Peter W. Fenton, J.D. Kennesaw State University Michael B. Shapiro, J.D. Georgia State University “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.” Facts: The federal government sought forfeiture (a civil action) based upon fraud in their importation. The notice to produce the invoice violated Fourth Amendment protections. The invoice should NOT have been admitted into evidence. Holding: Facts: Without a warrant, officers on two separate occasions searched home and seized papers. The search and seizure of the papers violated the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Holding: The case applies the Exclusionary Rule discussed in Boyd v. United States (1886) to criminal cases. Police officers were mainly judgment proof; no assets to There was little to no formal police training (“scientific” policing classes began in 1919, and New York became the first state to mandate training and create a police academy in 1959). Think back to 1914… satisfy a judgment after a civil suit. If the court allowed illegally seized evidence, the court would be condoning wrongdoing. Why choose exclusion? Excluding illegally seized evidence would have deterrent effect on police wrong-doing. Facts: While in custody, Silverthorne’s offices were searched without a warrant and papers seized. Silverthorne demanded the papers back, but authorities copied them first. The Fourth Amendment extends to corporations and includes “derivative” evidence (ex. copies). The “fruit of the poisoned tree” doctrine. Holding: Facts: Charged with conspiracy to perform abortions, police seized Dr. Wolf’s appointment book without a warrant. The Exclusionary Rule DOES NOT apply to the states. “Silver Platter” Doctrine allowed use of stateseized evidence by federal authorities. Holding: Facts: Police entered house without a warrant, searching for a bomber. Pornography was seized. The Exclusionary Rule DOES apply to the states. Holding: Facts: Connecticut prohibited giving married persons advice or devices to prevent conception. “Marital privacy” recognized as constitutional right. Holding: Facts: FBI put microphone on outside of phone booth to hear Katz place interstate bets. Katz showed a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when he closed the phone booth door. Holding: Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. Facts: The passage of time purged the taint of the illegal arrest and the confession was admissible. Holding: Days after his illegal arrest, Wong Sun returned and confessed to the police. Facts: Illegal arrest merely to take photograph of suspect to show victim. Victim’s in-court identification was an independent source and not the fruit of the illegal arrest. Holding: Facts: While searchers looked for kidnapping victim, police illegally questioned suspect who showed them where to find the body. Victim’s body would have been inevitably discovered. Holding: Facts: Rape suspect asked where gun was prior to receiving Concern for public safety supersedes Miranda. Miranda Holding: warning. Facts: Police executed search warrant wrongly issued by judge. Exclusionary Rule applies to police misconduct, not judicial errors. Holding: Facts: Woman uses key to admit police to apartment, where drugs are found in “plain view”. Remanded: did police act reasonably in believing she could let them into the apartment? Holding: Facts: Computer showed outstanding warrant for wrong-way driver. Marijuana found in car. Exclusionary Rule applies to police misconduct, not court clerk’s errors. Holding: Facts: Nearby county police showed outstanding warrant. Drugs and gun found. Police clerk’s error was negligent, not reckless or deliberate. Holding: Facts: Police with warrant entered after knocking, but before Hudson could open door. Entry was wrong, but exclusion of evidence is too harsh a remedy. Scalia authors majority opinion. Holding: Facts: Arrested for suspended license, vehicle searched while in back of patrol car. Search incident to recent occupant’s arrest only if suspect might access car or reasonable belief vehicle contains evidence related to offense of arrest. Scalia concurs. Holding: Facts: Warrantless, forced blood test of DWI suspect. Natural dissipation of blood alcohol is not an exigent circumstance allowing blood draw without warrant. Scalia in majority. Holding: Facts: Drug dog taken onto front porch without a warrant alerts. Taking drug dog onto front porch was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant or probable cause. Scalia authors Holding: majority opinion. Facts: Stopped one mile after leaving area about to be searched, apartment key found on Bailey. Detention was beyond any reasonable understanding of “immediate vicinity” of area to be searched. Scalia in majority. Holding: Facts: DNA sample after assault arrest matched unsolved rape case. DNA sampling of arrestees is similar to photographing and fingerprinting. Scalia dissents. Holding: Facts: Cell phone searched after arrest for crime unrelated to phone. Police may not generally search phone of arrestees without warrant. Holding: Unanimous.