Search and Seizure
4th Amendment
WEEKS V US (1914)


Weeks arrested at his place of business.
Officer conducted a warrantless search.
–

Revealed evidence of US mail to transport lottery
tickets.
Searched home twice.
–
Took papers not relevant to the case.
WEEKS DECISION


9-0 conviction overturned
Fruit of the poisoned tree
OLMSTEAD V US (1928)

Volstead Act (1919)
–

Prohibited the manufacture and importing of
alcohol.
Olmstead was smuggling alcohol over the
Canadian border into Seattle.
–
–
Local and state officials arrested him based on
info gathered by a wiretap on his home phone.
No warrant, tapped the outside lines
OLMSTEAD DECISION


5-4 upheld search
Placing a phone tap on outside premises did
not constitute an unreasonable search and
seizure.
–
No physical trespass
OLMSTEAD REVERSAL

Katz v US (1967)
–
–
Charles Katz suspect in LA illegal gambling.
Public phone booth tap by FBI


–
Conversations recorded
Convicted of transmitting wagering info by phone.
7-1 overturn of Olmstead

People are protected
MAPP V OHIO (1962)



May 23, 1957 – Cleveland
Bombing suspect and gambling equipment
3 officers to the home but are denied access.
–
–

3hours later they return with a paper and break
down the door.
Mapp asks to see warrant and puts it down her
dress. Officers stuggle and take it back
Discovered pornographic materials
MAPP DECISION


6-3 Overturned
States are bound by the 4th amendment
MASSACHUSETTS V SHEPPARD
(1984)

Badly burned and beaten body found.
–
–
–

Boyfriend questioned
Blood stains found in car he borrowed.
Search warrant for his house.
Search warrant
–
–
–
Affidavit properly completed.
Used a warrant for drug searches.
Did not include a list of specific items

–
Judge said he would make necessary changes.
Used the warrant in “good faith”

Blood stained clothing found.
SHEPPARD DECISION



6-3 Upheld conviction
Officer acted with reasonable belief he was
following proper procedures.
Evidence gained with a defective warrant is
legal if officer acted in “good faith”.
US v LEON (1984)

Unreliable confidential informant
–

Surveillance
–
–
–
–

Alberto Leon and others selling cocaine and meth from a
home and other places.
5-6 people regularly visited
Photos taken
Persons with criminal records and previous association with
drug dealing.
Trips from Miami, bags searched.
Search warrant based mostly on surveillance.
LEON DECISION

6-3 Allowed the admission of evidence

Exclusionary rule applied to police, not judges
NIX V WILLIAMS (1984)

10 year old girl disappeared

Robert Williams was seen leaving with a large
bundle on the day of the disappearance.
Police were told not to conduct any interrogation.
–
–
“The child’s parents should be entitled to a Christian burial.”
WILLIAMS DECISION


7-2 upheld conviction
“Inevitable discovery” exception
MARYLAND V GARRISON (1987)

Police had a warrant to search the “3rd floor
apartment”.
–
–
Drugs and cash found
Apartment divided into 2 distinct apartments.
GARRISON DECISION


6-3 upheld the conviction
Honest mistakes are made
Due Process
5th Amendment
Due Process of Law

5th and 14th Amendment

The way the government acts and the laws
under which it acts must be fair.
Procedural Due Process

Government in all that it does must use fair
procedures.

Rochin v California
Substantive Due Process

Laws must be fair

Pierce v Society of Sisters
Goss v Lopez (1975)




Student Rights
60’s and 70’s political unrest
1971 – Columbus
Students attend rally – 10 day suspension
Goss Decision

Oral and written notification of charges

Evidence

Hearing
ESCOBEDO V IL (1964)


Danny E – custody in Chicago at 2:30 am in
connection with shooting a relative.
18 hour interrogation
–
–

No attorney
No self-incriminating statements
Police later arrested friend.
–
–
Claimed Escobedo fired the fatal shots.
Escobedo arrested, not formally charged but told he could
not leave.
Continue Escobedo
–
–
–
Repeatedly interrogated and denied right to see
attorney who requested and was there.
Handcuffed
Made some statements to his involvement.
ESCOBEDO DECISION

5-4, confession inadmissible
MIRANDA V AZ (1964)


Kidnapping and sexual assault near Phoenix
Ernesto Miranda, 23, Mexican national
–
–
–

Arrested at his home.
Taken to police station
ID’d by the victim and taken to interrogation room.
Repeatedly asked for attorney – refused.
–
–
2 hours a signed confession taken.
Disclaimer he had waived his rights.
Miranda Continued

Denied representation at preliminary hearing.
–
–
76 year old lawyer who had not practiced criminal
law in 16 years.
Urged him to plead guilty by reason of insanity
MIRANDA DECISION

6-3 – overturned

Burden of the state to protect the individual
from self-incrimination.
Retried after retraction of his confession.
Retrial based on an accussed successful
appeal does not constitute double jeopardy.


IN re GAULT (1967)


Obscene phone calls
Accused was 15 year old Gerald Gault
–
–
–

Reputation & serving probation for a prior offense.
Arrested and took him to juvenile.
Failed to notify parents.
Hearing
–
–
–
Not recorded
No witnesses or attorneys
Judge thought he was involved so he detained him.
Continue In re Gault

Dispositional hearing – week later
–
–
–

No record, etc.
Not informed of the charges
Admitted he dialed but friend talked
Sentence
–
–
Reform school until 21
Over 18 would have received $50 fine and 2
months in jail.
GAULT DECISION




7-2 – Overturned
Violation of the 14th Amendment of Due
Process
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Jury trial not needed in a juvenile case.