Find study materials for any course. Check these out:
Browse by school
Make your own
To login with Google, please enable popups
To login with Google, please enable popups
Don’t have an account?
To signup with Google, please enable popups
To signup with Google, please enable popups
Sign up withor
Applies to non-citizens living in US, Regardless of immigration paper statute. Protects a person who is hear voluntarily
Drug lord arrested in Mexico – no 4th because he never chose to be among the people. To be “of the people” must have developed sufficient connection with the country
Underpinnings of Olmstead have been so eroded by subsequent decisions that it should be overruled.
Court says it is a search, 4th protects people and not places, Phone booth has “reasonable expectation of privacy”
Rule – no reasonable expectation of privacy in an “open field”. Katz does not apply to open fields.
Court Concluded the barn lay outside the curtilage so it was not a search
If within curtilage then it is arguable 4th Amendment applies
Dissent – Barn is within curtilage; within intimate activities of the house
Court considers 4 Factors in deciding whether barn was within curtilage
Warrantless aerial observation of a person's backyard did not violate the 4th Amendment. D had Actual expectation of privacy because of the fence, but not an expectation that society provides as reasonable. Plane flew in publically navigable airspace and was physically non-intrusive. Any member of public could fly in plane and see the yard
Court finds it was not a search: Not a reasonable expectation of privacy, no disruption of property. Court stops short of saying all flyovers are not violations.
By obtaining through sense enhancing technology details about interior of a home that could not be obtained w/o the device is a search
No actual expectation of privacy because exposing to public. Not an expectation society recognizes as reasonable
Rule – no actual expectation and no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash
D Assumed the risk of talking to an informant.
Court writes that there should not be constitutional barriers between witness snitch testimony and the witness who wears a wire
Not prepared to hold that a defendant who has no constitutional right to exclude informer’s unaided testimony has a 4th privilege,
One contemplating illegal activities must realize and risk that his companions be informants.
Based on totality of circumstances, including Reliability and truthfulness and basis of knowledge
SC: Facts add up to probable cause and informant had facts right except that woman and man drove back together
In determining PC: Consider the Totality of circumstances. In PC Cases, Substantial deference should be given to trial court but review is technically de-novo
i. 2 witnesses suggest Boyd was involved
ii. Probable cause to search Boyd who is an inmate
Andersen v. MD
(Warrants: Specificity of Offense Listed)
Mistakes in warrant: Got warrant for entire floor but there were two apartment on the floor
Police cites him for traffic violation instead of arrest, but the proceeded to do search
Court says there has to be an arrest to have search incident to arrest
1. Item must be seen by the officer
2. Officer must be legally present in the place from which the item is seen
3. Must be immediately apparent that the item is subject to seizure.
4. Inadvertance (accidentaly seeing it) unless warrant is present
AZ v. Hicks
(Plain View Doctrine: Items seized Lacked Apparent Criminal Nature)
Carroll v. US
1. Pulled petitioner over and cut open seats and found alcohol
2. This was a search—was it okay w/o a warrant?
3. Had probable cause to search the whole car
4. Reasonable to search the car because there was probable cause
The police are allowed to inventory an impounded car if the procedure is designed to:
Consent was voluntary under totality of the circumstances
Content of suspicion failed to support the degree of the search in this case
Police are allowed to knock on door so court said they did not create the exigency.
1. Is it a search? Katz / Jones
2. Is it a seizure? Mendenhall
3. If neither, then no 4th Amendment protection.
United States v. Sharp – 30-40 minute delay did not exceed what was allowed because respondent made it difficult
Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District of Nevada
(Arrests due to refusal of suspect to identify himself)
1. Anonymous tipster indicates someone. D does not give his name while stopped, gets arrested
2. Can arrest suspect stopped on reasonable suspicion if he refuses to identify himself
United States v. Aruizo
(Possibility of Innocent Conduct and Reasonable Suspicion)
Issue: Was there reasonable suspicion?
Motion Sensor was set off by minivan and it slowed from 55 mph to 30mph
Court unanimously agreed it was reasonable suspicion.
Need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct
Nervous evasive behavior is a pertinent factor
Issue: Does a person have standing to sue for violation of 4th Am rights if the intrusion was into the home of a TP?
Court: D lacks standing. Trip was brief, and only for business, they weren't really guests.
Defendant was arrested in connection w/ missing girl.
Defendant questioned illegally and body was found
Court admitted evidence because the body would have eventually been discovered anyways
Police found evidence of gambling but put evidence back and informed supervisors
Issue: Was decision to talk to former employee the fruit of the poisonous tree?
Court says it is reluctant to invoke the Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine against a live witness as
Exclusion would silence the witness
United states v. Leon
(Good Faith Exception: Superficially Valid Warrants)
Police got warrant and made arrest but the warrant was later found to be invalid
Court says exclusionary rule isn’t deterring them
Don’t need warrant for good faith as long as you are relying on case law; statute (exception)
1. Knowing falsity
2. Not a neutral magistrate
3. Clear lack of probable cause
4. Facially invalid Good Faith
Herring v. United States
(Computer Error and Good Faith Exception)
1. Computer terminal wrongfully informed officer that driver had an outstanding warrant
2. Good faith reliance on computer and no deterrence will occur so the exclusionary rule does not apply.
Confession must be voluntary, Coercion makes a confession invalid
Inducements, promises, threats, and lies.
Length of interrogation and whether defendant was deprived of basic bodily function
The use of force and threats of force
Characteristics of the accused: Age, education, mental condition
Voluntariness is not a question of fact for jury. It is a question of law to be decided by the court.
Arizona v. Fulimante
(Voluntariness of confessions; credible threats of violence)
D's Daughter was murdered, he confessed to FBI informant who promised to protect him while he was in prison.
Court: Coercion can be mental or physical. Court found a credible threat of violence and that D's “free will was overcome by the coercion”
Colorado v. Connelly
(Requirement of coercive police activity)
Connelly confessed to officer on street about a murder, “voices in head” told him to confess. Mental illness interfered w/ his free willCourt:: No coercive police activity and this is necessary to find a confession is not voluntary
JDB v. North Carolina
(When age may be considered for custody evaluation re: Miranda)
D was taken to office at school but uniformed officers and was interrogated by officers
Age is allowed because it was objectively apparent to a reason officer at the time of questioning
Consider: What would a reasonable person of same age do in that situation? No reason for courts to blind themselves to the common sense reality that children feel like they must submit
RULE: So long as age is known or estimated it may be considered
Beckemer v. McCarthy
(When can traffic stops become custody for purposes of Miranda)
Car was swerving and officer pulled him over. Failed sobriety tests. Suspect admits to use of alcohol and marijuana.
Miranda is required for questioning on misdemeanors regardless of nature of the offense
It is possible that a traffic stop could not be custody, if the stop exceed the bounds of Terry stop
In this case, the stop did not become custody.
i.e. Direct questions or functional equivalent, which are either objectively designed to elicit an incriminating response from defendant, or Any words or actions by the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
Subject was not aware he was speaking to law enforcement so no coercion or intimidation
When a deliberate two-step interrogation is used there must be curative measures taken before subsequent confessions are admissible
Police gave him form to waive rights and he did not want to sign the form. Says he would talk but would not sign form; then he made incriminating statements
A waiver of Miranda rights may be implied through the defendant's silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver
a. Amount of time (not continuous)
b. Different crime discussed
c. New warnings
d. Was right to remain silent scrupulously honored?
Right to counsel does not cease after suspect has consulted w/ counsel, counsel must be allowed to be present at subsequent interrogations
Brewer v. Williams
(De Facto Questioning after right to counsel has been invoked)
Arrested for murder of 10 year old girl, called lawyer in Des Moines and tells Davenport lawyer to make sure defendant does not say anything. During travel, cop guilt trips D into revealing location of body, other evidence, despite warning.
Court finds that the speech was improper psychological coercion which the cop was warned not to conduct.
Montejo v. Louisiana
(Waiver of right to counsel, when D never actually meets counsel)
1. Defendant had counsel appointed but never asked or met w/ counsel
2. He was approached in his cell and he confessed: was waiver invalid?
3. No request for counsel so no presumption waiver was invalid
4. Can use other facts to show waiver was invalid à coercion, etc.
5. Request or appointment do not create presumption of an invalid waiver
Sign up for free and study better.
Get started today!