Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

4th Amendment Unreasonable searches and seizures: Modern Seizure: US v.

Seizure: US v. Medenhall: factors give rise to Probable Cause: TEST Arrest : whether at
courts view 4th amendment as serving one primary function: Reasonable belief one not free to leave: A. time of arrest; facts and circumstances within
limiting the discretion of police and government agents to violate threatening presence of several officers, B cop’s knowledge, and of which they have
liberty, privacy, and possessory rights. It limits discretion by display of weapon by officer, physical touching trustworthy info, would warrant a reasonable
requiring a significant degree of justification before police can by cop; C. use of language or tone of voice prudent man in believing that the suspect had
intrude on one of those rights. indicating compliance with cop request might be commited or was committing a crime. Must
KATZ: does person have reasonable expectation of privacy in area compelled. CASE: no seizure agents no uni’s, articulate those facts in affidavit. TEST
being searched. Reasonable expectation of what he said on the displayed no weapons, approached her but no SEARCH: same as above but would warrant
phone in a phone booth. 4th proctects people, not just places. summoned her to them, requested did not a reasprudent in believing that what/where is
Factors considering Search: A. Location(most important) Open demand id and ticket, took place in airport. FL v. being searched harbors contraband, fruits,
fields(unoccupied and undeveloped areas even if enclosed and Bostick: guy on bus from Mia to ATL, county evidence, or instrumentalities of crime.
posted with no trespass) have no 4th protection. Activies on practive to board and ask passengers to search INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION
cartilage(adjacent areas to and intimately connected with home bags. 2 cops with bages one had zipper pouch REQUIREMENT: generally required for PC
are protected cause ReasonExpectofPriv. with gun. Eye passengers without articulable search and seize: that THIS suspect is guilty
US. v. DUNN: Open field v. Curt test: a. areas proximity to the suspicion pick out def asked for ID. Id matched of crime, or That THIS PLACE harbors
home(barn 50 yards from fence surrounding house and 60 from ticket, asked for consent to look in bag, informed contraband, fruits, etc. FACTS AND
house itself); b. Area’s ability to be distinct from the home(barn of right to refuse, did not threaten with gun. US CIRCUMSTANCES: must be ones cop is
was outside the fenced in area surrounding the fence, distinct v. Drayton agents board bus at rest stop. No aware of at time of S/S. Cops experience a
portion of ranch separate from house. Fence served to demark uni’s, weapons concealed. Aisle left clear, but factor. MD v. PRINGLE: cop stops for
area connected to house; c. The use to which areas was made; one in front. Two others start at back of bus. speeding. Sees cash in glove box when guy
used as a drug lab which is not something fairly characterized with Went to def, held bagde to see, 12-18” from opens to get ID. Cops asks to step out. Finds
activites and privacies of domestic life like that cops should have face, loud enough to hear. Id said doing bus coke under armrest. None would claim, cop
deemed barn as part of house; d. steps taken to prevent person interdiction, DO U HAVE BAGS. Can check? Go arrests all 3 occupants. Pringle not driver who
from observing what lay with area: interior fences were not made ahead. Noticed baggy clothes, in his experience consented to search. So at time of arrest did
to prevent people from peering in. Someone in open field could consistent w/ drug traff to conceal. Ask mid if he have PC. YES PC must be belief of guilt
easily see in. check person, detected hard object similar to that is particularized to the infor and
Assumption of Risk: False Friend Doctrine: whether individual drug packs. Arrested. DEF seized before consent. individual searched or seized.
assumed risk that certain info will not be kept private NO factors of seizure present. After 1st seized REASONABLE COP, facts of case at time of
NOREOFPRIV. Speaker assumes risk of reciepient disloyalty. should put 2nd on notice of consequence of not d’s arrest amount to PC. Focus on
Wearing recording device does not violate 4th: assume risk terminating encounter. HOW TO KNOW IF accessibility of drugs to d. Reasonable
someone will snitch, but risk must materialize: if friend is listening ARREST OR STOP : USE 2 FACTORS: Length of inference that one or all 3 occupants could
to you and police record, but fried never tells police then cant use detention and place of detention. LENGTH: must have knowledge of and exercise dominon and
it. Pen Registers: records numbers dialed from phone: Pen be no longer than is necessary to conduct control over drug. CONSTRUCTIVE
registrey not search because individuals using their tele voluntarily investigation that justified the stop. USvSharpe: POSSES: proximaty to item, knowledge that
convey numerical info to phone company thus assume risk comp 20 min detention a stop during it cops deligently item is there, indicia of intent to exercise
dominion and control. Proximity alone is
will reveal info to police. Electronic tracking device Person pursuing investigation. USvPlace: 90 min detain
sufficient. Court focused on accebility:
travelling in a car on public roads has no reasonable expectation of of suitcase to long. Longer detained more likely
Money in front of Pringle, bags of drug
privacy in his movements, cause they are open to public. arrest. PLACE: detention must remain in vicinity
accessible to all three. NOT LIKE
Usv.Karo: beeper used to reveal activies inside a private of the stop. FL v. Royer: 15 min stop arrest b/c
YBARRA: dude in bar cops search for
residence, location not open to visual surveillance; that use man taken from airport to office 40ft away.
evidence of owner controlled substance and
invaded REASEXPRIV, beeper enabled police to determine what Suspect forcibly taken to police station is arrest.
find drug. A person mere propinquity to
they otherwise could not have known. Aerial Survelliance: ARREST: must be reasonable: 1.
others independently suspected of crime
CAvCiraolo even though plants in cartilage, no REASONEXPPRI Seriousness of the offense: authority to
doesn’t without more, rise toPC to seach.
against airborne observations. Cant expect no one will fly over arrest comes fro statue so each juris tells officers
Pring diff, small car not public tavern,
property and look down. Thermal Imaging devices: fed tip growing as to which offense arrestable. Minor crimes like
reasonable to infer a common enterprise
pot inside home requires high intense lamps. Feds use thermal traffic violations do give rise authority to arrest,
among 3 men, quantity of cash and drugs
imager scan for infared radiation. Certain areas more heat than even if warrantless, but parking violation indicated likelihood of drug enterprise. Not
others and more than surrounding houses. SEARCH takes place probably not. 2. Level of suspicion: need PC Like DIRE: informant in car with 2 others,
when gov agent employ device that is not in general public use to for full blown arrest which are highly intrusive cops search not only guy inform snitched on
explore details of home that would previously been unknowable seizures of person, as opposed to brief stop on but 3rd guy. Everyone on scene of crime is a
without phys intrusion. BONDvUS: 2prong test:1. indiv by conduct, street. 3. Warrant Required: Governed by party to it must disappear if Gov singles out
has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy:def had actual location of the action A. public(no)/ guilty. Davenpeck: officer state of
expect due to having opaque bag above his seat. 2. is expectation private(yes). In pub place can arrest on PC mind(except for facts he knows) irrelevant to
reasonable: def would expect luggage to be handled by w/o warrant. PC either you commiiting a crime PC. If cops have PC to arrest for one
passengers, doesn’t expect them to feel the bag in exploratory. or just commited a crime. No REASEXPPRIV in thing(impersonating) but at time of arrest
Property relevant factor but not dispositive, less exp if not your pub. B. target’s home or overnight guest(no believe violating something else, still valid
car, no search police look at previously protected prop in which SearchW required): if police have arrest even though though arrested and intended to
owner voluntarily relinquished her proprietary interest. Social warrant for me and I’m in my home, they don’t charge with difference offense.
Custom GEUST: reasonable Exp if overnight guest, visitor no REP. need an additional warrant to enter my home. Or COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE
Drug Sniff dog: sniff discloses only presence or absence of drugs, if overnight guest, cops don’t need SW to enter DOCTRINE: Says an officer can make an
only thing dog can detect. Not same as cop seached pocket cause home. The fact they have PC to arrest me, I arrest if the facts and circumstances giving
could have legal contraband. VANTAGE POINT: if standing where already have a exp of priv that will be intruded rise to probable cause are in his pers know
you are allowed to be, anything you see is fair game on. C. 3rd party home(SW and ArrestW OR if he is relying on a warrant or an order
SEIZURE: of Person: has been seized if Reasonable person, in light required) need warrant to enter home cuz from another officer or judge with probable
of surrounding circumstances TOTALITY OF CIR, would have invading 3rd party’s privacy. 4. Use of Force: cause. *Remember the cop with PC must
believed he not free to leave . 2 types: serious is arrest, less ser is force must be reasonable( reasonable cop on convey it!. c. Informant’s TIP – If PC
stop. Siez of Thing: interference with individual’s possessory scene) depending of circum of case: severity of is based (even in part) on a tip, then
interest in that property. TERRY STOP: to stop need crime, whether suspect poses an immediate analyze the creditability of the
REASONABLE SUSPECIION THAT CRIME IS AFOOT, no warrant threat to safety of officers or others, whether he informant and reliability of the
required, brief detention ok. Inchoate unparticularized suspicion or is actively resisting arrest of attempting to evade information in light of the totality of
Hunch is not RS, Cant make bold conclusion(must be suspicion arrest. UnREASONABLE to use deadly force to the circumstances. Use
that can be articulated by facts). MUST CONSIDER TOTALITY OF prevent escape of all felony suspect. ONLY TYPE agular/spinelli plus gates: 1. is
CIRCUMSTANCE: LOOKS AT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF FLEEING FELONG that can be shot are those the informant credible: was he likely
IDENTIFIED BY OFFICER AS WELL AS DEFERENCE TO OFFICERS who are demonstrably dangeruous(armed with a to be telling truth; 2. was
EXPERTISE IN INTERPRETING THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. weapon, fleeing a violent crime) HIDARI: person information reliable- was it likely to
If RS officer can investigate a bit further. IF stop doesn’t give rise not seized unless stop until physically seized by be telling the truth.
to PC free to go, if does proceed to arrest. TERRY FRISK: must officer or submits to a show of authority. Illinois v Gates: Police got a hand
follow valid Stop. Need reasonable suspecion that the suspect is Agular/spinelli plus gates: 1. is inform creditable: written letter from an anonymous
armed and dangerous, cop may do a pat down(frisk for weapons). was likely telling truth 2. is info reliable: likely person. It said a couple living at a
REAS: look to inferences drawn from facts in light of experience sound basis of knowledge: totality of cir: balance certain address driving a certain car
TERRY CASE: saw 3 mean go through acts innocent rel with credibility. would go to FL and get drugs. The
themselves, taken together warranted further STUFF ON STATEMENT CONT: brief informant described the events very
questioning on scene ex filed sobriety test to get specifically giving dates and
investigation; though daylight robbery, reasonable PC fo DUR, telling guy how test administered not everything. This would have gone
to assume involve weapons. US v. ARVIZU: border agent question. Long period of time between waiver to the reliability part. As far as
terry stop of can on AZ backroad. Agent claim RS occupants traffic and mirand might suggest overcome will. creditability, we don't know any
drug. App court says some facts consistent with innocent Knowing: suspects ability to understand the thing about the informant so we
behavior( no eye contact) some carry weight, minvans travel warnings and consequences of speaking. RIGHT cant make a creditability finding.
coincided with shift chage and prior use of back road minivan drug TO REMAIN SILENT: inherent pressure of police NEW TEST: Totality of
run. SCourt says: quite reasonable driver slowing down and not dominated setting, have while in custody, loose circumstances test which balances
making eye contact with agent might be unremarkable in one when leave custody Cops must scrupulously the reliability of the tip and the
instance(SF) quite unusual in another(remote protion of AZ honor. Cops cant initiate further after invoked creditability of the informant.
desert). Quantum of Evidence for RS: can be based on less without read Miranda again and have waived. CREDIBILTY PRONG: factors: a.
evidence than PC and less reliable than PC. Presence in high crime May question with relation to another offense. was tip against interest if implicated
area not enough to give rise, but if w/ nervous or evasive