Rights of the Accused:
4th Amendment
Rights of the Accused
• The Constitution protects the innocent and
the guilty.
• Error is inevitable:
•
- guilty escape punishment
•
- guilty are punished more severely than
•
they should be
•
- guilty are punished less severely than
•
they should be
•
- innocent are punished
Why are there errors?
1. Eyewitness error:
A. Reality distortions:
* See wrong - emotional loading; perceptual distortions
* Remember wrong – false memories; memory distortions
* Confabulation (particularly with young witnesses)
B. Lying – coached, testilying, pressure, protect themselves, protect
others, make themselves look good, attract attention, get back at an
enemy
C. Mistakes – simply human error, inadvertent misidentification
D. Courtroom presentation issues – not precise, not articulate, lack
creditability, nervous, emotional, intimidated on the witness stand and
retract statements/get rattled
2. Professional misconduct (police, prosecutor, judge):
A. Inadvertent (human error)
B. Intentional (fabricate, alter, suppress evidence)
3. Forensic science errors:
A. Inadvertent (human error - mistakes made in the lab tests)
B. Intentional (fabricate, alter, suppress evidence)
4. Racial and class bias
5. Use of jailhouse informants
6. False confessions - to protect others, pressure from others, obtain
notoriety, beaten by police, psycho and think they did do it
7. Ineffective assistance of counsel
4th Amendment
Unreasonable searches and seizures
Warrants
Probable case
Exclusionary Rule – evidence that is
unlawfully seized is inadmissible at trial.
Core 4th Amendment Cases
• Weeks v U.S. - evidence illegally seized by a
federal official cannot be used in federal court
• Elkins v U.S. - evidence that is unlawfully seized
by any official cannot be used in federal court;
the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal
courts
• Mapp v Ohio – Exclusionary Rule applied to the
states
4th Amendment Cases and Principles
• Mapp v. Ohio – Exclusionary Rule applied to the states
• Mapp exemptions:
 U.S. v Havens: illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who
takes the stand during a trial
 Nix v Williams: inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegally seized
may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been
discovered
 U.S. v Leon (good faith exemption): evidence seized by reasonably well-trained
officers acting in good faith, is admissible, even if the seizure technically violated
the law
 Massachusetts v Sheppard (good faith exemption): evidence seized by
reasonably well-trained officers acting in good faith, is admissible, even if the
seizure technically violated the law
Search Warrant
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Detailed, factual probable cause
Testified to by a creditable observer
Specify the address to be searched
Specify the evidence to be seized
Specify the date and time
Specify who will execute the warrant
Signed by a judicial officer
Wilson v Arkansas: even when armed with a warrant,
the police generally must "knock and announce"
before entering a home.
4th Amendment Cases and Principles
•
Search Incident to Arrest (Maryland v. Buie): officers may search the suspect and the adjoining space
region incident to a lawful arrest; ; if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is hidden
danger present, officers may conduct a protective sweep of the area, but it is only to be a cursory
search for people and may last no longer than it takes to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger
•
Plain View Doctrine (Harris v. U.S.): if the officer is legally present, the offending objects are in plain
view, and the incriminating nature is readily apparent, the items may be seized without a warrant
(plain view doctrine)
 Rochin v. California: a search cannot be exploratory, it cannot be unreasonable, and it cannot
shock the conscience
•
Consent Search: Lawful authority to search may be obtained without a warrant in a consent setting,
as long as the following provisions are in place at the probable cause level:
1. Voluntary
2. Knowingly
3. Authority (those who have equal rights of access and privacy; reasonable access, legal ownership;
mutual use, common access, common control)
 Illinois v Rodriguez (apparent authority doctrine): if consent to search is given by someone
who does not have the authority to do so, but the police reasonably believed they did, the
evidence is still admissible in court (crime control or due process?)
 Florida v Bostick: randomized consent searches of individuals who are on public transportation
is acceptable, even though such searches carry some degree of implied coercion and are not
truly voluntary; the governing test is whether a reasonable person feels free to decline an
officer's request to search
4th Amendment Cases and Principles:
No Warrant, Probable Cause
• Motor Vehicle Searches (Carroll v. U.S.) : police may stop and search a potentially
mobile motor vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that
the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law
• Illinois v Gates (totality of the circumstances test): taken piecemeal, the evidence
may not amount to probable cause, but if taken together as a whole the evidence
achieves that level, the legal standard of proof for the search has been met
• U.S. v Ross: if there is probable cause to believe that a potentially mobile motor
vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law, an officer may stop that
vehicle and search every occupant of the vehicle, every part of the vehicle, and all of
the contents found in the vehicle without a warrant, but, a ROSS-type search is
justified only if probable cause arises regarding a non-traffic offense violation
• Colorado v Bertine: a vehicle that has been impounded by police officials can be
searched in its entirety; all items found in the vehicle, include closed and locked
items, may also searched
• Delaware v Prouse: police may conduct brief, scientifically random/systemic,
suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints (exception to the
probable cause standard in this category)
RICO Cases
• U.S. v James Daniel Good: civil forfeitures under RICO are not
automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
• Reves v Ernst and Young: liability under RICO requires some
primary participation in the operation and management of the
criminal enterprise
• U.S. v 92 Buena Vista Avenue: assets forfeited under RICO are
limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the
criminal enterprise
4th Amendment Cases and Principles:
No Warrant, Reasonable Suspicion
• Stop and frisk searches (Terry v Ohio): a stop and frisk search may be conducted when there
is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal
behavior
• U.S. v Hensley: a stop and frisk search may be performed when there is reasonable
suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law, past tense
• U.S. v Sokolow: an investigatory search may be conducted if the totality of the circumstances
establishes reasonable suspicion to believe that a person matches the drug courier profile
• New Jersey v TLO: reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used by public school officials
to conduct searches on public school grounds of individuals who may be violating either the
law or school rules
• Florida v Royer: reasonable suspicion can be used as the basis for investigative searches and
seizures in situations involving pre-eminent public interests; specifically, reasonable suspicion
is the standard to be used to allow investigatory searches of individuals (passengers or nonpassengers) on airport grounds
4th Amendment Cases and Principles:
Four categories of searches
1. Searches with warrants
2. Searches without warrants, but with probable cause
a. Incident to arrest
b. Plain view
c. Consent
d. Mobile motor vehicle searches
3. Searches without warrants, but with reasonable suspicion (pre-eminent public interest situations)
a. Stop and frisk/investigatory search if suspicion of present and future tense crime
b. Stop and frisk/investigatory search if suspicion of past tense crime
c. Emergencies/Pressing Situations:
d. Stop and frisk/investigatory search:
1. if suspicion of being a drug courier
2. if suspicion is present and on public school grounds
3. if suspicion is present in an airport setting
4. if suspicion is present and the individual is on probation or parole
5. high crime areas (de facto vs de jure; organic nature of the law; soft chalk idea)
4. Searches without warrants, and no cause (arbitrary searches, pragmatic searches; outside the
bounds of what Founding Fathers could have imagined at the time)
4th Amendment Cases and Principles:
No Warrant, No Cause (arbitrary/pragmatic)
• U.S. v Dunn: no specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to
search either open fields or non- habitable buildings
• California v Greenwood: garbage containers outside of the curtilage of
the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a
warrant and without cause
• California v Hodari D: evidence discarded by an individual fleeing from
the police is admissible in court, even if the police had no advance
cause to focus attention upon the person who discarded the material
4th Amendment Cases and Principles
Again:
• Illinois v Gates (totality of the circumstances test): taken piecemeal, the
evidence may not amount to probable cause, but if taken together as a
whole the evidence achieves that level, the legal standard
of proof for the search has been met
• Rochin v California: a search cannot be exploratory, it cannot be
unreasonable, it cannot shock the conscience