Bill of Right is first 10 amendments and within them contain provisions to the constitution through the 14th amendment.

The Bill of Rights was intended to apply to citizens in federal court not state.

Through selective inc. have some of the Bill of Rights been inc. not all. 

Exclusionary rule:

The E-Rule is not limited to violations of the 4th Amendment. It potentially applies to violations of other constitutional provisions. 

Under the E-rule evidence obtained illegally can be use against the defendant but not for incriminating circumstances.

In Weeks v. U.S the E-Rule was created.

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions:

• Independent Source Rule- if the fruit obtained in violation of 4th Amendment it cannot be use nor the other evidence it points to unless, other evidence obtain lawfully points to it. Inevitable Discovery Rule- We would have ultimately discovered the evidence through other means.
• In revocation hearing evidence can be used.
• Only in part of an indictment can illegal evidence be used
• In Harris v. NY (this goes for witness) can illegal evidence/confession be used in case in chief but to challenge creditability 

Other E-Rule Exceptions.

Cases

• U.S. v. Leon- Good Faith & Reasonable exception, unknown to police; evidence was stale but police didnt know and there was no reason for them to except it was. If evidence it STALE then warrant is defective. But if they were acting in Good Faith then it is accepted. 
• Ariz. v. Evans- Reliance on justice system records. Ex. if computer reads warrant and there is really not. The police were acting reasonable and didn't know.

FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES

Warrants, Seizures, and Arrest. 

• For a warrant to be issued there has to be Probable Cause. (evidence that points to a conclusion that a crime had been committed) 
• Reasonable suspicion- officers suspect that someone might be engaging in criminal activity
• Officer or Judge determines probable cause

• U.S. v. Arvizu- Near the border, reasonable suspicion is needed. 
• Police must knock and announce there presence (Wilson v. Arkansas) Exceptions: threat of physical violation, police are in pursuit of an escaped prisoner, evidence might be destoryed. 
• Payton v. NY- Police need a warrant, probable cause is not sufficient for arresting Payton inside his home. Outside all you need is probable cause

FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES

Warrants, Seizures, and Arrest. 

For felony arrest, all police need is probable cause.

For misdemeanor arrest, police need probable cause and must witness the crime. 

Deadly force can only be used on a fleeing felon if, there is a serious chance this person may harm police or comm.

Aguilar and Spinelli Test: consider the evidence and it is reasonable.. 

FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES

Warrants, Seizures, and Arrest. 

People

• Usually searches require warrant but there can br exceptions.
• Illinois v. Wardlow- Police can chase suspect if theres reasonable suspicion
• Chimel v. Calif.- Search incident to lawful arrest. Purpose is to find evidence the suspect may try to destroy and weapons he/she may use. This involves the direct area of the suspect. 

• Terry v. Ohio- a "Terry" stop is permitted when police have a reasonable suspicion that a person is committing or about to commit a crime. The purpose of the stop is to search for weapons
• Minn. v. Dickerson- Officer does pat down and felt what he thinks might be crack cocaine. He cannot put his hand in his pocket. Officer cannot do anything unless suspect says it is crack cocaine which now makes this probable cause and can constitute an arrest
• Known informant constitutes reasonable suspicion, unknown informant can be used with the observation of the crime.
• Florida v. J.L- Unknown informant alone does not give reasonable suspicion

FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES

Warrants, Seizures, and Arrest. 

People

Special Needs

• Vernonia School District v. Action- Random drug testing in schools. It is ok if justification is suspectionless. Public school students have diminished rights
• Ferguson v. City of Charleston- city hospital maternity wards, hospital worked w/police to do random drug testing on women. SC said unconstitutional

• U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez - international borders searches, coming across a border people are subject to routine searches on anything
• EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- what kind of problem will cause a delay.
• Cupp v. Murphy- Husband voluntarily came to police station. Police notice he had dry blood under his finger nails . No violation of 4th Amendment 

• Schimerber v. Calif- blood test for DUI arrestee, OK.
• Winston v. Lee- Police wanted to do surgery on the robber to find out what kind of bullet it was. This is not ok w/o warrant. 

SEARCHES OF PLACES

• plainview rule- things that are in plainview, may be looked at w/o a warrant as long as police in a place they are permitted to be. 
• As long as police are inside a dwelling and in a location lawfully, they may seize contraband in plainview as long as there is probable cause

• California v. Greenwoods- Abandon trash is consider abandon property. Therefore, police don't need warrant. Privacy Expectation is removed
• Arizona v. Hicks- people need probable cause to search anything not listed in the warrant. Ex. Stero Equipment cannot be moved around to check serial #
• Minn v. Dickerson- feeling what you think might be crack cocaine is not probable cause
• Bond v. U.S.- Government officials were feeling bags on a bus looking for drugs. Police are not allowed to do this

SEARCHES OF PLACES

Checkpoints/Roadblocks

• MI Dept of State Police v. Sitz- Drunk driving check points are illegal in Mich.
• City of Indiann. v. Edmond- Drug check points is unconstitutional 
• Illinois v. Lister- witness an accident. Police set up roadblock at an intersection briefly stopping motorists. This is ok
• New Jersey v. T.L.O- warrantless searches of lockers and student property is ok if reasonable. No warrant 

Searches of Places

• consent to searches- is a waiver or privacy rights
• for a waiver to be valid it must be voluntarily 

• Ohio v. Robinette- Police do not have to advise someone of there rights to say no, 4th amendment.
• U.S. v. Drayton- court look at bus passengers. Police do not need to inform them of rights of consent
• Stoner v. Calif. - hotel clerk has no authority to consent to a search of a guest room nor does owner.
• Georgia v. Randolph- If someone consent to a search but the other person denies, that persons right to consent triumphs 

Searches of Places

• Maryland v. Buie- (Protective Sweep) Police may look around in order to seek other suspects w/o probable cause. Extends Chimel
• Flippo v. W. Virginia- when there had been a murder police should be allowed to search dwelling w/o warrant. No, police should have warrant

Automobile Searches- low expectation of privacy

• Arizona v. Gant - Police may search car only if evidence of the offense is inside. Gant had been arrested for suspended license and he was out of car. 
• Calif. v. Acevedo- with probable cause police can search any part of the car and look in any containers
• South Dakota v. Opperman- Police may search impounded cars w/o warrant

Automobile Searches/ Borders

• U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte- Checkpoint stops at  international borders to search cars are ok. Suspicion-less seizures of motorists at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens are ok
• U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez- random searches of people and property at international borders are ok
• U.S. v. Arvizu- reasonable is required to justify singling out and stoppin a car near a international borders

Interrogation & Confessions

• Malloy v. Hogan- Self-incrimination (5th) incorporated in the 14th Amendment. Prior to 1964- SC look at this as due process, violating due process.
• Miranda v. Ariz.- people needed to be advised of their rights because if they waived them it has to be advised what they are waiving. Prior to custodial interrogations police must mirandize. 

When does Miranda apply?

• Calif. v. Behelor- Suspect came to police station voluntarily. No Miranda require
• Minn v. Murphy- Probation hearing. PO asks questions such as What have you been doing. SC says cohortion is not present so no miranda needed

• Illinois v. Perkins- undercover agent in jail cell. He talked to the suspect and the suspect confess to crime, no miranda needed. 
• Rhode Island v. Innis. - suspect was arrested and was put in back of the police car. He was given Miranda and asked for lawyer. Later cops engaged in convo about the weapon. Suspect gave location of gun. OK!