crim pro 4th amend briefs
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
1/27
1
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Justice Clark
1. Facts of the Case:The police entered the home of Ms. Mapp without a search warrant and proceeded in a
thorough search of her home. During the search they found obscene material that Mapp was
convicted on.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Should the exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence at trial that has been obtained in
violation of the 4th Amendment rules of search and seizure, be applicable to the states?
3. Holding:The exclusionary rule as a means of protecting the 4th Amendment rights against search and
seizure is applicable to the states just as it is applicable to the federal government.
4. Rationale: Wolf v. Colorado selectively incorporated the 4th Amendment to the states via the 14th
Amendment, but did not do this with the exclusionary rule
This is being applied to the states to close the only courtroom door remaining open toevidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right
Since the 4thAmendments right of privacy has been declared enforceable against theStates through the Due Process Clause, it is enforceable against them by the same
sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government
The admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf could not consistently toleratedenial of its most important constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the
evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure
The State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, had served to encouragedisobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold
The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing candestroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its
disregard ofthe charter of its own existence
United States v. Leon (1984)
Justice White
1. Facts of the Case:After an extensive drug investigation, police submitted an affidavit and received a search
warrant. Upon entering Leons home they seized significant amounts of drugs. The trial court
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
2/27
2
threw out much of the evidence because the affidavit did not meet previously established
standards. The Court of appeals upheld the decision.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Should the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule be modified so as not to bar the use in
the prosecutions case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable
reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately
found to be unsupported by probable cause?
3. Holding:Suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-
case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the
exclusionary rule. (Established the good-faith exception). Court of Appeals is reversed.
4. Rationale: The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the
errors of judges and magistrates
There exists no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignoreor subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires
application of the extreme sanction of exclusion
There is no basis for believing that exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a warrantwill have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate
The marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained inobjectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot
justify the substantial costs of exclusion
The officers reliance on the magistrates probable-cause determination and on thetechnical sufficiency of the warrant he issues must be objectively reasonable
In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutralrole, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in
preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in
the existence of probable cause
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Justice Scalia
1. Facts of the Case:Police were executing a warrant to search Hudsons home for drugs and firearms and
announced their presence but did not wait more than 3 to 5 seconds. Hudson moved to have
the evidence suppressed because the premature entry violated his 4th Amendment rights. The
trial court granted the potion but the appellate court reversed.
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
3/27
3
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is the exclusionary rule the appropriate remedy for violation of the knock-and-announce
requirement?
3. Holding:The social costs of applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations are
considerable and the incentive to such violations is minimal. Therefore, suppressing evidence of
guilt is unjustified.
4. Rationale: Wilson v. Arkansas established the knock-and-announce requirement as a command
of the Fourth Amendment.
Exceptions to this requirement occur when there is a threat of physical violence, ifthere is reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed, or if knocking and
announcing would be futile
Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executedthe warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the
house (arguing inevitable discovery exception)
Interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are different than those ofprotection against warrantless searches including: protection of human life, protection
of property, and the elements of privacy and dignity that can be destroyed by a sudden
entrance
What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected is ones interest in preventingthe government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the
interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of theevidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable
What constitutes reasonable wait time in a case or if there was reasonable suspicionfor the Richards exceptions would be difficult for courts to determine
Another consequence of applying the exclusionary rule would be police officersrefraining from timely entry after knocking and announcing
Hudson could use S1983 to seek damages for violation of his civil rightsHerring v. United States (2009)
Chief Justice Roberts
1. Facts of the Case:Officer Anderson spotted Herring, and knowing he has criminal history, asked the countys
warrant clerk to check for outstanding arrest warrants for Herring. She found none, but the
clerk of a neighboring county did. Anderson arrested Herring and found drugs and a firearm in
his possession. It was later found that the arrest warrant for Herring in the neighboring county
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
4/27
4
had been recalled. Herring claimed the evidence should be excluded. The district court denied
this motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: If an officer reasonably believes there is an outstanding arrest warrant and finds
contraband in the search incident to the arrest, should this evidence be excluded if it is
discovered the search was a 4th Amendment violation due to negligent bookkeeping
errors by a police employee?
3. Holding:In the circumstances of this case, the jury should not be barred from considering all of the
evidence. The exclusionary rule should not be applied. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.
4. Rationale: The exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in
appreciable deterrence
To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate thatexclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is
worth the price paid by the justice system. The error in this case does not rise to that
level
Franks v. Delaware negligent police miscommunications in the course of acquiring awarrant do not provide a basis to rescind a warrant and render a search or arrest invalid
We do not suggest that all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from theexclusionary rule, however
California v. Greenwood (1988)
Justice White
1. Facts of the Case:A police officer received information that Greenwood might be involved in narcotics trafficking.
The officer asked the trash collector to separate Greenwoods trash from the rest and bring it to
her. After going through the trash, the police found evidence of narcotics. Based on this
probable cause, police got a search warrant and arrested Greenwood. The same was repeated
resulting in a second arrest of Greenwood. The Superior Court dismissed the charges based on
People v. Krivda which said warrantless trash searches violate the 4
th
Amendment. The Court ofAppeals affirmed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does searching the trash left on the side of the road for trash collection violate the 4 th
Amendment rights of the person whose trash it is?
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
5/27
5
3. Holding:Greenwood did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, therefore the search of his trash
does not violate the 4th Amendment. The Court of Appeals is reversed.
4. Rationale The search and seizure of the garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if
respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society
accepts as objectively reasonable
An expectation of privacy does not give rise to Fourth Amendment protection unlesssociety is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable
By placing his garbage on the street, Greenwood left it accessible to animals, children,scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public therefore he has no reasonable
expectation of privacy
What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not asubject of Fourth Amendment protection Katz
Police cannot be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity thatcould have been observed by any member of the public
Florida v. Riley (1989)
Justice White
1. Facts of the Case:After observing a partially covered greenhouse from a helicopter 400 feet above it, the police
saw that the owner was growing marijuana inside and took legal action against the owner. On
appeal, the Florida Supreme Court answered that this violated the 4th Amendment requirement
for a warrant before executing a search.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential
backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse
constitute a search for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment?
3. Holding:The surveillance does not constitute a search requiring a warrant under the 4 th Amendment.
The Florida Supreme Court is reversed.
4. Rationale: California v. Ciraolo controls in this case In Ciraolo it was decided that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police
traveling in the public airways at the altitude of 1000 feet to obtain a warrant in order to
observe what is visible to the naked eye
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
6/27
6
In this day, it is not reasonable to believe there could be no aircraft flying over onesproperty in which any member of the public could see the illegal material
The helicopter was flying at a legal altitude, therefore, there is no reasonableexpectation of privacy
The Court noted that this does not mean that the inspection of the cartilage of a housefrom an aircraft will always pass muster under the Fourth Amendment simply because
the plane is within the navigable airspace specified by law
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Justice Scalia
1. Facts of the Case:Police used a thermal imaging device to determine that the heat emanating from certain areas
of Kyllos home was indicative of an indoor growing of marijuana. Based on this, as well as tips
and utility bills, police obtained a search warrant and found the indoor growing of marijuana.
Kyllo moved to have the evidence suppressed but was denied and then entered a conditional
guilty plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: What are the limits upon the power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed
privacy?
Does the use of thermal imaging on a home constitute a search under the protection ofthe Fourth Amendment?
3. Holding:The use of thermal imaging on a home does constitute a search under the protections of the
Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals is reversed. Remanded to the District Court to
decide about the admissibility of the evidence obtained in the illegal search and invalid search
warrant.
4. Rationale: Obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the
home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a
constitutionally protected area constitutes a search at least where (as here) the
technology in question is not in general public use Taking into consideration future developments in through-the-wall surveillance
technology
Limiting the prohibition of thermal imaging to intimate details would be wrong inprinciple and would be impractical in application
Spinelli v. United States (1969)
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
7/27
7
Justice Harlan
1. Facts of the Case:Spinelli was convicted of traveling to Missouri from Illinois with the intention of conducting
gambling activities illegal under Missouri law. Spinelli challenged the constitutionality of the
search warrant that allowed the FBI to uncover evidence necessary for the conviction. TheCourt of Appeals upheld the search warrant.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is there probable cause behind the search warrant in which the FBI found evidence used
to convict Spinelli of his crime?
Does the informants information on the affidavit meet the Aguilar test?3. Holding:
The informants tip even when corroborated to the extent indicated was not sufficient to
provide the basis for a finding of probable cause. The Court of Appeals is reversed.
4. Rationale: Aguilar v. Texas an affidavit was inadequate because it failed to set forth any of the
underlying circumstances necessary to enable the magistrate independently to judge
of the validity of the informants conclusion and the affiant-officers did not attempt to
support their claim that their informant was credible or his information reliable
The fourth allegation in the affidavit of this case had the fundamental place in thiswarrant application. This allegation was that the FBI had been informed by a
confidential reliable informant that Spinelli was conducting illegal gambling
Applying the Aguilar test Though the affiant swore that his confidant was reliable, he offered the magistrate no
reason in support of this conclusion
The tip does not contain a sufficient statement of the underlying circumstances fromwhich the informer concluded that Spinelli was running a bookmaking operation
Draper v. United States held an affidavit legitimate and the warrant legal because theinformant had given great detail from which one could reasonably infer that he had
received his information in a reliable way
This case does not meet that standard.Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Justice Rehnquist
1. Facts of the Case:The police department received an anonymous letter detailing illegal drug trafficking by Lance
and Sue Gates. The police investigation confirmed that some of the details of the anonymous
letter were correct. Based on this, the police got a search warrant and found marijuana in the
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
8/27
8
Gates home and car. The Illinois Circuit Court ordered suppression of the evidence on the
ground that the affidavit submitted to the Circuit Judge failed to support the necessary
determination of probable cause. This was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and the
Supreme Court of Illinois.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Was there sufficient probable cause for the search warrant that led to the police finding
the illegal drugs in the possession of Lance and Sue Gates?
3. Holding:The two-pronged test is abandoned, in its place the totality of the circumstances analysis is
reaffirmed. The judge issuing the warrant had a substantial basis for concluding probable
cause to search the Gates home and car existed. The Supreme Court of Illinois is reversed.
4. Rationale: The totality of the circumstances approach is far more consistent with our prior
treatment of probable cause than is any rigid demand that specific tests be satisfied
by every informants tip
The two-pronged test (the informants veracity or reliability and his basis ofknowledge) are better understood as relevant considerations in the totality of
circumstances: a deficiency in one may be compensated for, in determining the overall
reliability of a tip, by a strong showing as to the other, or by some other indica of
reliability
The totality of circumstances approach recognizes that affidavits are normally draftedby non-lawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation
If the affidavits submitted by police are subjected to the type of scrutiny some courtshave deemed appropriate, police might well resort to warrantless searches, with the
hope of relying on consent or some other exception to the warrant clause that might
develop at the time of search
The traditional standard for review of an issuing magistrates probable causedetermination has been that so long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for
concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the Fourth
Amendment requires no more.
Maryland v. Pringle (2003)
Chief Justice Rehnquist
1. Facts of the Case:A police officer pulled over a vehicle for speeding. 3 men were in the car, including Pringle in
the front seat. After a search of the car, the officer found a large sum of cash in the glove box
and cocaine stored behind the armrest of the passenger seat. None of the three men confessed
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
9/27
9
to ownership of the cocaine and the officer arrested all three of them. The next day, Pringle
confessed to having sole ownership of the cocaine. The trial court denied Pringles motion to
suppress his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest, holding that the officer had probable
cause to arrest Pringle. The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Did the officer have probable cause to believe that Pringle committed the crime?
3. Holding:The officer had probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of
a controlled substance. Pringles arrest therefore did not violate the 4th and 14th Amendments.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland is reversed.
4. Rationale: Based on the facts, it is a reasonable inference that any or all three of the occupants had
knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus, a
reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle
committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly
Pringles attempt to characterize this case as a guilt-by-association case is unavailing.Maryland v. Garrison (1987)
Justice Stevens
1. Facts of the Cases:Baltimore police executed a warrant to search McWebb and the premises known as 2036
Park Avenue third floor apartment. The police believed there was only one apartment on
the third floor. Upon executing the warrant, the police realized that the third floor
consisted of two apartments, one belonging to McWebb and the other belonging to
Garrison. Before this realization though, police had found contraband in Garrisons
apartment on which he was charged. The trial court did not suppress the evidence and the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for Maryland reversed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does the seizure of the contraband in Garrisons apartment violate the 4th
Amendment?
What is the proper interpretation of the warrant? Is the warrant valid and was it executed reasonably by police?
3. Holding:The warrant was valid when it was issued. The police acted reasonably in their execution of
the warrant. There is no 4th Amendment violation. The Court of Appeals is reversed.
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
10/27
10
4. Rationale: The Warrant Clause of the 4th Amendment categorically prohibits the issuance of a
warrant except one particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized
This requirement ensures that eh search will be carefully tailored to its justifications,and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the
Framers intended to prohibit
The question is whether the factual mistake made by the police in regards to thenumber of apartments on the third floor invalidated the warrant that would have
been valid if it had reflected a completely accurate understanding of the buildings
floor plan
The discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broaddoes not retroactively invalidate the warrant
Hill v. Californiaan officers reasonable misidentification of a person does notinvalidate a valid arrest; this is equally applicable to an officers reasonable failure to
appreciate that a valid warrant describes too broadly the premises to be secured
Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)
Justice Stevens
1. Facts of the Case:Police obtained a search warrant for Richards hotel room to search for drugs. The attempted to
obtain a no-knock warrant but the magistrate deleted these portions of the warrant. The police
approached Richards hotel room, with at least one officer in uniform, and others disguised.
Richards answered the door, recognized the police, and then shut the door again. Police then
forced entry. The trial court denied Richards motion to suppress the evidence and the
Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, also concluding that police officers are never required to
knock and announce their presence when executing a search warrant in a felony drug
investigation.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is the Wisconsin Supreme Courts blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule
legal under the 4th Amendment?
Were Richards 4
th
Amendment rights violated by the polices search and seizure in hishotel room?
3. Holding:Wisconsins blanket exception the knock-and-announce rule is reversed. Richards 4th
Amendment rights were not violated by the officers no-knock entry because they had
reasonable suspicion he was destroying evidence.
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
11/27
11
4. Rationale: Wilson v. Arkansas Reasons the State gave for their blanket exception: violence involved in drug
investigations and the easy potential for disposal
Not every drug investigation will pose these risks to a substantial degree In these situations, the asserted governmental interests in preserving evidence and
maintaining safety may not outweigh the individual privacy interests intruded upon by a
no-knock entry. Wisconsins blanket rule impermissibly insulates these cases from
judicial review
The reasons for creating an exception in one category (felony drug investigations) can,relatively easily, be applied to others
If a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation thatincluded a considerable albeit hypothetical risk of danger to officers or destruction
of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendments
reasonableness requirement would be meaningless
In each case, it is the duty of a court confronted with the question to determinewhether the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justified dispensing with the
knock-and-announce requirement
The fact that the magistrate did not issue a no-knock warrant does not alter thereasonableness of the officers decision, which must be evaluated at the time the
entered the hotel room
United States v. Watson (1976)
Justice White
1. Facts of the Case:An informant told a federal postal inspector that Watson was supplying stolen credit cards and
would be supplying more at their next meeting. At this meeting, the informant signaled the
inspector that Watson had the cards and the officer arrested Watson without a warrant. The
court of appeals held the arrest unconstitutional because the inspector failed to secure an arrest
warrant although he had time to do so.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is an arrest without a prior arrest warrant in violation of the 4
th
Amendment?
3. Holding:An arrest warrant is not required to make an arrest in a felony charge. There is no 4th
Amendment violation. The court of appeals is reversed.
4. Rationale:
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
12/27
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
13/27
13
whether a police officer, acting reasonably, would have made the stop for the reason
given
The Court has never held (outside the context of inventory searches or administrativeinspection) that an officers motive invalidates objectively justifiable behavior under the
4th Amendment; but has repeatedly held the contrary
United States v. Robinsonestablished that the fact that the officer does not have thestate of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification
for the officers action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances,
viewed objectively, justify that action
The making of a traffic stop out-of-uniform does not remotely qualify as an extremepractice, and so is governed by the usual rule that probable cause to believe the law has
been broken outbalances private interest in avoiding police contact
There is no principle to allow the Court to decide at what point a code of law becomesso expansive and so commonly violated that infraction itself can no longer be the
ordinary measure of the lawfulness of enforcement
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)
Justice Souter
1. Facts of the Case:Atwater was pulled over for violation of a Texas law requiring front seat passengers to be
buckled up in a car. The police officer decided to arrest Atwater for the violation that carried
the penalty of a fine between $25 and $50. Atwater filed suit in a Texas state court under
Section 1983 against the officer, the police chief, and the city. The city removed to federal
district court which granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The Court of Appeals
affirmed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does the 4th Amendment forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such
as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine?
3. Holding:If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor
criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the 4 th Amendment, arrest the
offender. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.
4. Rationale: Atwater claims that common law supports her argument, the Court decided it did not Atwater argues for a modern arrest rule, one not necessarily requiring violent breach of
the peace, but nonetheless forbidding custodial arrest, even upon probable cause, when
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
14/27
14
conviction could not ultimately carry any jail time and when the government shows no
compelling need for immediate detention
If we were to derive a rule exclusively to address the uncontested facts of this case,Atwater might well prevail
The Court has traditionally recognized that a responsible 4th Amendment valance is notwell served by standards requiring sensitive, case-by-case determinations of
government need, lest every discretionary judgment in the field be converted into an
occasion for constitutional review
Atwaters general rule and limiting proviso promise very little in the way ofadministrability
The costs to society of the under-enforcement that would result from Atwaters rulecould easily outweigh the costs to defendants of being needlessly arrested and booked
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Justice White
1. Facts of the Case:Memphis police were informed of a nighttime burglary in progress by a neighbor. When the
police arrived, Officer Hymon went around behind the house and saw the suspect, Garner,
trying to escape. Hymon noted that Garner was young and small and did not believe he was
armed. Hymon ordered Garner to halt and when Garner did not do so, Hymon shot him in the
back of the head, from which Garner died. Hymon was legally allowed to do this under a TN
statute which provided if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either fleeor
forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest. Garners father
filed suit under Section 1983for asserted violations of his sons constitutional rights. The District
Court found the TN statute and Hymons actions constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is a seizure by the means of deadly force constitutionally allowable under the 4 th
Amendment in all felony cases?
3. Holding:The use of deadly force is not automatically constitutional in all felony cases. It is not
constitutional in the situation of an unarmed, un-dangerous suspect such as the current
situation. The Court of Appeals is affirmed.
4. Rationale: The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the
circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
15/27
15
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting himdead. The TN statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force
against such fleeing suspects
The state is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probablecause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the
officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using
deadly force
Because of sweeping change in the legal and technological context, reliance on thecommon-law rule in this case would be a mistaken literalism that ignores the purposes
of a historical inquiry
In light of the rules adopted by those who must actually administer them, the older andfading common law view is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the TN statute
now before the Court
Officer Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner young, slight, andunarmed posed any thread. Hymon never even attempted to justify his actions on any
other basis than the need to prevent an escape
Agrees with the dissenters that burglary is a serious crime, but cannot agree that it is sodangerous as automatically to justify the use of deadly force
Payton v. New York (1980)
Justice Stevens
1. Facts of the Case:Police arrived at Paytons apartment with the intent to arrest him. There was no response to
their knock although music was playing inside, so they forcibly broke into the apartment.
Payton was not there, but police did find a weapon that was used as evidence against him. 4
years later, police went to the home of Riddick to arrest him. His young son answered the door
and police entered before Riddick was given a chance to consent to entry. In their search of
Riddicks immediate area, they found drugs on which he was charged. The New York Court of
Appeals, in a single opinion, affirmed the convictions of both Riddick and Payton.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does the execution of an arrest without a warrant inside a persons home violate the 4th
Amendment?
3. Holding:Home invasions for arrest should be treated as home invasions for search, requiring a warrant.
Since no arrest warrant was obtained in these cases, the judgments of the Court of Appeals are
reversed.
4. Rationale:
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
16/27
16
The Court of Appeals treated both cases as involving routine arrests in which there wasample time to obtain a warrant, and this Court will do the same.
Thus, there is no occasion to consider the sort of emergency or dangerous situation(exigent circumstances) that would justify a warrantless entry into a home for the
purpose or arrest or search
Judge Leventhal of the Court of Appeals for D.C. reasoned that the constitutionalprotection afforded to the individuals interest in the privacy of his own home is equally
applicable to a warrantless entry for the purpose of arresting a resident of the house
The Court found this reasoning persuasive and in accord with prior 4th Amendmentdecisions
Any differences in the intrusiveness of entries to search and entries to arrest are merelyones of degree rather than kind. The two intrusions share this fundamental
characteristic: the breach of the entrance to an individuals home
The Court rejected the States argument that only a search warrant based on probablecause to believe the suspect is at home at a given time can adequately protect the
privacy interests at stake and since such a warrant requirement is manifestly
impractical, there need be no warrant of any kind
Chimel v. California (1969)
Justice Stewart
1. Facts of the Case:Police went to the home of Chimel to arrest him for burglary of a coin shop. When they arrived
at the home the wife let them in and they waited a few minutes for Chimel to return home.
Upon his arrival, the arrested him, for which they had a warrant, and then searched the entire
home, for which they did not have a warrant. They found coins and medals that were used to
convict Chimel. The appellate court affirmed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Can a warrantless search of the petitioners entire house be constitutionally justified as
incident to that arrest?
Does a full search of the house of a person being arrested without a search warrantviolate the 4th Amendment rights of the arrestee?
3. Holding:If the search of an arrestee extends beyond his person and the area within his immediatecontrol, a search warrant is required under the 4
th Amendment. The appellate court is
reversed. Rabinowitz and Harris are reversed.
4. Rationale:
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
17/27
17
United States v. Rabinowitzwarrantless searches incident to a lawful arrest maygenerally extend to the area that is considered to be in the possession or under the
control of the person arrested.
That doctrine as applied to this case is not rational and possibly not rational even limitedto its own facts
There is ample justification for a search of the arrestees person and the area within hisimmediate control construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he
might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence
Searching that include rooms other than that of the arrest or closed or concealed areas,in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be done only under the authority of a
search warrant
Arizona v. Gant (2009)
Justice Stevens
1. Facts of the Case:Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a
police car. Police then searched his car and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the
backseat. Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the
time of search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to
the 4th Amendment warrant requirement as defined in Chimeland applied to vehicles in Belton
did not justify the search in this case.
2. Legal Questions Presented: What are the limitations on the search-incident-to-arrest exception under the Belton
decision and the 4th Amendment?
3. Holding:Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupants arrest only if the arrestee is within
reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to
believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Otherwise, search of the vehicle
will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show another exception to the warrant
requirement. The State Supreme Court is affirmed.
4.
Rationale: New York v. Beltonheld that when an officer lawfully arrests the occupant of an
automobile, he may, as an incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of
the automobile and any containers therein.
This holding was based in large part on our assumption that articles inside therelatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of the automobile are in fact
generally, even if not inevitably, within the area into which an arrestee might reach
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
18/27
18
We hold now that the Chimel rationale authorizes police to search a vehicle incident toa recent occupants arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching
distance of the passenger compartment at the time of search
We also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a searchincident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the
crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle
Neither the possibility of access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-relatedevidence authorized the search in this case, thus the search is unreasonable
The privacy interest one has in his vehicle is still important and deserving ofconstitutional protection
California v. Acevedo (1991)
Justice Blackmun
1. Facts of the Case:Daza picked up a package the police knew contained marijuana and took it to his apartment.
Acevedo entered that apartment shortly after and left carrying a brown paper bag the size of
one of the wrapped marijuana packages which he placed in the trunk of his car. Police stopped
his car, opened the trunk and bag and found marijuana. The California Court of Appeals held
the marijuana should have been suppressed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does the Fourth Amendment require the police to obtain a warrant to open the sack in
a movable vehicle simply because they lack probable cause to search the entire car?
3. Holding:The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable
cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained. The Fourth Amendment does not compel
separate treatment for an automobile search that extends only to a container within the vehicle.
4. Rationale: U.S. v. Ross Court held that a warrantless search of an automobile under the Carroll
doctrine could include a search of a container or package found inside the car when
such a search was supported by probable cause
U.S. v. Chadwick a person expects more privacy in his luggage and personal effectsthan he does in his automobile
Arkansas v. Sanders extended Chadwicks rule to apply to a suitcase actually beingtransported in the trunk of a car
Thus, in Ross the Court took the step of saying closed containers in cars could besearched without a warrant because of their presence within the automobile. Despite
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
19/27
19
the protection Sanders purported to extend to closed containers, the privacy interest in
those containers yielded to the broad scope of an automobile search
The privacy protection under Chadwick-Sanders is minimal The Chadwick-Sanders rule has also confused courts and police officers and impeded
effective law enforcement
It is better for the Court to adopt one clear-cut rule to govern automobile searches andeliminate the warrant requirement for closed containers set forth in Sanders
Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)
Justice Scalia
1. Facts of the Case:An officer pulled over a car for traffic violations. Respondent was one of two passengers in the
front of the car. The officer noticed the driver had a syringe in his pocket and when he asked
the driver why he had a syringe the driver told him it was for drugs. Backup officers then asked
for identification from the two passengers and respondent falsely identified herself and claimed
she had no ID. The first officer began a search of the car in light of the drivers admission. In the
backseat he found a purse which respondent claimed as hers. Upon search of the purse an ID
with respondents real name and methamphetamine was found. The trial court denied
suppression but the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding the search of the
purse violated the 4th and 14thAmendments because the officer knew or should have known
that the purse did not belong to the driver, but to one of the passengers and because there
was no probable cause to search the passengers personal effects.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Can police search containers belonging to passengers in an automobile without a
warrant when they have probable cause to believe the driver has committed a crime?
3. Holding:Police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect passengers belongings found in
the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.
4. Rationale: Using balancing test privacy interests vs. legitimate governmental interests; weighs
decidedly in favor of allowing searches of a passengers belongings If the rule of law that Ross announced were limited to contents belonging to the driver,
or contents other than those belonging to passengers, one would have expected that
substantial limitation to be expressed (in that decision)
When there is probable cause to search for contraband in a car, it is reasonable forpolice officers like customs officials in the Founding era 0 to examine packages and
containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
20/27
20
A passengers property rule would dramatically reduce the ability to find and seizecontraband and evidence of crime
If we were to invent an exception, why should it protect only property belonging to apassenger rather than (the more logical choice) property belonging to anyone other
than the driver
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Chief Justice Warren
1. Facts of the Case:A plainclothes officer observed suspicious behavior between three men indicating they may be
planning a burglary and could be armed. The officer approached the men and asked their
names but they just mumbled a response. The officer patted down Terry and found a pistol and
also found a pistol the same way with another of the men. A frisk of the third man did not
indicate he was armed and therefore he was not searched further. Terrys motion to suppress
the evidence was dismissed, the state court of appeals affirmed and the state supreme court
dismissed the appeal.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is it always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited
search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest?
Does violation of 4thAmendment rights through a stop and frisk make theexclusionary rule applicable?
3. Holding:An officer can conduct a limited search of the outer clothing of persons he reasonably believes
to be armed and dangerous in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault
him. Such a search is reasonable under the 4th Amendment and any weapons seized may be
introduced as evidence.
4. Rationale: A rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against
practices which it can never be used effectively to control, may exact a high toll in
human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime
Dual inquiry in determining whether the seizure and search were unreasonable: (1)whether the officers action was justified at its inception and (2) whether it was
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the
first place
Balancing test
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
21/27
21
More is involved than the governmental interest in investigating crime, there is themore immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the
person with whom he is dealing is not armed
Petitioner argues it is unreasonable for an officer to search for weapons until thesituation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest
Two weaknesses of this argument: (1) recognizes no distinction between a searchincident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons and (2) assumes that the law of
arrest has already worked out the balance between the particular interests involved
here, the neutralization of danger to the policeman in investigative circumstance and
the sanctity of the individual
There must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weaponsfor the protection of the police officer where he has reason to believe that he is dealing
with an armed and dangerous individual regardless of whether he has probable cause to
arrest the individual for a crime
In this situation, it was reasonable for the officer to believe the men were armed anddangerous; he confined his search strictly to what was necessary to learn whether the
men were armed and to disarm them
Florida v. J.L. (2000)
Justice Ginsburg
1. Facts of the Case:Someone called in an anonymous tip that a black male at a certain location wearing a plaid shirt
was carrying a gun. Police were sent to this location and on arriving conducted a frisk of three
black males at that locale, only one of which was wearing a plaid shirt. J.L., wearing the plaid
shirt, was found with a gun, and the other two males were found with nothing. The trial court
suppressed the evidence. The intermediate appellate court reversed and the Supreme Court of
Florida held the search invalid under the 4 th Amendment.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Is an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun, without more, sufficient to justify a
police officers stop and frisk of that person?
Does the tip pointing to J.L. meet the indicia of reliability?
3.
Holding:An anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind contemplated inAdams and White
does not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a
firearm
4. Rationale:
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
22/27
22
The tip in this case lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in White (which wasconsidered a close case) and essential to the Courts decision in that case
The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knewbefore they conducted their search
An automatic firearm exception to our established reliability analysis would go too far The facts of this case do not require us to speculate about the circumstances under
which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search
even without a showing of reliability
The requirement that an anonymous tip bear standard indicia of reliability in order tojustify a stop in no way diminishes a police officers prerogative to conduct a protective
search of a person who has already been legitimately stopped
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)
Chief Justice Rehnquist
1. Facts of the Case:Officers were patrolling in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking. When Wardlow saw
the officers, he fled. The officers caught up to him and one patted him down and in this process
found a handgun on which he was arrested.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk Wardlow based on the facts
of the case?
3. Holding:The officer was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity and
therefore in investigation further. The officers stop did not violate the 4th Amendment.
4. Rationale: While the location in a high crime area alone is not enough for reasonable suspicion,
officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in
determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further
investigation
Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion This decision is consistent with Florida v. Royerin which the Court held when an officerapproaches and individual the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about
his business; unprovoked flight is different than mere refusal to cooperate
The fact that flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity does notestablish a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Florida v. Royer (1983)
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
23/27
23
Justice White
1. Facts of the Case:Royer purchased a one-way airline ticket to New York City under an assumed name.
Detectives had observed him and believed he fit the drug courier profile. Upon request, but
without oral consent, Royer produced his ticket and identification. He explained thediscrepancy in names by saying a friend had purchased the ticket under the assumed name.
Without returning his ticket or ID, he was asked to accompany them to a small room. Without
Royers consent one of the detectives retrieved his luggage. Whilehe did not respond to the
request that he consent to a search of the luggage, he did present the key and marijuana was
found. The trial court did not suppress the evidence and he was convicted. The Florida District
Court of Appeal reversed, holding that respondent had been involuntarily confined without
probable cause and at the time his consent to search was obtained the involuntary detention
had exceeded the limited restraint ofTerryand such consent was therefore invalid.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Was Royer being illegally detained? Should the evidence obtained from consent to search during the illegal detention be
suppressed?
3. Holding:Because we affirm the Florida District Court of Appeals conclusion that Royer was being illegally
detained when he consented to the search of his luggage, we agree that the consent was
tainted by the illegality and was ineffective to justify the search.
4. Rationale: An investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to
effectuate the purpose of the stop. The investigative methods employed should be the
least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officers suspicion in a
short period of time
Statements given during a period of illegal detention are inadmissible even thoughvoluntarily given if they are the product of the illegal detention and not the result of an
independent act of free will
If the events in this case amounted to no more than a permissible police encounter in apublic place or a justifiable Terry- type detention, Royers consent, if voluntary, would
have been effective to legalize the search
Royer was effectively seized for the purposes of the 4 th Amendment Police had adequate grounds for suspecting Royer of carrying drugs and for temporarily
detaining him. Had Royer voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage while he
was justifiably being detained on reasonable suspicion, the product of the search would
be admissible. However, at the time Royer produced the key to his suitcase, the
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
24/27
24
detention to which he was then subjected was a more serious intrusion on his personal
liberty than is allowable on mere suspicion of criminal activity
Had Royer consented to a search on the spot, the search could have been conductedwith Royer present in the area where the bags were retrieved by Detective Johnson and
any evidence recovered would have been admissible against him
The Florida District Court of Appeal cannot be faulted in concluding that the limits of aTerry-stop had been exceeded
United States v. Drayton (2002)
Justice Kennedy
1. Facts of the Case:Drayton and Brown were travelling on bus together. During a stop, 3 police officers
entered the bus as part of a drug interdiction. One officer stationed himself at the front of the
bus, one at the back, and the other walked up the aisle, speaking to passengers. When they
came to Brown and Drayton, they asked to search their bag. The men consented and no
contraband was found. Noticing the baggy clothes the men were wearing, the officer asked to
pat them down. Brown consented and the officer found drug packets on which he was arrested.
Drayton then proceeded to consent and was also arrested based on a finding of drug packets.
The trial court did not suppress the cocaine, but the respondents prevailed on appeal.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Were the passengers of a bus seized in terms of the 4th Amendment when police
entered the bus for the drug interdiction?
3. Holding:Applying the Bostickframework to the facts of this particular case, we conclude that the police
did not seize respondents when they boarded the bus and began questioning passengers.
4. Rationale: Florida v. Bostick Florida Supreme Court had adopted a per se rule that due to the
cramped confines onboard a bus the act of questioning would deprive a person of his or
her freedom of movement and so constitute a seizure under the 4th Amendment
The Court reversed, saying the proper inquiry is whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to decline the officers requests or otherwise terminate the encounter
Now, the 11th Circuit has adopted what in effect is a per se rule that evidence obtainedduring suspicionless drug interdiction efforts aboard buses must be suppressed unless
the officers have advised passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse
consent to a search
The Court of Appeals erred in adopted this approach
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
25/27
25
The fact that an encounter takes place on a bus does not on its own transform standardpolice questioning of citizens into an illegal seizure
Officer Hoovers position at the exit does not tip the scale in respondents favor The arrest of one person does not mean that everyone around him has been seized by
police. If anything, Browns arrest should have put Drayton on notice of the
consequences of continuing the encounter by answering the officers questions
Brendlin v. California (2007)
Justice Souter
1. Facts of the Case:Following a traffic stop conceded to be illegal for lack of reasonable suspicion, passenger
Brendlin was found to have an outstanding arrest warrant. He was arrested and drugs were
found on his person and in the car on a search incident to arrest. Brendlin claimed the evidence
should be excluded because the traffic stop was an unreasonable seizure. The California
Supreme Court rejected this, claiming as a passenger, Brendlin had not been seized by the
vehicle being stopped.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Does the stop of a vehicle constitute a seizure of the passenger of that vehicle?
3. Holding:In the circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be
exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police
permission. Therefore, the passenger was also seized by the stop of the vehicle and the seizure
was illegal. The California Supreme Court is reversed.
4. Rationale: United States v. Mendenhalla seizure occurs if in view of all the circumstances
surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free
to leave
A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as ithalts the driver
It is reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime,arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize hissafety
To the extent that there is anything ambiguous in the show of force the test resolves theambiguity, and here leads to the intuitive conclusion that all the occupants were subject
to like control by the successful display of authority
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
26/27
26
Brendlin had no effective way to signal submission while the car was still moving on theroadway, but once it came to a stop he could, and apparently did, submit by staying
inside
Holding that the passenger in a private car is not (without more) seized in a traffic stopwould invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless of probable cause or
reasonable suspicion of anything illegal
United States v. Place (1983)
Justice OConnor
1. Facts of the Case:Place was stopped in two different airports and questioned by police because they believed him
to be transporting narcotics. In the second airport Place was questioned at, police asked to
search his luggage and he refused. The police then seized the luggage and transported it to
another location where they had drug dogs sniff the luggage. 90 minutes later the police got a
search warrant for the luggage and found large amounts of cocaine on which Place was charged.
He attempted to have the luggage contents suppressed and the District Court denied. The Court
of Appeals reversed.
2. Legal Questions Presented: Should Terrybe applied to cases involving detention of luggage based on the polices
reasonable suspicion that it contains narcotics?
If so, did the police act reasonably in this case or were the 4th Amendment rights ofPlace violated?
3. Holding:When an officers observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage
that contains narcotics, the principle ofTerryand its progeny would permit the officer to detain
the luggage briefly to investigation the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that
investigative detention is properly limited in scope. The detention of respondents luggage in
this case went beyond the narrow authority possessed by police to detain briefly luggage
reasonably suspected to contain narcotics. Court of Appeals is affirmed.
4. Rationale: Where the authorities possess specific and articulable facts warranting a reasonable
belief that a travelers luggage contains narcotics, the governmental interest in seizing
the luggage briefly to pursue further investigation is substantial
When the police seizure luggage from the suspects custody the limitations applicable toinvestigative detentions of the person should define the permissible scope of an
investigative detention of the persons luggage on less than probable cause
-
7/30/2019 Crim Pro 4th Amend Briefs
27/27
27
Under this standard, it is clear the police conduct here exceeded the permissible limitsof a Terry-type investigative stop
Although the 90 minute detention of respondents luggage is sufficient to render theseizure unreasonable, the violation was exacerbated by the failure of the agents to
inform him of the place they were taking the luggage, the length of time they would
possess it, and of arrangements for the return of the luggage if nothing was found.