I.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE
4 TH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A.
CASES
1.
Draper v U.S. Def. was arrested on an informant’s tip. Ct held a search and seizure is reasonable under the 4 th Amendment if there probable cause exists.
Related facts and circumstances can be used to develop probable cause.
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable causation in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.
2.
U.S. v Watson Even when an officer may have adequate time to get a search warrant, it is not required if probable cause exists.
3.
Whren v U.S. The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. The stop is legal as long as police officers “could have” stopped the individual.
4.
Ornelas v U.S. A determination of probable cause is reviewed de novo in order to establish uniformity and a defined set of rules.
5.
California v Hodari A show of authority is not sufficient to constitute seizure.
An arrest requires physical force or submission to the assertion of authority.
6.
Payton v New York NY Statute allowed officers to enter a home to execute an arrest without a warrant. Sup Ct found statute unconstitutional and held warrantless entries into a home are presumptively unreasonable. So any evidence obtained, even if in plain view, would be inadmissable.
7.
Illinois v Gates Ct overturned strict two prong test which required both basis of knowledge and veracity or reliability. Ct held all are relevant but should be considered in the totality of the circumstances. This rule promotes flexibility in decisions where anonymous tips are a factor.
8.
Wilson v Arkansas Knock and announce principle is a part of the 4 th
Amendment reasonableness requirement with three exceptions: (a) threat of physical violence, (b) retreat into dwelling, and (c) destruction of evidence
9.
Chimel v California A search incident to a valid arrest extends only to the person and the area within his immediate control. The purpose is to protect officers and prevent destruction of evidence.
10.
Maryland v Buie Officers can conduct a limited protective sweep of all places where persons may be hiding on a basis of reasonable suspicion.
11.
Chambers v Maroney Okay to search a car without a warrant so long as probable cause exists. One reason is the mobility of a car. Car and home are constitutionally different, lower expectation of privacy in a car.
12.
South Dakota v Opperman So long as it is standard procedure, a routine inventory search which yields evidence is reasonable b/c it is for the owner’s benefit that an inventory is taken. Less expectation of privacy and also done for protection of police and others.
13.
U.S. v Robinson In the case of a custodial arrest a full search of the person is reasonable b/c of the need to find weapons and preserve evidence.

14.
Knowles v Iowa When no arrest is made, even if one could’ve been made, a full search is not reasonable b/c the purpose, officer safety and preservation of evidence are not present. Officer can still do a patdown to ensure his safety.
15.
U.S. v Chadwick Ct holds the search of a footlocker taken from a car and secured was unreasonable even though there was probable cause b/c luggage is different from car (higher expectation of privacy and it was immobile).
Searches and seizures require probable cause plus a warrant, with the exception of autos, searches incident to arrest, and exigent circumstances.
16.
California v Acevedo An officer can search a container within a vehicle with probable cause that contraband or evidence is contained within.
17.
U.S. v Edwards Police may conduct a warrantless search of a suspect as long as the search is within a reasonable time of the lawful arrest, with or without probable cause arrestee’s clothing and effects may be searched or taken from him and kept in custody. If done later there must be an explanation for time delay.
18.
Illinois v Lafayette It is reasonable to search any container or article in possession in accordance with established inventory procedures.
19.
Cupp v Murphy If probable cause exists and the evidence is readily destructible, a limited search may be undertaken incident to a detention.
20.
Warden v Hayden Prior to Hayden an officer could seize only instrumentalities, fruits of crime, or contraband. After Hayden, an officer may seize “mere evidence” as long as it is related in some way to the criminal behavior.
21.
Stoner v California Constitutional rights are personal and cannot be waived by another person, such as a hotel employee.
22.
Bumper v North Carolina Consent must be freely and voluntarily given to search and cannot be based upon the false assertion of a warrant.
23.
Schneckloth v Bustamonte Ct held that the right to refuse consent was a factor in determining whether consent was voluntary, but was not a requirement.
Whether consent was voluntary or coerced is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.
24.
Florida v Bostick Officers boarded buses and randomly approached passengers and asked for consent to search. Ct rejected the “free to leave” approach and said the appropriate inquiry was whether or not, taking into account all of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officer’s request or otherwise terminate the encounter.
25.
U.S. v Matlock Consent to search does not necessarily have to be given by the defendant, but can be given by a 3 rd
party who possesses common authority or other sufficient relationship to the premises.
26.
Illinois v Rodriguez For a search to be reasonable it is not a requirement that consent was actually valid by a 3 rd
person, only that the officers reasonably believed that person had the authority to consent.
27.
Arizona v Hicks Probable cause is required to search and seize things in plain view. Police may not search or seize based only on reasonable suspicion.
Simply inspecting items in plain view is not a search but moving items to look

at concealed portions is a search. “The Constitution sometimes insulates the criminal activity of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” Scalia
28.
Horton v California Warrantless seizure of an item in plain view does not have to be discovered inadvertently.
Where we stand now on plain view doctrine: a.
must be in the area legally b.
must have probable cause to seize c.
If you have probable cause you may search and seize the object d.
Inadvertence is immaterial
29.
California v Greenwood A search of trash left outside the home does not
violate the 4 th
Amendment because there is no subjective expectation of
privacy that society accepts as objectively reasonable.
30.
Oliver v U.S. Ct held an individual has no legitimate expectation that open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by govt officials. Ct made a distinction between the curtilege (area around the home) and open fields.
31.
New Jersey v TLO School officials are government officers but only require reasonable suspicion to search a student because the need for school safety outweighs the child’s interest in privacy.
32.
Skinner v Railway Labor Executives Association Drug testing on railroad employees; no warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion is needed for the search to be reasonable under the 4 th
Amendment b/c the govt’s interest in safety outweighs the privacy concerns.
33.
Camara v Municipal Court Administrative agencies can ask for consent to inspect dwellings, if consent is refused a warrant must be obtained, but probable cause is not needed b/c it is presumed if the ordinances are valid
34.
New York v Burger In the case of a highly regulated business there are less stringent requirements for searching and inspecting and sometimes no warrant is required at all. 3 requirements must be met for the search to be justified. (a) there must be a substantial govt interest, (b) warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and (c) statutes inspection program must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.
35.
Wolf v Colorado overruled by Mapp
36.
Mapp v Ohio applied exclusionary rule to state courts- evidence obtained by an unreasonable search or seizure is not admissable. 2 purposes of exclusionary rule: deterrence of improper police conduct and to uphold and make judicial integrity
37.
U.S. v Leon good faith exception: exclusionary rule does not bar evidence obtained by an officer in good faith that his warrant is valid and does not lack probable cause so long as he is not reckless or unreasonable.

4 situations in which the exclusionary rule would apply. a.
officer knows affidavit is false or reckless b.
the magistrate is no longer neutral and detached c.
affidavit lacks any indicia of probable cause d.
warrant is facially deficient (failure to describe items, etc)

38.
Nix v Williams Inevitable discovery doctrine: If the prosecution can establish the information inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means the evidence is admissable. The reason being exclusion of such evidence would actually put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error.
39.
Rakas v Illinois Exclusionary rule will only be applied to those persons whose
4 th
Amendment rights have been violated. This case rejects the “legitimately on the premises” rule from Jones b/c in an automobile the passengers had no legitimate expectation of privacy, only the owner.
40.
Minnesota v Olsen An overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, so police must have a warrant.
41.
Minnesota v Carter Respondents were in apartment for a short period of time bagging cocaine. Ct held they had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the home b/c they were there for a purely commercial reason, only for a short period of time, and there was a lack of previous connection between the lessee and the Respondents. This was a situation of merely on the premises.
42.
Wong Sun v US Acts which were independent acts of free will are usually admissable even though the first police conduct was illegal.
43.
Frisbie v Collins Power of a court to try a person for a crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a forcible abduction.
44.
Terry v Ohio It is okay for an officer to make an investigative stop and to patdown the suspect if he has reasonable suspicion. Principle reason is officer safety.