Term
|
Definition
officer had probable cause to believe front seat passenger possessed cocaine, either solely or jointly with other occupants (there were 3 men in car), cash in glove compartment and cocaine behind the backseat armrest and accessible to all three occupants. (upon questioning all three refused to offer info regarding ownership of cocaine or money).
This was not a 1/3 case, instead the officer had enough PC (50%) to believe D possessed either solely or jointly.
(but see mallory: condemning arrests in which one of three suspects was offender). |
|
|
Term
| When is probable cause required? |
|
Definition
1. Arrest (dunaway)
2. search or seizure, minus exceptions (Skinner)
3. PC is a prereq for plain view seizures (Hicks) |
|
|
Term
| probable cause definition |
|
Definition
| when the facts and circumstances with an officer's knowledge and of which she has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that (1) an offense has been committed; or (2)seizable evidence will be found in the place to be searched (Carroll) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
court has not quantified probable cause. PC standard does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct of more likely true than false, i.e. less than 1/2 (Texas v. Brown).
SCOTUS dictum suggests that PC is more than 1/3 (Mallory--condemning arrests at large in which one of three suspects were arrested in order to interrogate him).
***PC as a theoretical concept speaks to certainty at the 50% confidence level, however as a practical matter there is enough play in the concept for advocacy on either side to win a few points at the margin. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Plain view: no "seizure" occured when police recorded serial numbers of stereo equipment he observed in plain view, but (2) officer's actions of moving equipment to locate serial numbers constituted a "search", which had to be supported by PC, notwithstanding that officer was lawfully present in apartment where equipment was located.
more info: police entered D's apartment because a bullet was fired through D's floor into apartment below, injuring a person. police entered on an exigency basis. officers saw stereo, believed it to be stolen, but lacked PC for seizure.
incriminating nature of stereo was not immediately apparent (for plain view). If the officer moved the stereo to look for a gun, the search would have been justified. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| police removed paper on dashboard to see VIN number. Was a "search" but was sufficiently unintrusive to be constitutionally permissible, thereby justifying officer's seizure of weapon found protruding from underneath driver's seat. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| search incident to arrest (home): warrantless search of D's entire house incident to arrest is unreasonable. (extends beyond D's person and area from which he might have obtained a weapon, "grabbing area"). no warrant required for grabbing area, thus search of room ok. |
|
|
Term
| search incident to arrest in car |
|
Definition
Belton (1981): officer may search passenger compartment and examine contents of any container found in passenger compartment whether container is open or closed.
Thorton (2004): officers may search vehicle or a person arrested outside vehicle if they were a recent occupant.
Gant (2008): Search incident to arrest is limited to where arrest occurs in automobile. no warrant required |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
exigency: no need for warrant.
if police have PC to believe if they don't enter immediately (1) evidence will be destroyed; (2) suspect will escape; (3) harm will occur. (MN v olson).
also hot pursuit |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
extends privacy to overnight guests. Overnight social guests have reasonable expectation of privacy (also hotels)
(but see MN v Carter: does not extend to business acquaintances) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| No expectation of privacy to business acquaintances. those in another person's apartment for a short period of time. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| if arrest is made outside of home, cannot search home incident to arrest. (may enter in objectively apparent emergency to immediately address emergency conditions). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| police may prevent homeowner from entering property as a seizure permitted under exigency exception. preventing D entry while waiting for a search warrant. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
police justified in entering home without a warrant, under exigency exception, as they believed an occupant was seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury. (when they have an objectively reasonable basis that entry is necessary to prevent violence and restore order).
(officers heard fighting and yelling, saw fighting). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
compact searches: cannot fully search others not listed on warrant. For weapons only under terry IF there is reasonable suspicion they may have a weapon. (warrant for tavern and bartender, cannot search patrons). search not covered by warrant, not covered by terry without RS.
except maybe in a home, because a private home does not attract casual visitors off the street (thurman), still weapons only? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
it is constitutionally reasonable to require homeowner to remain while officers execute a valid search warrant of his home.
(1) avoid risk an occupant might leave with the evidence sought.
(2)to reduce the risk of bodily harm to the officers or others.
(3) to facilitate the search by inducing occupant to open locked containers. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Arrest does not justify four day warrantless search. (the fact a homicide occurred there did not give rise to such exigent circumstances to justify four day warrantless search).
***the fact D had been arrested did not lessen his privacy interest in his apartment.
warrant does not extend to all persons and personal effects at the crime scene. no generalized evidentiary search authority, but police may conduct a protective sweep. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
protective sweep: 4A permits properly limited protective sweep, incident to in-home arrest, when officer reasonably believes the area may harbor individual posing danger to officers.
not an evidentiary search, but officers may seize items in plain view. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
protective search for weapons of passenger compartment during lawful investigatory stop is reasonable.(extends Terry to cars)
(hour was late, rural area, D drove into ditch, D appeared intoxicated, D was not frisked until officers observed a large knife in interior of car D ws about to reenter). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| suspicionless searches of parolees does not violate 4A (CA law requires all parolees to agree to be subjected to search or seizure at anytime). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| protationers: warrantless search of D's apartment supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by D's probation agreement was reasonable. Does not violate 4A. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| cell phones of public employees: still has reasonable expectation of privacy, but violation of same was appropriate under a special needs analysis. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
drug tests with law enforcement purposes: a search without warrant or PC may be constitutional when "special needs" other than the normal need for law enforcement provide sufficient justification.
(tested suspected woman seeking medical care for cocaine. positive allowed gov to threat (or prosecution) to compel woman to accept treatment) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| drug test without law enforcement purposes: upheld drug testing of students participating in extracurricular activities. (drug testing was not related to a criminal investigation, results not turned over to police. This lessened the invasion of privacy). |
|
|
Term
| plain view definition and requirements |
|
Definition
evidence may be seized if is in plain view and officer is lawfully present. (1)officers observe property from a lawful vantage point
(2) officer has a lawful right of physical access to the property from the lawful vantage point (officer may see weed on window sill from lawful vantage point, gives PC to seize the plant, but does not justify a warrantless entry of the house to seize it).
(3) the incriminating nature of the property is immediately apparent when viewed and there is PC to seize. (see Hicks) |
|
|
Term
| four ways an officer may arrive at the lawful vantage point. |
|
Definition
1. item may be discovered during a search justified by a warrant.
2. item may come into view during an in-home arrest pursuant to a warrant
3. item may be discovered by an officer during a search justified under an exception to the warrant requirement.
4. officer's view of item may arise from activity that does not constitute a search or seizure and therefore falls outside 4A restrictions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
reliable anonymous tipsters: "totality of the circumstances" test (according to lassiter, TOC is not a test at all, but a margin of error)to determine if (hearsay) tip establishes PC. (objective facts reported and corroborated must provide a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing).
(PC for warrant to search house and car was established by anonymous letter indicating D was involved in criminal activity and predicting future criminal activities where major portions of the letter's predictions were corroborated by information from federal agents).
replaced aguilar-spinelli two prong test: (1)credibility of the information (2)credibility of the informant. detail establishes credibility of the information, corroboration could establish both. evaluating corroboration by inquiring (1) facts revealing the tipsters knowledge, and (2) facts establishing either the veracity of the information in general , or the reliability of the informant's report.
Gates formula
(who, what, when, where, why, how) + informant ID
______________________
6
if greater than 1/2 = PC
if less than 1/2, no PC
expample
(sue gates (1) + travels to FL (2) + May 3 (1) + drives down and flies back (1)) + anonymous informant (0) = 4
4/6 is greater than 1/2, thus = PC |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
unreliable anonymous tipsters:
(tip that young black males at a bus stop, wearing plaid, was carrying gun lacked sufficient indicia of reliability)tip provided no predictive information to provide police with means to test informant's knowledge or credibility.
not even reasonable suspicion for terry stop. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| approved anticipatory warrants as meeting particularity requirements and not different in kind from ordinary warrants (the same warrant requirements apply). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| requires magistrate neutrality and detachment: warrant issued by AG (chief enforcement agent of state) who was actively in charge of investigation and was later to be key prosecutor...warrant was invalid. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
particularity/search pursuant to facially defective warrant: (1) search warrant that failed to describe the persons or things to be seized was invalid on its face, (notwithstanding that it was particularized on the warrant application).
search pursuant to facially invalid warrant could not be regarded as being "reasonable"
also, qualified immunity from civil liability for search pursuant to defective warrant and the good faith exception demand the same objective reasonableness of officers (if not reasonable, not immune) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
challenging factual assertions in a warrant: where D makes a substantial preliminary showing that false statement knowingly and intentionally (or with reckless disregard) was included in warrant affidavit, and IF false info was necessary to find PC, 4A requires a hearing at D's request. If at evidentary hearing D establishes by preponderance of the evidence that without false info there was no PC, search warrant must be voided and fruits excluded as if PC was lacking on its face.
applies to where officer lies, but not where nongovernment informant lies (because good faith) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| refusing to identify informant not violative of due process clause or D's right to confrontration. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
4A does not allow blanket exception to knock-and-announce requirement
to justify no-knock, police must have reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or would inhibit effective investigation of crime by, for example, allowing destruction of evidence (see hudson) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| justifiable no-knock: allowed when circumstances present a threat of physical violence, or there is reason to believe evidence would likely be destroyed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| brief interval following knock-and-announce: 15-20 seconds (and use of force-battering ram) was reasonable given exigency of possible destruction of evidence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| reasonable mistakes do not invalidate warrant: (1) fact that search warrant was broader than appropriate because it was based on mistaken belief there was only one apartment on third floor did not invalidate warrant; (2) whether warrant was interpreted as authorizing search of entire third floor (or only apartment of third party), search of D's apartment by mistake was valid because objective facts available to officer at the time suggested no distinction between third party's apartment and third-floor premises. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 4A requires warrant for (nonconsensual) entry into home to make routine felony arrest.(absent exigent circumstances) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Search warrant required to arrest in home of third party. (officers cannot search for subject of arrest warrant in home of third party)
the arrest warrant inadequate safeguard of a third party's independent 4A right to privacy in his home. (without search warrant, police could search all the homes for suspect--potential for abuse).
however, if a guests stays for long he becomes a resident (mn v olson) and the arrest warrant entitles cops to search the home for him under payton. Or if the home is frequented by fugitives (mn v carter) then no expectation of privacy exists in the home. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
search warrant not required to arrest business guests in third party home. (D was in another person's apartment for a short time to package cocaine, had no legitimate interest of privacy in apartment, thus any search which may have occurred did not violate their 4A rights).
(but see MN v olson: extending privacy expectations to overnight guests) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| absent exigent circumstances, officers' warrantless entry into D's apartment, and their arrest and search of D violated 4A. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
no warrant required for felony arrest in public if there's PC:
based on reliable information there was PC for arrest, warrantless arrest in restaurant was valid (watson applies to commercial building open to public) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| misdemeanor arrests: warrantless arrest for misdemeanor did not violate D's 4A rights |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| technology information gathering: particularity requirement was met by specifying the telephone to be tapped, not limited to the user under suspicion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| full search of person incident to arrest allowed. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| later search incident to arrest/searching rooms D goes to: (campus police saw D drinking and suspected him to be underage. D went to his room to get his ID. from the doorway officer saw weed. The officer was allowed to enter and search (even though arrest made outside) because 4A permits police to "remain literally at the elbow at all times". D voluntarily returned to his room, thus entry was permitted. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Warrant required for misdemeanor arrest in home--no exigency exception for misdemeanors (including DUI and based on metabolism of the alcohol). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| purpose of requiring warrant is so magistrates who are neutral and detached are more likely to make legitimate probable cause determinations than are the police officers who may be biased because they are engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| person standing in doorway then went into house. D was standing in a public place (doorway) because it was in open view, as such she was exposed to view, speech, hearing and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house. court justified arrest on basis of hot pursuit. |
|
|
Term
| totality of circumstances (according to lassiter) |
|
Definition
TOC is not a test for drawing fine distinctions; it is not really a test at all. TOC sets the margin of error in decision making but does not act as a test to set a line.
TOC does not permit consistent bright line rule, but promotes ad hoc decisions.
should be called TOC analysis (not test). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
struck down easedrop statute on 7 grounds:
(1) was not specific with respect to the crime under investigation, place to be searched, or conversations to be seized
(2)statute permitted seizure of all conversations of persons coming into an area for a 2 month period without regard for their connection to the crime under investigation
(3)2 month period was de facto voided requirement of prompt execution
(4) 2 month period could be extended for "public interest" rather than PC
(5) no provision for termination of the seizure (oral intercept) once the conversation sought was heard
(6) no requirement of notice to persons whose conversations were seized nor any reasonable substitute
(7) provided for no return on the warrant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
wiretaps: although specific to person, does not require police to vacate their listening post when others present within the household used the phone.
(although authorization goes to the person, execution goes to the telephone)
see also katz (public phone booth)conversations are an extension of persons, there is a heightened expectation of privacy. |
|
|
