Case Issue Rule

Powell v. Alabama Right to counsel In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to
employ counsel and is incapable of adequately
defending himself, the Due Process Clause requires that
effective counsel be appointed for him.

Patterson, Plaintiff v. Importance of Modern case showcasing the importance of procedures.

Former Chicago Police procedures
Lt. Jon Burge

Burlington & Quincy Incorporation The 14th Amendment prevents taking of property by the
Railroad Co. v. City of government without just compensation.
Chicago

Twining v. New Jersey  Incorporation The Supreme Court first expressly discussed applying the
Bill of Rights to the states through the process of
incorporation

Gitlow v. New York  Incorporation the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech
applies to the states through its incorporation into the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Duncan v. Louisiana  Incorporation The 14th Amendment due process guarantees the right
of a jury trial in all state criminal cases “which, were they
to be tried in federal court, would come within the 6 th
Amendment’s guarantee [of a jury trial].”

McDonald v. Chicago Incorporation The right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is a

fundamental right.

Williams v. Florida Incorporation states need not use 12-person juries in criminal cases.

Apodaca v. Oregon Incorporation States need not have a unanimous jury in a criminal trial.
and
Johnson v. Louisiana

Whorton v. Bockting Watershed rule Rule must implicate "fundamental fairness and
accuracy" of proceeding

Gideon v. Wainwright Right to counsel Criminal defendant have a right to counsel at trial in any
case where the sentence potentially includes
imprisonment.

Searches

Katz v. United States Reasonable Expectation Katz test: Did the government action violate a person's
(phone booth case) of Privacy (REP) subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy?
 The 4th Amendment protects a person from search
 and seizure if, under the circumstances, he has a
justifiable expectation of privacy, regardless of
whether an actual physical trespass occurred.

Oliver v. United States REP - Open Fields  No reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in
activities conducted outside in fields, except in the
(growing marijuana in area immediately surrounding the home (the
a field hidden from the curtilage).
public)  “The special protection of the Fourth
Amendment afforded to homes and curtilage is not
given to open fields and is not considered an
‘unreasonable search’.”

United States v. Dunn REP - Curtilage The question of the extent of curtilage should be
resolved with reference to 4 factors:
(drugs in barn) a. The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage
to the home,
b. Whether the area is included within an
enclosure surrounding the home,
c. The nature of the uses to which the area is put,
and
d. The steps taken by the resident to protect the
area from observation by people passing by.
(determine by process of elimination. If it's not the
house, and it's not the curtilage, then it's an open field)

California v. Ciraolo Aerial search (1000 ft.)  There is no REP in what a person knowingly exposes
to the public
(plane in navigable
airspace)

Florida v. Riley Aerial search  The Fourth Amendment does not require the police
(helicopter in traveling in the public airways at 400 feet to obtain a
navigable airspace) warrant to observe what is visible to the naked eye.

Kyllo v. United States Thermal imaging  Thermal imaging of the home is an intrusion subject
to 4th Amendment protection
(growing marijuana in  Where the government uses a device that is not in
attic; thermal imaging general public use to explore details of the home
of outside of home) that would previously have been unknowable
without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a
“search” and is presumptively unreasonable without
a warrant.

California v. Searches of trash There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what a

Greenwood person chooses to discard. (trash)

(trash can case)

United States v. Knotts Observation and  There is no expectation of privacy when driving on
Monitoring of public public roadways.
(tracking device in vat behavior  There is a lesser expectation of privacy when
led to cabin) traveling in an automobile. The dwellings
expectation of privacy did not extend to the police
observation of while watching from the air. Nothing
in the Fourth Amendment prohibits augmenting the
sensory faculties of birth with technological
enhancements.

United States v. Karo Observation and  The installation of a beeper in a container did not
Monitoring of public violate 4th Amendment protections.
(beeper in container behavior  The delivery of an electronic tracking device in a
left on into residence) container of chemicals to a buyer without
knowledge of the device does not violate the 4th
Amendment
 (not a search because it did not reveal intimate
details of the home)

Smith v. Maryland Observation and  Pen registers do not violate 4th Amendment
Monitoring of public protections; there is no reasonable expectation of
(pen register case) behavior privacy in numbers dialed.
 An individual does not harbor a legitimate
expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily
turns over to third parties.

U.S. v. Place (1983) Drug dogs The use of drug dogs in an airport is not a search.

Illinois v. Caballes Drug dogs  A dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop
does not violate the 4th Amendment where the dog
(stopped for speeding, sniff reveals no information other than the location of
2nd officer brought contraband.
drug dog)  Conducting a dog sniff does not change the
character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception
and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner.
 There is no REP in possessing contraband.

The Warrant Requirement

Carol v. U.S. Probable cause Ask whether "the facts and circumstances before the
officer are such to warrant a man of prudence and
caution in believing that the offense has been
committed."

Illinois v. Gates Sufficient belief for  A magistrate may issue a search warrant if the
probable cause “totality of the circumstances” presented in the
(hairdresser gave affidavit indicates probable cause for the search. The
information to police) (test: totality of the “veracity” and basis of knowledge” are highly
circumstances) relevant, but are not separate and necessary
elements of probable cause.
o Standard: a fair probability
 Test for probable cause: that there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
will be found in a particular place.
 Replaced Aguilar-Spinelli 2-prong test with totality of
circumstances to establish probable cause for
obtaining a warrant.

Aguilar-Spinelli Sufficient belief for 1. Veracity: is the informant credible?

probable cause 2. Basis of knowledge: Did the informant obtain
this information in a reliable way? (Was the
informant reliable?)

Maryland v. Pringle Sufficient belief for  A search or seizure of a person must be supported
probable cause by probable cause particularized with respect to that
(front seat passenger person.
arrested for cocaine in  The passenger of a vehicle, even if separated from
back seat) the drugs, has sufficient constructive possession of
drugs located in the vehicle to give rise to probable
cause for the passenger’s arrest.

Whren v. United States Probable cause -  The test for probable cause is objective and
objective test focuses on whether the reasonable officer could have
(unmarked car; found probable cause under the circumstances;
Defendant had drugs  The subjective intent of that officer does not
in lap) matter.
 The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable
where the police have probable cause to believe that
a traffic violation has occurred.

Andresen v. Maryland Form of the warrant  The warrant must describe items to be seized
 Evidence of crimes which relate to or are relevant to
(real estate; officers proving the crime under which a warrant is issued
seized extra files) may be validly seized under the warrant.

Groh v. Ramirez Form of the warrant  A warrant without a description of things to be

seized is invalid. (A warrant that fails to describe
(warrant didn’t with particularity the person or thing to be seized is
describe person or unreasonable and violative of the 4th Amendment.)
thing to be seized; it  The warrant itself must describe the things to be
was in an affidavit that searched and cannot be “saved” because of other
wasn’t taken with the documents unknown to the person whose home is
warrant) being searched nor available for her inspection.

Michigan v. Summers Executing a warrant Michigan v. Summers rule: officers executing a search
warrant for contraband have the authority "to detain the
 occupants of the premises while a proper search is
conducted."

Muehler v. Mena Executing a warrant  It is not a violation of the 4th Amendment to

handcuff residents of premises for the duration of a
(detained while house search of the premises for armed and dangerous
was searched; asked individuals and contraband.
about immigration  Questioning a suspect regarding immigration
status while detained) status is not a separate search where doing so does
not prolong the search.

Wilson v. Arkansas Executing a warrant -  A search or seizure of a dwelling that is otherwise

knock and announce reasonable might violate the 4th Amendment if
(drug warrant; police officers fail to “knock and announce” before
announce/no knock) entering.
 Under some circumstances, announcement is not
required since it could put officers in jeopardy when
defendants are known to possess a gun

U.S. v. Banks Executing a warrant -  Knock and announce

knock and announce  15 - 20 seconds is enough waiting time if officers
(note case) have reason to believe that waiting longer would
provide the opportunity for the suspects to destroy
contraband

Hudson v. Michigan Executing a warrant -  The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence
knock and announce gained after police violate the knock and announce
requirement.

Maryland v. Garrison Executing a warrant -  The warrant requirement of the 4 th Amendment

excusable mistake requires that the place to be searched must be described
(3rd floor apartment; with particularity to ensure a search does not become a
searched wrong one) wide-ranging, exploratory search.

Los Angeles County, Executing a warrant -  Officers searched a house on a warrant where
California v. Rettele excusable mistake subjects had moved three months prior to the
search.
(naked couple in bed)  When officers execute a valid warrant and act in
a reasonable manner to protect themselves from
harm, the Fourth Amendment is not violated, even
where innocent residents may experience frustration,
embarrassment, or humiliation.

Exceptions to the Warrant

 Three factors to analyze exceptions to the warrant: officer and public safety, destruction of evidence, the
need for a bright-line rule.
 Use the balancing test (governmental interest v. nature of the intrusion) for the analysis of the special
needs exceptions (balancing test applies when there is no suspicion)
 TLO/Quon test: legitimate purpose? -> justified at its inception? -> within the scope? (useful for when a
person is being targeted, whether it’s drug testing or reading pages)
Chimel v. California Exceptions to the  Grab area
warrant requirement -  When there is probable cause to search and
(coins case; “grab search incident to arrest there are exigent circumstances making it
area”) (SILA) “impracticable” to obtain a search warrant, a
warrantless search is reasonable under the 4th
Amendment.
 A search of the entire home without a warrant is
unreasonable.

Knowles v. Iowa Exceptions to the  Officers may not conduct a full search of a car
warrant requirement - and driver when the police elect to issue a citation
(citation, no arrest) search incident to arrest instead of making a custodial arrest.
(SILA)  A search incident to citation is unreasonable
when officers have no reasonable belief that their
lives are in danger or evidence relevant to the citation
is about to be destroyed.
 No search without arrest.

Warden, Md. Exceptions to the  The 4th Amendment is designed to protect privacy,
Penitentiary v. warrant - searches in and a search directed at purely evidentiary objects is
Hayden hot pursuit no more intrusive than one for instrumentalities of a
crime.
(hot pursuit; looking  As long as the requirements of the 4 th Amendment
for an armed man) are followed (i.e., probable cause and the
intervention of a neutral and detached magistrate)
there is no viable reason for maintaining the “mere
evidence” limitation.
 Hot pursuit is reasonable and not a 4 th Amendment
violation;
 Must be in pursuit of the suspect from the scene

Payton v. New York Exceptions to the  The 4th Amendment, made applicable to the
warrant - searches in states by the 14th Amendment, draws a firm line at
(NY statute that hot pursuit the entrance to the house.
violated const. rights;  Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold
went into house may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.
without D there)

Arizona v. Hicks Exceptions to the Incriminating character must be "immediately

warrant - plain view apparent."
doctrine (note case)

Coolidge v. New Exceptions to the Examples of the exception

Hampshire warrant - plain view 1. Police have a warrant to search a given area for
 doctrine (note case) specified objects, and in the course of the search
come across some other article of incriminating
character
2. Where the initial intrusion that brings the police
with in plain view of such an article is supported, not
by a warrant, but by one of the recognized
exceptions to the warrant requirement, the seizure is
also legitimate. (police come inadvertently come
across evidence while in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing
suspect)
3. An object that comes into view during a search
incident to arrest that is appropriately limited in
scope under existing law may be seized without a
warrant.
4. Where a police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.

Horton v. California Exceptions to the  Plain view doctrine

warrant - plain view  Seizing property not specified on a warrant but
(rings case) doctrine in plain view is permissible.
 There is no danger of officers using specific
warrants or exigent circumstances to conduct general
searches because the scope of the search is
proscribed by the warrant’s description of the place
to be searched or the exigencies which justify the
intrusion.

Minnesota v. Exceptions to the  Establishes the plain touch or plain feel doctrine
Dickerson warrant - plain view  If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s clothing
doctrine and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its
(crack rock in pocket identity immediately apparent, there has been no
during pat down; plain invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already
touch) authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.
 The officer cannot manipulate the item to determine
it is contraband. It’s incriminating nature must be
immediately apparent

Carroll v. U.S. Exceptions to the  Must have probable cause to believe contraband
warrant - automobile or evidence of crime in automobile search an
(note case) automobile

California v. Carney Exceptions to the  a motor home qualifies as a "motor vehicle" for
warrant - automobile purposes of the automobile exception to the
(motor home; sex for warrant requirement.
drugs)  The reasons the automobile exception applies to
motor homes:
1. Autos are inherently mobile and can be taken
 away before a warrant is issued
2. Autos, unlike homes, are subject to regulations
that lower the owner’s expectation of privacy.

California v. Acevedo Exceptions to the Police officers may search closed containers within an
warrant - automobile automobile without a warrant, pursuant to a valid search
(officers watched D of the vehicle. (i.e., the police may search without a
put a bag of marijuana warrant if their search is supported by probable cause)
in trunk)

New York v. Belton Exceptions to the  Per se rule allowing search of passenger
warrant - automobile compartment and any containers.
SILA  An extension of Chimel (grab area)

Thornton v. United Exceptions to the Belton rule applies to "recent occupants" of cars.
States warrant - automobile
SILA

Arizona v. Gant Exceptions to the Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent
warrant - automobile occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching
(suspended license; SILA distance of the passenger compartment at the time of
cocaine in pocket of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle
jacket in back seat) contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

South Dakota v. Exceptions to the The Fourth Amendment permits a routine police
Opperrman warrant - inventory inventory search of the closed glove compartment of a
search (special needs) locked automobile
(impounded car; found
marijuana in glove
box)

Illinois v. Lafayette Exceptions to the  It is reasonable, as part of the routine procedure

warrant - inventory incident to incarcerating an arrested person.
(arrestee in booking; search (special needs)  Police may search any container or article in his
drugs in cigarette box) possession, in accordance with established inventory
procedures.

United States v. Flores- Exceptions to the The Government's authority to conduct suspicionless
Montano warrant - border inspections at the border includes the authority to
crossings remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel
(border search; 81 lbs tank.
of marijuana in gas
tank)

United States v. Exceptions to the International mail may be searched when there is
Ramsey warrant - border reasonable cause to suspect that there is merchandise
crossings being imported contrary to law.
(heroine by mail)

United States v. Exceptions to the  The detention of a traveler at the border, beyond
Montoya-Hernandez warrant - border the scope of a routine customs search and
crossings and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs
(alimentary drug checkpoints agents, considering all the facts surrounding the
smuggler; drug mule) traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the
traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary
canal.
 Reasonable suspicion is required to go beyond the
scope of the search

Michigan Dept. of Exceptions to the Brief suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for
State Police v. Sitz warrant - checkpoints the purposes of combating drunk driving and
intercepting illegal immigrants are constitutional.
(sobriety checkpoint)

City of Indianapolis v. Exceptions to the Highway checkpoints for illegal drug activity are virtually
Edmond warrant - checkpoints indistinguishable from the general interest in crime
control, violating the Fourth Amendment. (look at
(vehicle narcotics intent)
checkpoint)

Schneckloth v. Exceptions to the  The State has to prove that consent was voluntary
Bustamonte warrant - consent based on the totality of circumstances, but it does
not have to prove that the suspect knew of his right
(driving brother’s car) to refuse consent.
 “Whether consent to a search was in fact voluntary
is a question of fact to be determined by the totality
of the circumstances, and while the person’s
knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken
into account, the prosecution is not required to
demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to
establishing a voluntary consent. “

Georgia v. Randolph Exceptions to the  A physically present co-occupant’s refusal to allow

warrant - consent entry prevails, and renders the warrantless search
(separated spouses) unreasonable and invalid as to him.
 Nothing independent of one co-occupant’s consent
– like need for protection inside the house – justifies
the search.

United States v. Exceptions to the  No more than reasonable suspicion is needed to

Knights warrant - a person on search a probationer’s home. (less than reasonable
probation suspicion might be enough, also.)
(probation; G & E fire)  The 4th Amendment does not limit searches pursuant
to such probation condition to those with a
“probationary” purpose.
 Probation, like incarceration, is a form of criminal
sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after
a verdict, finding, or plea of guilty. Inherent is the
 very nature of probation is that the probationers do
not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen
is entitled.

Samson v. California Exceptions to the  The 4th Amendment does not prohibit a police officer
warrant - a person on from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee.
(parolee in possession parole  Reasonableness is determined by balancing the
of Meth) degree to which a search intrudes upon an
individual’s privacy against the degree to which the
search promotes legitimate government interests.
Parolees are on a continuum of state-imposed
punishments, and have fewer expectations of
privacy than probationers, because parole is more
akin to imprisonment than probation.

Camara v. Municipal Special needs -  Where a citizen refuses to admit a housing inspector
Court of City and administrative searches into his home, the inspector must get a search
County of San warrant to inspect the dwelling.
Francisco  Probable cause for the search warrant to inspect a
building for code violations exists if reasonable
(Defendant refused legislative or administrative standards for conducting
inspection of house) an area inspection are satisfied with respect to the
building
 Probable cause need not depend upon specific
knowledge of the conditions of the particular
building.

New York v. Burger Special needs -   Administrative inspections of closely regulated

administrative searches businesses fall within an exception to the warrant
(auto junkyard) requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Safford Unified Sch. Special needs - drug   Reasonable suspicion of danger (risk vs.
Dist. #1 v. Redding testing intrusion)
 Reasonable suspicion that student hiding
(13-year-old suspected evidence or contraband in undergarments
of giving out o Scope: Means must be reasonably
Ibuprofen) related to objectives of the search
o Not excessively intrusive in light of the
age and sex of the student and the nature of
the infraction.

  Vernonia School Dist.  Special needs – drug Taking into account the decreased expectation of
47J v. Acton testing privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and
the severity of the need met by the search, we conclude
(athlete urine test; Vernonia's Policy [authorizing random urinalysis drug
parents refused to testing of students who participate in the District's
consent) school athletics program] is reasonable and hence
 constitutional.

  Board of Education of  Special needs – drug The district's requirement that all students who
Independent School testing participate in competitive extracurricular activities
District No. 92 of submit to drug testing serves the School District's
Pottawatomie County important interest in detecting and preventing drug use
v. Earls among its student so it is constitutional.

(extracurricular
activities urine test)

  Ferguson v. City of Special needs – drug Drug testing pregnant women when they enter the
Charleston testing hospital is unconstitutional because the purpose of the
drug test is ultimately indistinguishable from the general
(drug testing pregnant interest in crime control.
patient hospital
program)

  O'Connor v. Ortega  Special needs -  A government employer's warrantless search is

employer searches reasonable when
 conducted for non-investigatory, work related
purpose or (legitimate purpose)
 for the investigation of work related misconduct
if
1. It is justified at its inception
2. Measures adopted are reasonably
related to the objectives of the search
(scope)
3. Not excessively intrusive in light of the
circumstances giving rise to the search.
(scope)
(same language as TLO)
Legitimate purpose? -> justified at inception? -> within
scope?

  City of Ontario v.  Special needs - A search motivated by a legitimate work-related

Quon employer searches purpose, and not excessive in scope, is reasonable and
not a violation of an employee's 4th Amendment rights.
(SWAT member and
text messages; pen
register)

  Welsh v. Wisconsin Warrantless entry – An important factor to be considered when determining

exigent circumstances whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the
(wrecked car in open underlying offense for which the arrest is made.
field; driver walked
home)
Brigham City, Utah v. Warrantless entry –  Police may enter a home without a warrant when
Stuart exigent circumstances they have an objectively reasonable basis for
believing that an occupant is seriously injured or
(police peer through imminently threatened with such injury.
back window; injured  Emergency aid exception
juvenile, 4 adults
restraining her)

Michigan v. Fisher Exigent circumstances If it is objectively reasonable to believe that another

person in the home or the enraged person is in danger,
(broken stuff outside; then an officer’s warrantless entry is reasonable and no
defendant inside warrant is required.
screaming and
throwing things)
Seizures and Arrests

Arrests require probable cause, but a person may be stopped with only reasonable suspicion.

United States v. Seizures and Arrests – Is A warrant is not necessary for a police officer to make
Watson a warrant needed for an arrest in a public place, so long as he has probable
arrest? cause to believe a felony has been committed.

United States v. When is a person  A person has been seized within the meaning of the
Mendenhall “seized”? Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the
circumstances surrounding the incident, a
(airport; consented reasonable person would have believed that he was
strip search) not free to leave.
 Factors to consider:
o The threatening presence of several
officers,
o The display of a weapon by an officer,
o Some physical touching of the person of the
citizen, or
o The use of language or tone of voice
indicating that compliance with the officer’s
request might be compelled.

California v. Hodari C. When is a person  A seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of
“seized”? physical force or show of authority, has in some
(ran when he saw way restrained the liberty of a citizen.”
police; threw drugs)  Until the person has actually been literally
restrained somehow, no seizure occurred.

Atwater v. City of Lago For what crimes may a If an officer has probable cause to believe that an
Vista person be arrested? individual has committed even a very minor offense in
his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth
(woman driving with Amendment, arrest the offender.
unbuckled kids)

Virginia v. Moore For what crimes may a When officers have probable cause to believe that a
person be arrested? person has committed a crime in their presence, the
(suspended license; Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest,
SILA -> crack) and to search the suspect in order to safeguard
evidence and ensure their own safety.

Stop and Frisk

Terry v. Ohio The authority for police  An officer needs reasonable suspicion to “stop and
to stop and frisk frisk”
(guys casing store)  “where a police officer observes unusual conduct
which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of
his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
and that the persons with whom he is dealing may
be armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of
the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear
for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the
protection of himself and others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover
weapons which might be used to assault him.”
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial What may police do  If a request for identification is "reasonably related
Dist. Court of Nevada when they stop an in scope to the circumstances which justified" the
individual? stop, then a person must provide the information.
(stopped on side of  Police may ask, and the person must provide,
the road, suspected of identification (at least a name)
domestic violence)
United States v. Arvizu What is sufficient for  Reasonable suspicion may be determined by the
reasonable suspicion? – totality of circumstances.
(minivan stopped at for stopping cars o Police may consider facts “susceptible of
border) innocent explanation”.
o Need particularized and objective basis
o Inferences from specific facts based on
officer’s experience and training.
Alabama v. White What is sufficient for  Police may rely on informants (even anonymous
reasonable suspicion? – ones)
(anonymous tip; police based on informants’  Less demanding in quantity and quality of
stopped car, found tips information than for probable cause. (Gates light)
marijuana)  Predictive information strengthens tip
Florida v. J.L. What is sufficient for  An informant’s tip must contain predictive
reasonable suspicion? – information
 (anonymous tip that based on informants’  A generalized anonymous tip is insufficient for
person would be tips reasonable suspicion.
carrying a gun)  Courts refuse to create a firearms exception.
Illinois v. Wardlow Reasonable suspicion on Officers may detain a person trying to avoid a police
a person’s trying to officer in a high crime area.
(police caravan in avoid a police officer
neighborhood;
defendant ran when
he saw the police)
United States v. Reasonable suspicion  Reasonable suspicion based on a profile does not
Sokolow based on profiles detract from the evidentiary significance as seen
by a trained agent.
(black jumpsuit with  Profiles may establish reasonable suspicion.
gold chains; Miami to
Hawaii)

Exclusionary Rule

Hudson v. Michigan The exclusionary rule does not apply to a violation of

the knock-and-announce rule
Weeks v. United State The origins of the Applies the exclusionary rule to federal cases
exclusionary rule

Mapp v. Ohio The origins of the Applies the exclusionary rule to the states
exclusionary rule

Who can object to the introduction of evidence and raise the exclusionary rule?

Jones  If a person is legitimately on the premises at the

time of the search, then that person can object to
the evidence.
Rakas v. Illinois Who can object to the  The person objecting must be the one whose 4 th
introduction of evidence Amendment rights were violated.
and raise the  Overturned Jones.
exclusionary rule?
Minnesota v. Carter Who can object to the  Mere visitors do not have a reasonable
introduction of evidence expectation of privacy in someone else’s home.
and raise the  No REP, no violation
exclusionary rule?
Brendlin v. California Who can object to the  When a car has been stopped, the passenger is
introduction of evidence likewise seized and can challenge the
and raise the constitutionality of the stop.
exclusionary rule?
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule

Murray v. United Independent source  Allows admission of evidence that has been
States discovered by means wholly independent of any
constitutional violation.
(police illegally  The "independent source" exception to the
entered warehouse, exclusionary rule may justify admitting evidence
saw marijuana, then discovered during an illegal warrantless search
re-entered with search that was later "rediscovered" by the same team of
warrant and seized investigators during a search pursuant to a
drug) warrant obtained immediately after the illegal
search.
 Key question: was the source truly independent?
Nix v. Williams Inevitable discovery  If the police can demonstrate that they inevitably
would have discovered the evidence, even without
(guy tells cop where a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the
little girl’s body is so exclusionary rule does not apply and the evidence
she can have a proper is admissible.
Christian burial)  Unconstitutionally obtained evidence may be
admitted at trial if it inevitably would have been
discovered in the same condition by an
independent line of investigation that was already
being pursued when the constitutional violation
occurred.
 Prosecution has the burden of proving inevitability
by the preponderance of the evidence.
Brown v. Illinois Inadequate Causal  Miranda warnings, by themselves, do not
Connection – necessarily purge the taint of an illegal arrest.
(officers in apartment; Attenuation of the Taint  Brown factors:
Mirandized 2 times; o Miranda warnings;
confessed) o Temporal proximity of the arrest and the
confession (time gap);
o The presence of intervening circumstances
(tend to be of the defendant’s actions);
o The purpose and flagrancy of the official
misconduct;
o The voluntariness of the statement
o The burden of showing admissibility rests on
the prosecution.
United States v. Leon The good faith When police act under a warrant that is invalid for lack
exception of probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not
(facially valid search apply if the police acted “in objectively reasonable
warrant; narcotics reliance” on the subsequently invalidated search
found) warrant.
Herring v. United The good faith  The exclusionary rule only applies to police
States exception conduct that is deliberate or reckless or grossly
negligent, or the result of systemic department
 (neighboring county violations. (the “Barney Fife” exception)
didn’t update records;  Evidence will not be excluded when the violation is
invalid warrant) the result of isolated negligence apart from the
arrest.

Police Interrogation and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Voluntariness is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances:

1. The length of the interrogation
2. Whether Defendant was deprived of basic bodily functions
3. The use of threats or force
4. Psychological pressure tactics
5. Deception
6. The age, level of education, and mental condition of a suspect

Hope v. People of (note case) A confession should not go to the jury unless it
Territory of Utah appears to the court to have been voluntary

Bram v. United States (note case) Involuntary confessions violate the privilege against
self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment
Brown v. Mississippi The Requirement for Confessions gained involuntary are inadmissible as
Voluntariness violating the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-
(tortured by mob and incrimination.
deputy until he
confessed)
Jackson v. Denno Determining Whether a The prosecution has the burden of proving a
Confession is Voluntary confession is voluntary in order to admit it into
evidence.
Crane v. Kentucky Determining Whether a Even if the judge deems the confession to be voluntary
Confession is Voluntary and it is admitted, a defendant still can argue to the
jury that the confession was obtained under
circumstances and conditions that make it unreliable.
Arizona v. Fulminante The Use of Force and  A confession obtained after a defendant is
Threats of Force physically coerced or threatened with physical
(killed step-daughter force is not voluntary.
in AZ; informant said  A finding of coercion need not depend upon actual
he would provide violence by a government agent; a credible threat
protection if he is sufficient.
confessed to  Coercion can be mental as well as physical
informant)
Spano v. New York Psychological Pressure  Confessions procured through the use of
Tactics psychological pressure may not be admitted into
(boxer took D’s evidence.
money; D goes home,  Petitioner's will was overborne by official pressure,
gets gun, and kills fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused after
boxer)
 considering all the facts in their post-indictment
setting.
Leyra v. Dennis Deception Telling a suspect that his accomplice has already
confessed is not deception requiring suppression of a
confession.
Frazier v. Cupp Deception (note case) An officer acting as a friend to a suspect and
expressing sympathy for his or her plight is not
deception requiring suppression of a confession.
Payne v. Arkansas The Age, Level of In finding a confession involuntary, the Court stressed
Education, and Mental that the suspect had a fifth-grade education
Condition of a Suspect
(note case)
Culombe v. The Age, Level of The Court emphasized that the suspect was illiterate
Connecticut Education, and Mental and of low intelligence
Condition of a Suspect
(note case)
Crooker v. California The Age, Level of The Court noted that the suspect had completed a
Education, and Mental year of law school
Condition of a Suspect
(note case)
Colorado v. Connelly Condition of a Suspect  A confession is to be deemed involuntary,
regardless of the defendant's mental condition,
only if it is the product of police misconduct.
(voluntarily walked up o Coercive police activity is a necessary
to uniformed officer predicate to the finding that a confession
and announced killing is not "voluntary" within the meaning of
a woman) the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment.
o The taking of respondent's statements,
and their admission into evidence,
constitute no violation of that Clause.

Fifth Amendment Limits on In-Custodial Interrogation: Miranda v. Arizona

 Unwarned statement -> leads to witnesses
o Exclusionary rule does not apply (Michigan v. Tucker)
 Unwarned statement -> later statement (after new warnings)
o Exclusionary rule does not apply (Oregon v. Elstad)
o Exception: Gov’t deliberately evades Miranda (Missouri v. Seibert)
 Unwarned statement -> physical evidence
o Exclusionary rule does not apply (U.S. v. Patane)
 Involuntary statement -> statements, physical evidence
 o Exclusionary rule applies, subject to exceptions such as attenuation of the taint.
Miranda v. Arizona
(man was interrogated in
special room, not told about
rights)
Dickerson v. United States
(man made statement at an
FBI field office when
interrogated, but before
Mirandized)
Chavez v. Martinez
Orozco v. Texas
Oregon v. Mathiason
(Police questioned D at
station without Miranda; D
confessed; police let him
leave; police later arrested
D)
Beckwith v. United States
Minnesota v. Murphy
Miranda v. Arizona and Its
Affirmation by the Supreme
Court
Miranda v. Arizona and Its
Affirmation by the Supreme
Court
(note case)
When is a Person “In
Custody”? (note case)
When is a Person “In
Custody”?
When is a Person “In
Custody?” (note case)
When is a Person “In
 A person must be advised of his rights
before interrogation.
 Miranda is a constitutional rule and
may not be overruled by an Act of
Congress.
 Four justices: No violation of Miranda
unless the confession is admitted at
trial.
 Five justices: Miranda is a rule
concerning police behavior under the
Fifth Amendment.
 A person who has been arrested is in
custody and Miranda warnings must be
given, even if the questioning occurs in
a person’s home.
 A person who is free to leave is not in
custody and no Miranda warnings are
required.
 Any interview of one suspected of a
crime by a police officer will have
coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue
of the fact that the police officer is part
of a law enforcement system which
may ultimately cause the suspect to be
charged with a crime.
 Police officers are not required to
administer Miranda warnings to
everyone whom they question.
 Miranda warnings are required only
where there has been such a
restriction on a person’s freedom as to
render him “in custody.”
 A special agent of the IRS, investigating
potential criminal income tax
violations, in an interview with a
taxpayer, not in custody, is not
required to give the warnings called for
in Miranda v. Arizona.
 Statements made in a meeting with a

Stansbury v. California
Yarborough v. Alvarado
(17 ½-year-old boy
questioned at station while
parents waited in the lobby)
Berkemer v. McCarty
(man stopped for erratic
driving; admitted drinking a
couple of beers and smoking
a few joints)
Rhode Island v. Innis
(Defendant killed a cab
driver and robbed another
at gunpoint; hid gun by
school for handicapped kids;
told cops where gun was)
Arizona v. Mauro
Illinois v. Perkins
Custody?” (note case)
When is a Person “In
Custody?” (note case)
When is a Person “In
Custody”?
When is a Person “In
Custody”?
What is an “Interrogation”?
What is an “Interrogation”?
(note case)
What is an “Interrogation”?
person’s probation officer were not
uttered in a custodial context and no
Miranda warnings were required.
 An officer’s subjective and undisclosed
view concerning whether the person
being interrogated is a suspect is
irrelevant to the assessment whether
the person is in custody.
 The initial determination of custody
depends on the objective
circumstances of the interrogation, not
on the subjective views harbored by
either the interrogating officers or the
person being questioned.
 Voluntariness of a statement depends
on whether “the defendant’s will was
overborne.”
 The determination of whether a person
is in custody is an objective one, not a
subjective one focusing on the
individual’s or the officer’s state of
mind.
 Ordinary traffic stops do not require
Miranda warnings.
 The noncoercive aspect of ordinary
traffic stops prompts us to hold that
persons temporarily detained pursuant
to such stops are not “in custody” for
the purposes of Miranda.
 Must be "express questioning" or
"functional equivalent"
 Test: words or actions that "police
should know are reasonably likely to
elicit an incriminating response" (it's
an objective test; the reasonable
officer)
 Intent/motive of police does not
matter under this test.
 “Guilt trip” by officers in front seat of
patrol car. “It would be a shame if a
little girl at the (handicap) school found
the gun and hurt herself.”
 The purpose of Miranda is to protect
against coercive government action.
 Here the wife spoke to her husband
(not government action)
 An undercover law enforcement officer

(undercover agent and
cellmate got information;
didn’t Mirandize him)
California v. Prysock
(kid Mirandized; later mom
asked if he could have a
lawyer)
Duckworth v. Eagan
(D signed form that said
can’t afford a lawyer now,
but one would be provided
for court)
Oregon v. Elstad
(In his living room, D
admitted being at the house
of a burglary; Mirandized,
then made and signed a
statement)
Missouri v. Seibert
(Murder suspect questioned,
Mirandized, questioned;
confessed at first
questioning, made process
illegal)
United States v. Patane
What is Required by the
Police?
What is Required by the
Police?
What of the Consequences of
a Violation of Miranda?
What of the Consequences of
a Violation of Miranda?
What of the Consequences of
a Violation of Miranda?
must not give Miranda warnings to an
incarcerated suspect before asking him
questions that may elicit an
incriminating response.
 No Miranda warnings were required
because it was not a police-dominated
atmosphere.
 Exact language is not required for a
valid Miranda warning.
 Warnings must reasonably convey to a
suspect his Miranda rights.
 Exact language is not required for a
valid Miranda warning.
 Warnings must reasonably convey to a
suspect his Miranda rights.
 Absent deliberately coercive or
improper tactics in obtaining the initial
statement, the mere fact that a suspect
has made an unwarned admission does
not warrant a presumption of
compulsion.
 A subsequent administration of
Miranda warnings to a suspect who has
given a voluntary but unwarned
statement ordinarily should suffice to
remove the conditions that precluded
admissions of the earlier statement.
 First step is voluntary, then Miranda,
then question: the first statement is
out, but the subsequent statement is
in.
 Midstream recitation of warnings after
interrogation and unwarned confession
does not effectively comply with
Miranda’s constitutional requirement
and a repeated statement after a
warning is inadmissible.
 Interrogate, confess, warn, interrogate
violates Miranda
o Deliberate attempt to evade
Miranda through continuous
interrogation
 Violations of Miranda result in
testimony (verbal statements) being
(D stated he knew his rights,
would not let officers finish
the warnings; told police
location of the gun)
Miranda exceptions
*Impeachment *Emergency
Harris v. New York
(undercover offcer testified
to D’s narcotic sales)
New York v. Quarles
(rapist in supermarket)
Pennsylvannia v. Muniz
North Carolina v. Butler
(D said he understood
Miranda, but wouldn’t sign a
waiver)
Fare v Michael C.
suppressed, but does not apply to
physical evidence retrieved as a result.
 The 5th Amendment applies to self-
incrimination by testimony. It does not
apply to evidence.
*Booking * Waiver
Impeachment Exception to  Statements gained from a criminal
Miranda defendant are admissible for
impeachment purposes if the
defendant chooses to testify at trial.
 Every criminal defendant is privileged
to testify in his own defense, or to
refuse to do so. But that privilege
cannot be construed to include the
right to commit perjury.
Emergency Exception to  Public safety exception
Miranda  Statements obtained by police from
suspects during emergency situations
could be used against a criminal
defendant even if Miranda warnings
were not properly administered.
 Police officers may ask questions
reasonably prompted by a concern for
the public safety.
o Objective test: “Reasonable
officer” test
Booking Exception to  Routine booking questions are not
Miranda considered interrogation
(note case) (administrative, not investigatory)
 “…the slurred speech that was evident
on the videotape did not violate the
privilege against self-incrimination
because it was not testimonial.”
What is Sufficient to  Silence is not enough to constitute a
Constitute a Waiver? waiver.
 Express written or oral statement can
be strong proof.
 Waiver may be express or implied.
(note case) The totality of the circumstances approach
is adequate to determine whether there
has been a waiver even when interrogation

Colorado v. Connelly
Moran v. Burbine
Spring v. Colorado
Michigan v. Mosley
(D arrested for one crime,
invoked right to counsel;
later he was questioned for
another crime)
Edwards v. Arizona
(man invoked right to
counsel; a day later he was
questioned again)
Michigan v. Jackson
Minnick v. Mississippi
(after invoking right to
counsel and meeting with
attorney, he was questioned
by police without attorney
there; he confessed)
(note case)
(note case)
(note case)
How is a Waiver After the
Assertion of Rights Treated?
How is a Waiver After the
Assertion of Rights Treated?
(note case)
How is a Waiver After the
Assertion of Rights Treated?
of juveniles is involved.
Miranda protects defendant from
government coercion but goes no further
than that.
 Events occurring outside of the
presence of the suspect and entirely
unknown to him can have no bearing
on the capacity to comprehend and
knowingly relinquish a constitutional
right.
 Defendant’s sister had hired him an
attorney without his knowledge and he
waived his right to remain silent.
 The police have no duty to inform a
suspect of the nature of the crime for
which he or she is under suspicion.
 The additional information could affect
only the wisdom of a Miranda waiver,
not its essentially voluntary and
knowing nature.
 Police may resume questioning of a
suspect for a separate crime after the
passage of significant time, giving a
new set of Miranda warnings, and
questioning is restricted to the crime
that had not been subject of the earlier
interrogation.
 Test: was the suspect’s right to cut off
questioning scrupulously honored?
If the defendant invokes the right to
counsel, then the police cannot initiate
further interrogation unless the suspect
initiates the communications.
If the police initiate interrogation after a
defendant's assertion, at arraignment or
similar proceeding, of the right to counsel,
any waiver of the defendant's right to
counsel for that police-initiated
interrogation is invalid.
When counsel is requested, interrogation
must cease, and officials may not reinitiate
interrogation without counsel present,
whether or not the accused has consulted
with his attorney.
 Davis v. United States
(man being questioned
about murder on a navy
base never overtly asked for
counsel)
Maryland v. Shatzer
(2 ½ years after being
questioned for sexually
abusing his 3-year-old and
invoking right to counsel, he
was questioned again and
confessed)
Berghuis v. Thompkins
(man provided with written
and verbal Miranda; man did
not say he was invoking his
right to remain silent, but
didn’t say much during
questioning)
The Sixth Amendment and the Right to Counsel and Police Interrogations
Gideon v. Wainwright
Massiah v. United States
(criminal agrees to wear
wire to talk to D after D
invoked right to counsel)
Escobedo v. Illinois
How is a Waiver After the
Assertion of Rights Treated?
Waiver exception
Waiver exception
Right to Counsel During
Interrogation
Right to Counsel During
Interrogations
Right to Counsel During
Interrogations (note case)
 The suspect must unambiguously
request counsel.
 After a knowing and voluntary waiver
of the Miranda rights, law enforcement
officers may continue questioning until
and unless the suspect clearly requests
an attorney.
 Once a person has invoked the right to
counsel, police questioning must cease.
This expires after 14 days.
 The invocation of the right to remain
silent must unambiguous.
 Prosecution must show defendant
understood the right to remain silent.
 After that, an uncoerced statement is
admissible. (uncoerced = voluntary)
 The 14th Amendment imposes a duty
on the states to grant defendants’ the
rights enumerated in the 6th
Amendment, specifically the right “to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense.”
 The 6th Amendment right to counsel
applies whenever a person is
questioned after adversarial
proceedings have begun.
 Incriminating statements made by a
Defendant may not be used against
him.
 Police may not cause to be done what
they themselves may not do.
 The Court extended the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel to those

Kirby v. Illinois Right to Counsel During
Interrogations (note case)
Brewer v. Williams Right to Counsel During
Interrogations
(Christian burial speech)
Texas v. Cobb Right to Counsel During
Interrogations – The Right to
Counsel is Offense Specific
Montejo v. Louisiana Is waiver valid if police
initiate?
United States v. Henry What is Impermissible Police
of Statements?
(incriminating statements
made to cell mate/paid
police informant)
who were questioned by the police but
had not yet been formally charged.
 Decided before Miranda
 The 6th Amendment right to counsel at
police identification procedures (such
as a line up), applies only after the
initiation of formal adversarial
proceedings – whether by way of
formal charge, preliminary hearing,
indictment information, or
arraignment.
 Defendant was deprived of his 6th
Amendment right to counsel when
officers discussed the case of a missing
girl in front of the defendant and
caused him to confess and lead them
to the girl’s body.
o right to counsel at pretrial
stage is “critical”.
 Christian burial speech
 Not an interrogation, but deprivation
of counsel
 The 6th Amendment right to counsel is
personal to the defendant and specific
to the offense.
 Blockburger test: does each offense
require proof of a fact which the other
does not. (burglary and kidnapping)
 When the 6th Amendment right to
counsel attaches, it does encompass
offenses that, even if not formally
charged, would be considered the
same offense under the Blockburger
test.
 Waiver possible even if defendant
invokes sixth Amendment right to
counsel and police initiate questioning
 Edwards still applies if right to counsel
under Fifth Amendment is involved.
 Intentionally creating a situation likely
to induce defendant to make
incriminating statements without the
assistance of counsel, is a violation of
Defendant’s 6th Amendment right to
counsel.
 Government informant cannot initiate
conversation
 Kuhlmann v. Wilson What is Impermissible Police  A defendant does not make out a
of Statements? violation of his 6th Amendment rights
(incriminating statements simply by showing that an informant
made to cell mate/police reported his incriminating statements
informant) to the police.
 The defendant must demonstrate that
the police and their informant took
some action, beyond merely listening,
that was designed deliberately to elicit
incriminating remarks.
 Government informant can “keep his
ears” open

Right to Counsel

Argersinger v. Hamlin When the Right to Counsel
Applies
 Absent a knowing and intelligent
waiver, no person may be imprisoned
for any offense, whether classified as
petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless
he was represented by counsel at his
trial

5th Amendment 6th Amendment

Requires custody Initiation of judicial proceedings
Interrogation Deliberate eliciting of statements
Not offense specific Offense specific