)
Evidence which is obtained by the exploitation of the primary illegality is suppressed
Causal Connection btwn the illegality and the obtaining of the evidence

The Wong Sun case led to the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine.  In the Wong Sun case, federal narcotics agents illegally broke into a man's laundry (Toy's laundry) and chased him into the living quarters at the back of his shop, where is wife and child were sleeping, and handcuffed him. Toy then told the agents that his acquaintance, Yee, had been selling narcotics. The agents then went to Yee, who surrendered heroin to them and implicated Toy and a third party, Wong Sun. Wong Sun was arrested and then released, but he returned several days later to make a confession. The court ruled that Toy's statements upon being handcuffed in his bedroom were not admissable, and the narcotics taken from Yee were not admissable under the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine.

However, Wong Sun's confession was admissable because Wong Sun had been released on his own recognizance and returned on his own several days later to make the confession. Hence, the connection between Wong Sun's arrest and his statement had "become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint." In other words, the "primary illegality" (the illegal arrest) did not have a sufficiently direct causal link to the confession because the "taint" of the "primary illegality" had been purged.

Exceptions to Fruit of Poisonous Tree

1) Purging of the Taint - means by which police obtained evidence sufficiently
distinguishable to purge (attenuate) the primary taint.  (i.e., separated from or destroy the causal connection)

2) Independent Source - whether the police actually acquired certain evidence by reliance on an untainted source (like probable cause)

3) Inevitable Discovery - Whether the evidence which in fact obtained illegally would have inevitably or eventually or probably have been discovered lawfully

Identity is not a suppressible object of 4th violation. So if illegally seized evidence leads to a witness who identifies the defendant, the witness' identification cannot be suppressed.

Back to Legal Clinic