navarette v. california argued january 21, 2014. fourth amendment text the right of the people to be...
DESCRIPTION
Fourth Amendment Text 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.TRANSCRIPT
Navarette v. CaliforniaArgued January 21, 2014
Fourth AmendmentText
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.
Fourth AmendmentText
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.
Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio
Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio
“[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for 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.”
Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio
“[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for 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.”
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.
Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio
“[T]here must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for 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.”
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.
Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio
Probable Cause = Search
No Probable Cause = No Search
Fourth AmendmentTerry v. Ohio
Probable Cause = Search
No Probable Cause &No Reasonable Suspicion = No Search
Something less than Probable Cause= Abbreviated Search
Reasonable SuspicionThe Standard
Specific and articulable facts that allow rational inferences that suspect is engaged in criminal activity
ReasonableSuspicion:
Reasonable SuspicionTips
When can tips provide reasonable suspicion?
Issue:
Reasonable SuspicionTips
When can tips provide reasonable suspicion?
Issue:
Veracity, Reliability, & Basis of Knowledge
Balance:
Reasonable SuspicionTips
Tip: anonymous letter with predictions and assertions of wrongdoing Court: totality test; PC where predictive and corroborated
Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213 (1983)
Tip: anonymous call with predictions and assertions of wrongdoing Court: RAS once corroborated by police
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 2325 (1990)
Tip: anonymous call with observationCourt: no RAS unless corroboratedPossible Exception: bomb
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
Reasonable SuspicionTips
Rule: detailed tip + predictions (of criminal wrongdoing) + corroboration of predictions is sufficient
Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213 (1983)
Rule: prediction + corroboration can suffice (even where facts are benign)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 2325 (1990)
Rule: corroboration of innocent, readily available (non-predictive) facts is not enough
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
Rule: anonymous tip of drunk driving is enough, no need for corroboration (relied on J.L. bomb dicta)
People v. Wells., 38 Cal.4th 1078 (2006)
Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?
Is there reasonable suspicion to stop a car where an anonymous 911 call alerts police that a silver Ford F-150 had run a vehicle off the road at mile marker 88 on southbound Highway 1, where police were unable to corroborate any wrongdoing?
Issue:
Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?
Identity of Tipster?:(White)
Detailed?:(Gates)
Criminal Wrongdoing?:(White, Gates)
Corroborated?:(White)
“Bomb” Exception?:(J.L. Dicta)
Predictive?:(White, Gates)
Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?
Identity of Tipster?:(White)
Detailed?:(Gates)
Criminal Wrongdoing?:(White, Gates)
Corroborated?:(White)
“Bomb” Exception?:(J.L. Dicta)
Predictive?:(White, Gates)
“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. We do not say, for example, that a report of a person carrying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability we demand for a report of a person carrying a firearm before the police can constitutionally conduct a frisk.” (J.L., 529 U.S. at 273–74).
Navarette v. CaliforniaReasonable Suspicion?
In the case of a tip, does the underlying crime matter, and if so, is it an exception to reasonable suspicion for extreme events, or is to be balanced with the indicia of reliability?
Question:
Navarette v. CaliforniaThe Parties’ Positions
Weigh veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge; extreme examples (i.e., bombs) are exceptions
Navarette:
Weigh veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge, should be balanced against the strength of the government interest in making the stop
California:
Navarette v. CaliforniaThe Parties’ Positions
Navarette:
Reliable Tip =OK
No Reliable Tip = Not OK
Reliable Tip + Strong Gov’t Interest = OK
No Reliable Tip = Not OK
Weak Tip + Strong Gov’t Interest OR Strong Tip + Weak Gov’t Interest = OK
California:
**“Bomb” Exception = Maybe OK
Navarette v. CaliforniaOral Argument
TEST YES RAS MAYBE RAS NO RAS
Navarette Assess veracity, reliability, & basis of knowledge (NO severity of offense, but maybe exception)
• Atomic bomb given by Al-Qaeda, headed to LA
• Throwing bombs out the window
• 911 call w/name and address
• Kidnapped child in the trunk
California Weigh veracity, reliability, & basis of knowledge against severity of offense
• X vehicle is driving “recklessly”
• X vehicle cut someone off
• Ran someone off the road, police follow for 30 minutes but see no signs
• Vehicle is speeding• Seatbelt Violation• Guy had one drink in the
bar• Teenager on street with a
gun
Federal Gov’t
Similar to California • Changing lanes w/out a signal
• Cutting someone off
• Seatbelt violation• Rolling stop at stop sign