Chapter 9
The Exclusionary Rule—
Search and Seizure
Criminal Evidence
6th Edition
Norman M. Garland
The Exclusionary Rule
o The rule that provides that illegally
obtained evidence will be excluded
from use in a criminal trial.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Rights Affected by the
Exclusionary Rule
o The Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable searches and
seizures.
o The Sixth amendment right to counsel.
o The Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination.
o The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
rights to due process of law.
o The protections afforded by the Miranda
decision.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Exclusionary Rule—
Court Created
o In the case of Weeks v. United States
(1914), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted
the Fourth Amendment search and
seizure exclusionary rule for the first time
in federal court.
o In the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the
Court applied the exclusionary rule to
search and seizures in state trials for the
first time.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Development of the Exclusionary
Rule and Its Exceptions
o According to common law, the fact that
evidence was illegally obtained did not
exclude it from being admitted in court against
the accused.
o The rule was that if evidence was relevant to
the case and aided in proving an issue at trial,
then the evidence should be admitted.
o The courts did not concern themselves with
how the evidence was obtained.
o Moreover, the exclusionary rule was at one
time unique to the American system of justice.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v.
United States
o Silverthorne held that not only is illegally
obtained evidence inadmissible, but any
other information derived from the illegal
evidence is also inadmissible.
o The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
was thus established.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine
o Six years after Weeks, the Court in Sillverthorne
Lumber v. U.S. established the principle that
under the exclusionary rule not only is illegally
obtained evidence inadmissible, but any other
information derived from the illegality is also
inadmissible.
o It is like a poisonous tree; any information
gained as a result of the illegal search is also
tainted by the illegal search and is
inadmissible.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Three Exceptions to the Fruit of
the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
o Independent Source Doctrine
o Attenuation Doctrine
o Inevitable-Discovery Exception
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Independent Source Doctrine
Exception to Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree Doctrine
o In Silverthorne, the Court also established
that if the same information or
knowledge is also gained through a
source independent of the illegality and
this fact can by shown by the
prosecution, the information can be
admissible through this source but not
through the illegal search.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Attenuation Doctrine Exception to
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
o The exception to the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine where the
connection between the unlawful
conduct of the police and the
discovery of the challenged evidence
is so unrelated as to dissipate the taint.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Wong Sun v. United States
Application of the Attenuation
Doctrine
o The police seized a man who told them that he had
purchased narcotics from the defendant.
o The seized man had never been known to the police
before and so was not a reliable informant.
o The police then went to the defendant's home and
arrested him illegally, without probable cause based on
the unreliable information.
o While being interrogated, the defendant refused to
make any statements.
o Two days after the defendant was released on bail, he
voluntarily returned to the police station and made
incriminating statements to the police.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Inevitable Discovery Exception to
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
o An exception to the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine that states that
the challenged evidence is admissible
if the prosecution can show that the
evidence would have been inevitably
discovered, even in the absence of the
police illegality.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Nix v. Williams
Application of Inevitable Discovery Exception
o Police violated the defendant’s right to
counsel.
o The defendant made incriminating
statements and was induced to lead
police to the murder victim.
o At the same time, search teams were
within a few miles of the location of the
body and were on their way to
discovering it.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
End of the Silver Platter Doctrine
o State officers who obtained evidence
illegally could hand it over to federal
officers for prosecution in federal court.
o The silver platter doctrine ended with
the 1960 United States Supreme Court
ruling in Elkins v. United States that
evidence obtained unlawfully by a
state officer is treated the same as if
obtained in the same manner by a
federal officer.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Exclusionary Rule:
The Good Faith Exception
o This exception to the exclusionary rule
allows the admission of evidence even
if there is some technical defect in the
warrant, as long as the executing officer
has an objectively reasonable belief
that the warrant is valid.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
United States v. Leon
The Good Faith Doctrine
The essential test for the good faith
exception exists:
owhen an officer in executing a search
warrant has an objectively
reasonable belief that the warrant is
valid, then the evidence may be
admissible at trial even if there is
some technical defect in the warrant.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Exception to the Good Faith
Exception
o When there is a warrant and a
reasonably well-trained officer realizes
that the search warrant is invalid, then
the “good faith” exception would not
apply.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Exclusionary Rule:
The Impeachment Exception
o The exception to the exclusionary rule
that allows the prosecution to use
evidence illegally seized from the
accused in violation of his or her Fourth
Amendment rights for the limited
purpose, at trial, of impeaching the
accused during direct examination or
cross-examination.
o Justification: to impeach false
testimony aids in determining truth.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search And Seizure
o The Fourth Amendment prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures,
and provides that no warrants for
search and seizure shall be issued
without probable cause.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Subjects of the Search
o The search for and seizure of evidence
is not confined to physical, tangible
objects.
o The object of a search or seizure may
be the fruits of a crime, materials used
in a crime, evidence of a crime,
weapons, contraband, or a person.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure Distinctions
o A search is one act and a seizure is
another: It is possible to conduct a
search and not make a seizure, or there
may be a seizure without a search.
o It is quite possible to have authority to
search, but not to seize; or, authority to
seize but not to search.
o The legality of a seizure of an object is
usually dependent upon the legality of
the search, but an illegal seizure may
stem from a legal search.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Meaning of “Search”
Katz v. United States (1967)
o The Fourth Amendment protects people,
not places.
o What a person knowingly exposes to the
public, even in his own home or office, is
not a subject of Fourth Amendment
protection. . . .
o But what he seeks to preserve as private,
even in an area accessible to the public
may be constitutionally protected. . . .
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Reasonable Expectation
of Privacy Test
The test is whether:
o The person alleging that a search
occurred has exhibited an actual,
subjective, expectation of privacy in the
place searched.
o The person's expectation is one that
society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable or legitimate.
oIf both are present, then there is a
search.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Issue:
The False Friend Doctrine
o What a person willingly reveals to
another, on the assumption that the
other is a friend, is thereby revealed to
the world if the so-called friend turns
out to be no friend at all.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Issue:
Open Fields Doctrine and Curtilage
o People do not have a legitimate
expectation of privacy in open fields
even if law enforcement officers
trespass upon private property in order
to observe the open fields.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Curtilage Distinguished From
Open Fields
o In Oliver v. United States, the Court
distinguished open fields from the
curtilage, i.e., the land immediately
surrounding and associated with the
home.
o A person’s activities in curtilage, unlike
open fields, are entitled to Fourth
Amendment protection.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Technologically Enhanced
Activities
o In Smith v. Maryland, the Court found that the
installation and use of a pen register (a device
that records the numbers dialed by a
telephone) by the telephone company was not
a search under the Fourth Amendment.
o United States v. Karo involved a beeper in a
chemical container, but the police used it to
monitor the suspect's movements within private
houses as well as public places. The Court
found this monitoring to be a search since the
property monitored had been removed from
public view.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Technologically Enhanced
Activities
o While pointing a flashlight at night to
illuminate an area open to public view
does not trigger Fourth Amendment
issues, there are a variety of devices
that could, ranging from parabolic
microphones to electronic tracking
devices.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
United States v. Knotts
o Using visual as well as electronic
monitoring, the officers were able to
locate the suspects via their
possession of the “beeperized”
container even though they lost visual
contact with the suspects.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Concern of Technology
o Technologically enhanced police
activities could be subject to a
principle other than the information
gained by the officers—whether the
technique used is so readily available
that it can be said that there is no
reasonable privacy expectation
against its use by the public at large.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Aerial Surveillance:
Navigable Airspace?
o Navigable in a non-obtrusive manner,
such aerial surveillance, not enhanced
technologically, does not constitute a
search even though the observations
were of activities taking place within
the curtilage of private dwellings.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Miscellaneous Matters Pertaining
to Defining What a Search Is
o If the information obtained was available to the
public, then the Court has concluded that
there is no search.
o Whether police conduct constitutes a search
may depend upon such factors as the quantity
or quality of information the conduct reveals.
o The information revealed was very limited in
nature, and the information would only
disclose the presence or absence of
contraband, which cannot be legally
possessed.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
What Is a Seizure?
o Seizure of Property
o Seizure of a Person
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Seizure of Property
o A seizure that occurs when there is
some meaningful interference with an
individual's possessory interest in that
property.
o Destruction of the property, taking the
property from the person's possession,
or preventing persons from entering or
leaving their home constitute
meaningful interferences with
individuals' possessory interests.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Seizure of a Person
A seizure of a person occurs when:
(1) by means of physical force or
show of authority, the person's
freedom of movement is
restrained; and, only if,
(2) in view of all of the circumstances
surrounding the incident, a
reasonable person would not have
believed he or she were not free to
leave.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ways of Making a Reasonable
Search and Seizure
o Searches and seizures made pursuant to a
search warrant.
o Warrantless searches and seizures that have
been declared reasonable via a “well
delineated exception” to the warrant
clause.
o Less intrusive searches and seizures, which
are made on less than probable cause,
such as searches and seizures under the
Terry doctrine, based on a “reasonable
suspicion.”
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Exceptions to the Warrant
Clause
The six “well delineated” exceptions to the
warrant clause are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
search incident to a lawful arrest (SILA)
consent
vehicle and container searches
inventory searches
exigent circumstances searches
plain view searches
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Definition of Search Warrant
o A search warrant is a written order,
issued upon probable cause by a
neutral and detached magistrate, in
the name of the people, to a peace
officer directing the officer to search a
particular person or place, and to
seize specifically described property
and bring it before the magistrate.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Grounds for Issuing a Search
Warrant
(1) Property that is the fruit of a crime, such as stolen
property.
(2) Property that is an instrumentality of a crime, such
as a gun used in a robbery.
(3) Property that is evidence of a crime, tending, such
as a bloody shirt.
(4) Property that is contraband, meaning any
property that is unlawful to possess.
(5) Persons for whom there is probable cause to
believe they have on their person one of the types
of property named in the first four categories, or
for whom there is a warrant for their arrest.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Procedure to Obtain a Search
Warrant
The Officer’s Role:
o To show that there is probable cause to believe
that one of the foregoing grounds for the
issuance of a search warrant exists.
o This belief must be based on facts articulated in
a written and sworn affidavit.
o Seek approval of the warrant application from
a supervisor or a prosecutor.
o Once supervisory approval is obtained submit
warrant application to judge or magistrate and
secure the issuance of the warrant.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Procedure to Obtain a Search
Warrant
The Magistrate’s Role:
o To be satisfied that the facts set forth in
the affidavit give rise to probable
cause.
o Closely scrutinize the affidavit,
questioning the officer if necessary.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Probable Cause
o Probable cause to search “exists if the
facts and circumstances within [the
officers’] knowledge and of which they
[have] reasonably trustworthy
information [are] sufficient in
themselves to warrant a man of
reasonable caution in the belief that
an item subject to seizure will be found
in the place to be searched.” Brinegar
v. United States
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Probable Cause to Search:
The Fair Probability Requirement
o There must be a “fair probability” that the
property subject to being seized (contraband, or
fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime) is
presently in the specific place to be searched.
o There must be enough facts presented to cause
a person of reasonable caution to believe, by a
fair probability, that the stolen property is at that
place.
o Fair probability has not been defined
affirmatively, but has been said to be less than a
preponderance of the evidence, which is
somewhere under a 50 percent likelihood.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Probable Cause to Arrest
o Probable cause to arrest exists where
the facts and circumstances within the
officer's knowledge, and of which he
or she has reasonably trustworthy
information, are sufficient to warrant a
person of reasonable caution to
believe, by a fair probability, that a
particular individual has committed, or
is committing, a particular offense.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Probable Cause to Arrest:
Source of Information
o To establish probable cause, it is not
necessary for the officer seeking a
search warrant to have personal
knowledge of the facts stated in the
application or affidavit.
o The officer's information may stem from
a variety of sources, including
confidential or anonymous sources.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Confidential Informant or
Anonymous Source
o Many times when information is
furnished to an officer, it is deemed
advisable to keep the identity of the
informant confidential.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Totality of Circumstances
for Probable Cause
o Probable cause, therefore, is not
determined under a neat set of legal
rules, but is determined in light of how
reasonable people act in everyday
life.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Particularity of Description of
Property to Be Searched or Seized
o The Fourth Amendment provides that
the place to be searched and the
thing to be seized must be particularly
described.
o Since particularly described is not
spelled out, court decisions have set
forth certain guidelines.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Discovery of Other Property:
The Plain View Doctrine
o If the officer, while conducting a search
within the reasonable scope of the warrant,
observes material that the officer has
probable cause to believe is subject to
seizure, the officer may seize it.
o As long as the material is within plain view
and the officer is in a lawful position when
the observation is made, anything that the
officer recognizes to be fruits,
instrumentalities, contraband, or evidence,
may be seized.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Advice for the Officer
o If you are seeking a search warrant,
remember to list everything and
everyone that you anticipate finding
and everywhere you intend to search.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Who May Serve a Warrant?
o A search warrant may be served by a
peace officer only and not a private
person.
o A search warrant may be served by
any one of the officers, or class of
officers, mentioned in the search
warrant.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Additional Considerations When
Executing Search Warrants
o The usual practice is that when a search is
made pursuant to a search warrant, the officer
executing the search shows the original search
warrant to the occupant of the premises to be
searched, and furnishes the occupant with a
copy of the warrant and the affidavit before the
search.
o If there is no one present at the time of the
search, a copy of the search warrant and
affidavit should be posted in a conspicuous
place inside the premises.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Knock and Announce and the Use
of Force in Execution of a Warrant
o Before an officer may execute a search
warrant, the officer must knock and announce
(this requirement is also known as knock and
notice) his or her presence and purpose for
entering, unless some kind of exigency exists.
o Whether a search of a dwelling is reasonable or
unreasonable may depend, in part, on whether
the officers executing a search warrant
knocked and announced their presence before
entering.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Announcing Always Necessary?
There are times when announcing the officer's
purpose prior to entering the premises is not
necessary.
o Occupants are already alerted.
o If the officer has probable cause to believe
that his or her life, or that of others, may be in
danger.
o If there is reason to believe that evidence
may be destroyed.
o If the officer has an honest belief that the
premises to be searched are unoccupied.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Time Limit on Execution of
Warrant: The Staleness Doctrine
o Once a search warrant is issued, it may not
be held indefinitely by the officer before
making the search. This is known as the
staleness doctrine.
o Warrants are issued on the basis of probable
cause to believe that the objects of the
warrant are in a particular place.
o Many objects sought via a search warrant
are portable and cannot be presumed to
remain in one place indefinitely.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Staleness = No Probable
Cause?
o If probable cause to search no longer
exists and a search takes place
anyway, a Fourth Amendment
violation will occur.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Attack on the Search Warrant
The search warrant may be attacked by
the defendant by alleging any of the
following grounds:
oThere was insufficient probable cause
for the issuance of the search warrant.
oThe place to be searched or the thing
to be seized was not “particularly”
described.
oThe warrant was not properly
executed.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reasonable Searches Without
Warrant: Exceptions to the Warrant
Requirement
o Search and seizure incident to lawful
arrest
o Vehicle searches
o Inventory searches
o Consent searches
o Exigent circumstances searches
o Plain view searches
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure
Incident to a Lawful Arrest Exception
o Based upon the necessity to protect
the officer and prevent destruction of
evidence, the exception permits an
officer, without a warrant and further
probable cause, to search the person
and certain areas around an arrestee
incident to a lawful arrest.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
For a search incident to an arrest to be
reasonable, the arrest must be a lawful
one and the search must be limited to
the following:
o The person of the arrestee and the area
within his or her immediate control
(including any containers on the person or
within the area).
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
continued
o If the arrest is made in a house or other
structure, any area adjoining the room in which
the arrest is made in which a person might be
present who could immediately launch an
attack upon the arresting officers (limited to
only those spaces large enough to conceal a
person).
o If the arrest is made while or immediately after
the arrestee was a passenger in a vehicle, the
passenger compartment of the vehicle and
any containers therein, open or closed.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Incident to Arrest: Vehicle Search
o If a custodial arrest takes place while
the arrestee is in a vehicle, or has just
emerged from a vehicle, an officer
may search, as incident to the arrest,
the area immediately within the
control of the arrestee.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Scope of the Vehicle Search
Incident to Arrest
o This includes not only the passenger
compartment of the vehicle but any containers,
open or closed, in that compartment.
o The Court specifically stated that the officer
could search containers, both open and
closed, in the vehicle’s passenger
compartment.
o However, there is some question whether a
locked container is within the Court’s language.
The area subject to search does not extend to
the trunk.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Blood Samples and Driving
Under the Influence
o The extent to which an officer may
search an accused incident to an arrest
has its limitations, particularly in cases
of arrests for driving under the influence.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Test of Schmerber v.
California
There must be “a clear indication” that evidence
will be found in the blood taken from the accused.
This has been interpreted to mean three things:
(1) The officer must have probable cause to believe
that the blood of the arrestee contains. criminal
evidence, namely a blood-alcohol level.
(2) There must be an exigency that evidence will be
destroyed if an officer were required to apply for
a search warrant.
(3) The means and procedures employed by the
officer must be reasonable.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure:
Vehicle Searches Exception
o Under the vehicle exception, an officer may
search the interior of a vehicle without a warrant
if he or she has probable cause to believe that
the vehicle contains fruits, instrumentalities, or
evidence of a crime, or contraband.
o The rationale behind the vehicle exception is
that vehicles are inherently mobile and,
therefore, the opportunity to search is only
momentary.
o Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54
(1925)
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure:
Inventory Searches Exception
o The inventory search exception to the warrant
requirement permits a police officer to
inventory the property of a vehicle or a person
for the protection of the property and the
police.
o The rationale is that such searches protect the
owner’s property while it is in police custody,
protect police against claims of loss or theft,
and protect the police and others from
dangerous items that might be hidden inside.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure:
Consent Searches
o A consent search is another exception
to the warrant requirement of the Fourth
Amendment, as well as an exception to
the probable cause requirement.
o The validity of consent turns on whether
consent was voluntarily given, taking
into account the totality of the
circumstances for consent.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Form of Consent
o No formal wording is necessary for a
consent to be considered freely and
voluntarily given, but there should be
some affirmative response, not a mere
failure to object to the search.
o Silence alone is not deemed to be a
consent.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Who May Give Consent
o If the search is to be of a person, the person who is
to be searched is the one to give the consent.
o In the case of a person of unsound mind or a child
too young to know the meaning of the consent,
consent may be given by the parent or guardian.
o If a search is to be made of certain property or
premises, consent must be given by one who has,
or reasonably appears to have, common authority
over the property or premises for most purposes.
o It is not always easy to determine who has this
authority.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Apparent Authority
o Under this doctrine, a third-party
consent search will be deemed
reasonable if the facts available to the
officer at the moment of entry would
cause a reasonable person to believe
that the consenting party had
common authority for most purposes
over the premises or property.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Scope of Consent: Plain View
o If consent is voluntarily given to search
a premises for a particular object, and
during the search something else is
observed in plain view, that object is
admissible evidence if it was found
within the scope of the consent given.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure Exception:
Exigent Circumstances Searches
o An exigency is a situation that requires
immediate action—it will not be
deemed unreasonable for an officer to
search without a warrant under
exigent circumstances.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure Exception:
Exigent Circumstances Search
o The scope of a search conducted
under exigent circumstances will be
defined by the emergency or
exigency that justifies the search.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Four Exigencies Recognized in
Minnesota v. Olson
Four exigencies were specifically
recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Minnesota v. Olson, 485 U.S. 91 (1900):
1. Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.
2. Imminent destruction of evidence.
3. The need to prevent a suspect’s
escape.
4. The risk of harm to the police or to
others.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure Exception:
Plain View Doctrine
o As another exception to the warrant
requirement, the plain view doctrine is
intertwined with all of the other methods
of conducting a reasonable search.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Plain View Doctrine
An officer may seize an object without a
warrant if:
othe officer observes the object from a
lawful vantage point;
othe officer has a right of physical access
to the object from the lawful vantage
point; and
othe nature of the object is immediately
apparent as an article subject to seizure
(i.e., contraband or a fruit, instrumentality,
or evidence of a crime).
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search and Seizure on Less Than
Probable Cause: Stop and Frisk
o The Court adopted a new search and
seizure standard when it found a law
officer’s search and seizure to be
justified on less than probable cause,
and without a warrant in a stop and
frisk situation.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Stop and Frisk and Reasonable
Suspicion in Other Circumstances
o In determining the reasonableness of the
officer's conduct, the Court balanced the
government interests in effective crime
prevention and officer safety versus the
governmental intrusion on the individual's
security.
o The Court found that the governmental interests
outweighed the individual's interest, primarily
for the reason that the intrusion on the
individual's privacy was less than that of a fullscale search and seizure.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Basis of the Stop and Frisk Standard
Terry v. Ohio
o In this case, the officer’s conduct was the
stop and frisk of a suspect whom the
officer suspected was about to commit a
crime.
o As a result of the patdown, the officer felt
a gun in the defendant’s overcoat, which
the officer pulled out.
o The defendant was prosecuted and
convicted for carrying a concealed
weapon.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Basis of the Stop and Frisk Standard
Terry v. Ohio
o The Court found that where an officer
had reasonable suspicion, with less than
probable cause and without a warrant,
an officer may detain a suspect
temporarily to make reasonable inquiry
to confirm or dispel the suspicion.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reasonable Suspicion
o The officer, in order to act in these
ways, needs only reasonable
suspicion.
o Reasonable suspicion, being a lesser
standard than probable cause, will not
require as much evidence of criminal
wrongdoing as probable cause—nor is
it necessary that the officer's
information be as reliable as that
necessary for probable cause.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
What is a stop?
oA stop is a temporary detention,
not amounting to a full-blown
arrest, requiring only reasonable
suspicion that a particular
individual is about to commit, is
committing, or has committed a
crime.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
What is a frisk?
oA frisk is a limited patdown search
of the outer garments of a person
to determine whether he or she
possesses a weapon with which to
cause injury to an officer or others.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Permissible Scope of Stops
o An officer may stop or temporarily detain an
individual, based on a reasonable suspicion
the person is engaged in some criminal
activity or is armed and dangerous.
o The detention cannot rise to the level of an
arrest since probable cause is required for
that.
o Detention, justified on the basis of reasonable
suspicion, constitutes a seizure, but, because
it is less intrusive than an arrest, the level of
justification is lower than the probable cause
required for an arrest.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Factors in Determining
the Scope of the Stop
o The length of the detention itself, i.e., whether the
detention lasted longer than was necessary to
clarify the circumstances for which the person
was stopped.
o Whether the person was forcibly removed from
home or other place that he or she was entitled
to be.
o Whether the officer pursued the investigation in a
reasonable and diligent manner, i.e., utilized a
method of investigation that was likely to confirm
or dispel the officer’s suspicions quickly.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Duration of the Detention
o The duration of the detention can be
too long to be justified on grounds of
reasonable suspicion.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reasonable Diligence
in Investigation
o The officer need not use the least intrusive
means of investigating.
o If, in hindsight, a less intrusive means could
be said to be available, the question will be
whether the officer acted reasonably in
failing to recognize and pursue it.
o In the final analysis, the test will be whether
the officer “pursued his investigation in a
diligent and reasonable manner.”
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Suspicionless Stops
• Societal needs create government
interest for suspicionless stops and
searches, i.e., sobriety checkpoints,
border crossings, drug testing in
certain hazardous occupations and
public health situations.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Objecting to Evidence Claimed
to be Illegally Seized
o The right to make such a claim is
known as standing.
o The written request is called a motion to
suppress.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Standing
o A personal, reasonable expectation of
privacy in the thing seized or place
searched.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Motion to Supress
o Set forth in writing reasons why the
defendant believes the evidence was
illegally obtained.
o A hearing on the motion is usually held
prior to trial.
© 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.