constitutional issues - chapter 9
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Michelle PalaroCJUS 2360Fall 2015
A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law
Chapter 9 Conducting
Constitutional Searches
![Page 2: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction What are the fundamental rules of search
and seizure under the 4th Amendment?1. There must be governmental action2. The person making the challenge must have
standing, that is, the conduct violates the challenger’s reasonable expectation of privacy A situation in which (1) a person has exhibited actual
(subjective) expectation of privacy and (2) that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
Often an implied right that falls within the shadow of other specified rights (penumbra)
3. General searches are unlawful and restrict the government from going beyond what is necessary
![Page 3: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Scope of Searches Unrestrained general searches
offend our sense of justice
All searches must be limited in scope
General searches are unconstitutional and never legal
![Page 4: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Searches with a Warrant All searches with a warrant must be
based on:o Probable causeo Supported by oath and affirmationo Particularly describing the place to
be searched, ando The persons or things to be seized
![Page 5: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Marron v. United States , 275 U.S. 192(1927)
Facts: Prohibition agents had a warrant for intoxicating liquor and their manufacture. They noticed a ledger showing inventories of liquors, receipts, expenses, including gifts to police officers, and other things relating to the business
Issues: Can the ledger be seized since it wasn't listed on the warrant?
Holding: Yes Rationale: The ledger was closely related to
the business of the illegal business https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2
75/192
![Page 6: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Vehicle Searches New York v. Belton (1981)
o Landmark case for the warrantless search of a vehicle incident to arrest• Court held that when an officer has made a lawful
custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may search the passenger compartment
• He may also examine the contents of any containers found within the compartment
• If the container is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach
o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Belton
![Page 7: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Executing the Warrant After officers have obtained their search
warrant they must execute it in a timely manner
They must not use excessive force to execute the warrant
There is limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises during the search
![Page 8: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Conducting the Search Officers can only search the areas where
they reasonably believe the specified items might be found
If the warrant states only one specific item be sought, once it is located, the search must end
Officers often are protected with qualified immunityo Exemption of a public official from civil liability
for actions performed during the course of his or her job unless they violate a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right
![Page 9: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conducting the Search, cont;d The government can also seize any
contraband or other evidence of a crime found during a search with a warrant, even though it was not specifiedo Contraband is anything that is illegal for
people to own or have in their possession
The contraband does not need to be described in the warrant or be related to the crime described in the warranto Plain view doctrine
![Page 10: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Administrative Warrants Allows civil inspections of private
property to determine compliance with government rules, regulations and city ordinanceso Examples include fire building codes
These can also be obtained so government agents can conduct routine inspections when occupants refuse their entry
![Page 11: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
United States v. Biswell , 406 U.S. 311 (1972)
Facts: Police visited Biswell, a pawn shop operator who was federally licensed to deal in sporting weapons. They identified themselves, inspected Biswell's books and requested entry into a locked gun storeroom. Biswell asked whether the agents had a search warrant, and the principle investigator responded that they did not, but that section 923(g) of the Gun Control Act of 1968 authorized such inspections without a search warrant. There the agents found and seized two sawed-off rifles, items Biswell was not licensed to possess
Issues: Did the warrantless search violate the Fourth Amendment?
Holding: No Rationale: Inspections pertaining to the sale of illegal
firearms are justified and that limited threats such as this inspection to the gun dealer’s expectation of privacy are reasonable
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=406&invol=311
![Page 12: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Searches without a Warrant
The 4th Amendment prefers a warrant because it necessitates judicial review of government action
The Supreme Court has defined some searches without a warrant to be reasonable under the 4th Amendment guidelines:o Consent searcho Friskso Plain feel/plain viewo Incident to arresto Automobile exceptiono Exigent (emergency) circumstanceso Open fieldso Abandoned property o Public places
![Page 13: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Searches with Consent If an individual gives voluntary consent for the
police to search, the police may so without a warrant
Any evidence found will be admissible in court The person may revoke the search at anytime Only the person whose constitutional rights
might be threatened by a search can give consent
4th Amendment rights are specific to the person and may not be raised on behalf of someone else or in some abstract, theoretical way
Consent to search an individual must be given by that individual
![Page 14: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
United States v. Matlock , 45 U.S. 164 (1974)
Facts: The home that a robbery suspect was leasing was searched by the police after obtaining the consent to enter the home from somebody who lived with the suspect
Issues: Was the consent valid under the 4th Amendment?
Holding: Yes Rationale: The Court observed that recent
decisions “clearly indicate that the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, non-consenting person with whom that authority is shared”
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/united-states-v-matlock/
![Page 15: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Searches with Consent, cont’d Examples of instances when
individuals cannot give valid consent to search:o Landlord/tenant• Even though the landlord is the legal owner,
they lack the authority to offer consent to a search of a tenant’s premises or a seizure of the tenant’s property
o Hotel employee/hotel guest• Supreme Court extended the principles
above to hotel employees as well• Only the tenant or hotel guest can give
consent
![Page 16: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Frisks If an officer suspects a person is presently armed
and dangerous, a frisk may conducted without a warrant
If a frisk is authorized by the circumstances of an investigative stop, only a limited pat-down of the detainee’s outer clothing for the officer’s safety is authorized
Factors contributing to the decision to frisk include: Suspect that flees A bulge in the clothing Suspect’s hand concealed in a pocket Being in a known high crime area and suspected crime
would likely involve a weapon
![Page 17: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
![Page 18: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366 (1993), cont’d
Facts: Officer conducted a frisk. The search revealed no weapons, but the officer felt a small lump in respondent's jacket pocket, believed it to be a lump of crack cocaine upon examining it with his fingers, and then reached into the pocket and retrieved a small bag of cocaine
Issues: Was the seizure lawful without a warrant? Holding: Yes Rationale: As long as the narcotics are instantly
recognizable by plain feel or plain touch. Ultimately, if, in the lawful course of a frisk, officers feel something that training and experience causes them to believe is contraband, there is probable cause to expand the search and seize the object
![Page 19: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Plain View Evidence The plain view doctrine says that unconcealed
evidence that officers see while engaged in a lawful activity may be seized and is admissible in courto For example, if a government official is invited into a
person’s home, and the officer sees illegal drugs on the table, the drugs can be seized
Technology is impacting 4th Amendment case lawo Thermal imaging deviceso Kyllo v. United States (2001)
• Was a search warrant needed for police to scan a home from the street and compare that infrared image to other buildings?
• This action is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrant
![Page 20: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
![Page 21: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest Once a person has been lawfully taken into custody
by the police, U.S. law recognizes the necessity of permitting a complete search for two reasons:1. Officer safety2. Evidence and other contraband should be recovered
Chimel v. California (1969) – next slideo Searches after an arrest must be immediate and must be
limited to the area within the person’s wingspan• The area within a person’s reach or immediate control
Schmerber v. California (1966)o Absent the exigent circumstances, a search intrusive as
drawing blood would not be permissible without a warranto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmerber_v._California
![Page 22: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Searches Incident to Lawful Arrest, cont’d
![Page 23: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
The Automobile Exception
This exception states that if a governmental agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence or a crime, no warrant is needed
Why?o Cars are mobileo In the time it would take to get a
warrant, the car, driver and contraband or evidence could be long gone
![Page 24: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Carroll v. United States (1925)
![Page 25: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Carroll v. United States (1925), cont’d Facts: Prohibition officers saw Carroll, suspected of alcohol
sales, driving on the highway. They gave chase, pulled them over, searched the car and found illegal liquor. The National Prohibition Act allowed warrantless searches of vehicles for alcohol
Issues: Was a warrant necessary? Holding: No. Rationale: Vehicles are more mobile than homes and
justify different rules. They can be searched without a warrant provided:
1. There is probable cause to believe the vehicle’s contents violate the law, and
2. The vehicle would be gone before a search warrant could be obtained
For an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant, they must have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence
![Page 26: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Exigent Circumstances The courts have recognized that sometimes
situations will arise that reasonably require immediate action before evidence may be destroyed
These circumstances include:o Danger or physical harm to officer or otherso Danger or destruction of evidenceo Driving while intoxicatedo Hot-pursuit situationso Individuals requiring rescuing and emergency aido Prevent escape
![Page 27: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Open Fields, Abandoned Property and Public Places
The courts have extended the plain view doctrine stating that anything held out to the public is not protected by the 4th Amendment because no reasonable expectation of privacy exists
“Open fields” - Holds that land beyond that normally associated with the use of that land, that is, undeveloped land, can be searched without a warrant
California v. Ciraolo (1986)o Police looking from the air into a suspect’s backyard
does not violate the 4th Amendment because it is open to public view from the air
o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo
![Page 28: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Border Searches and Seizures
Searches of persons, belongings and vehicles at international borders are reasonable under the 4th Amendment
The farther a person gets from the border, the more traditional search and seizure requirements come back into play
![Page 29: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Border Searches and Seizures, cont’d
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)o Routine searches at a U.S. international border require
no objective justification, probable cause or warranto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_
De_Hernandez Quinones-Ruiz v. United States (1994)
o The border search exception applies equally to persons entering or exiting the country
o http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/873/359/1466404/
![Page 30: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Special Needs Searches These are limited searches that the court
considers reasonable because societal needs are thought to outweigh the individual’s normal expectation of privacy:o Administrative searches of closely regulated
businesseso Public school searcheso Prison, Probation, and Parole searcheso Drug testingo Community caretaking searches
![Page 31: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Electronic Surveillance, Privacy Interests and the 4th Amendment
Electronic eavesdropping to searches of people, their luggage, where they live, and their bodies, homes, hotel rooms, businesses, obtaining evidence from a person’s body (urine testing), or surgical removal of a bullet lodged within a person are all cases that have been held to constitute searches under the 4th Amendment
Physical presence is not required to constitute a search
In each case, the person has a reasonable expectation of privacyo As such, a warrant is generally required
![Page 32: Constitutional Issues - Chapter 9](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062412/5884d9671a28ab4b778b4b0b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Electronic Surveillance, Privacy Interests and the 4th Amendment
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1965o Prohibits the interception of phone conversations unless
one party to the conversation consents To obtain an electronic-surveillance warrant, or
wiretap order, probable cause that a person is engaging in particular communications must be established by the court, and normal investigative procedures must have already been tried