CRIMINALINVESTIGATIONSAND 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:2.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 factorsFederal & 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
SEARCHESWarrants (cont)-executed promptlyWilson v. Arkansas-constitutional mandate-knock and announceNo knock warrant-evidence destroyed/suspects armed-protect police/evidence
SEARCHES2. 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SEARCHES• Consent (Cont):-document-consent can be withdrawn at any timeDenial by on resident: GA v. Randolph (2006)-one party with authority denies search-no search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
SEARCHES3. Pat down/frisk:b.Investigate suspicious circumstancesc.Identify person matching suspect descriptionTerry 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-warrantGant v. AZ (2009):-suspect access vehicle at time-vehicle contains evidence of crime
SEARCHES4. 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”
SEARCHESVehicles w/o warrants: Carroll v. US (1925):-stop is a seizure/PC of wrongdoing-lesser expectation of privacy in vehicleKnowles 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 arrestWyoming 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 owners property-Protect police from disputes-Protect police /public from danger-Determine owner’s identity
SEARCHES• Plain view evidence:-right to be, right to seeKatz 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 warrantKyllo v. US (2001):-thermal scanning outside private home-search needs warrant
SEARCHES• Trash/Garbage:CA v. Greenwood (1988):-containers-public property-no warrantCurtilage: extension of home-part of property not open to public-owner/family use-expectation of privacy
SEARCHES• Dogs:IllIllinois v. Caballes (2005):-dog sniff not a searchUS v. Place (1983):-dog sniffing luggage not a search
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.