




What is the exclusionary rule
Explain stop and frisk
What is the plain view doctrine
What did Miranda v Arizona require police to
do
What happens at a booking
1
The rule of Law
2
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Exclusionary rule and the exceptions
Importance of Terry v. Ohio
Reasonable suspicion/Probable Cause
Elements of a search warrant
What can be seized with a warrant
Searches that can be made without a warrant
Miranda
Search and Seizure
3

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
4
1)
2)
3)
As part of their investigations police must
search for evidence and then seize it to be used
in a trial
The fourth amendment protects suspects from
unreasonable searches and seizures
To conduct this search a police officer must
have a search warrant
5
1)
2)
3)
A search warrant is issued by a judge giving
the officers permission to search a particular
area looking for specific items
A police officer must offer sworn testimony to
the judge that facts they are presenting are
true
A search warrant requires three elements
6
1)
Reasonableness
1)
2)
Particularity
1)
3)
The area to be searched must be reasonable,
compared to the crime
The warrant must state: where, when, and items to
be seized
Probable cause
1)
Based on fact the officer must have reasonable,
reliable and objective information that the person to
be searched has committed the offense
7
A search warrant cannot be issued without
probable cause
2) Probable cause is: Evidence, conditions, and
circumstances that leads a reasonable person
to believe a crime has been committed and the
accused is the person who did it
3) Has to pass the “reasonable person” doctrine in
that a reasonable person has to believe that a
crime has taken place and that person is the
one who did it
1)
8


A police officer must provide factual evidence
in the form of a written affidavit that defines
and identifies the suspicious activity
Sources





Police observation
Private citizens observation
Police informant
Co-conspirator
The victim
9
1)
2)
3)
A police officer can conduct an investigative
stop and briefly detain and question a person
for investigative purposes when the officer has
a reasonable suspicion supported by facts.
Police do not need probable cause, only belief
that a crime may be committed
This is a lower standard than probable cause
and would not allow a search warrant
10
1)
2)
3)
4)
Landmark supreme court case that established
the polices ability to stop and frisk
The stop allows police to briefly detain a
suspicious person
The frisk allows the officer to pat down the
outer garments in order to check for weapons,
They are two separate actions and each
require factual basis
11
1)
2)
3)
Most involve exigent circumstances
Judges find that officers need probable cause
and exigent circumstances or they must have a
warrant
Even in exigent circumstances police must use
the reasonableness doctrine (prior behavior
cannot be involved)
12
5) Stop and Frisk:
This is two actions that each require their own
factual basis
6) Search incident to a lawful arrest:
when making an arrest an officer can search the
suspect and the area in their immediate control
the search must be 1) conducted at the time of
the arrest 2) only the suspect and the area they
controlled
13
7) Automobile searches:
In supreme court case Carroll v United States
(1925) it was determined that a car search is
different than a personal or home
Supreme court case Ross v United States (1982)
determined that if probable cause exists that
an automobile contains criminal evidence
police can search the vehicle including the
glove box and trunk
14
7) Searching drivers and passengers
Pennsylvania v Mimms the court ruled that
drivers can be search Maryland v Wilson
determined that the passenger can be searched
as long as it was a lawful stop
15
9) Pretext stop
officers can stop a vehicle for a minor traffic
violation and search the car (Whren v United
States 1996)
10) Consent searches
when a person gives the police consent to
search an area they waive their 4th amendment
protections
16
11) Bus Sweeps
Florida v Bostick 1991 upheld the police
entering a bus and asking for id and tickets
then asking for permission to search luggage
12) Plain View
if while conducting a lawful investigation an
officer sees evidence in plain view they can
seize the material and use it in court
17
13) Curtilage
officers can search an open field from legal air
space by plane or helicopter, this evidence
would be under the plain view doctrine
18
Electronic Surveillance
The use of devices to listen to and record the
conversations of suspects
Katz v United States 1967 the FBI used a
device to listen to conversations on public
phone booths by listening through the walls,
the supreme court ruled that they must have a
warrant to do this
19




Case starts out in a court of “original
jurisdiction” this is where the case is heard for
the first time
The defendant appeals their conviction to a
court of appeals
If the appeal fails, the defendant then requests
that their case be heard by the Supreme court
of the state
A writ of certiorari is filed with the Federal
Supreme court
20
Evidence that is gained illegally cannot be used
in court
Weeks v United States 1914
1)
2)
a)
b)
3)
Weeks was accused of mail fraud, his home was
searched without a warrant, he was convicted. The case
went to the supreme court which overturned the lower
courts decision based on the 4th amendment
This ruling established the Exclusionary rule
Mapp v Ohio 1961 a fake warrant was used to
gain evidence, the case went to the supreme court
and the court decided the exclusionary rule
applies to states also
21
4) Exceptions to the exclusionary rule
a) Independent source exception: if an officer makes an
arrest, then calls for a warrant to search the warrant is
approved but has not arrived yet they can search
5) Good faith exception: if a warrant has a technical fault
but is executed in good faith it still is good
6) Inevitable discovery rule: even though the information
was obtained in violation of Miranda if it would have
been discovered anyway it could still be used
22