Criminal Procedure

I. What is a search:
a. Traditional Rule: A search must involve some type of physical
invasion on the part of the government (i.e. wire tap outside of a
building does not constitute a search)
b. Katz v. US: Following the Katz decision the standard became that the
government carried out a search if they encroached upon a
reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. public phone booth), put simply
the 4th Am. Protects people and not places
c. US v White: SC Rules that the use of a Confidential informant is not a
search
d. Smith v Maryland: SC Rules that Smith had to reasonable expectation
of privacy with regards to phone numbers he dialed, and as such the
use of a pen register did not constitute a search (whether “he sought
to preserve something as private, and whether society is prepared to
recognize as a reasonable the expectation of privacy)
e. Bond v US: A Border Patrol Agent’s Physical manipulation of Bond’s
opaque bag as he was leaving the Bus Bond was on constituted a
search
f. Kyllo v US: Thermal Imaging used to verify the use of high tempt
growing lamps for marijuana is a search and violtes the 4th if
warrantless
g. California v Ciraolo: Police flight over an area to check for external
marijuana growth is permissible
h. The Exclusionary Rule: Under Mapp v. Ohio Evidence obtained
through Warrantless or unreasonable searches must be suppressed
II. Reasonableness and Probable Cause:
a. Aguilar-Spinelli: Two prong Test (1) The magistrate must be
informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an
informant is reliable and credible (2) The magistrate must be
informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the
person providing the information.
b. Illinois v Gates: Establishes the Totality of Circumstances Test for PC
based on warrants issued on info provided by CI or AT, and abandons
the Aguilar Spinelli test.
c. Whren v United States: A traffic stop for legitimate reasons can be
used as PC for a search, and evidence obtained via plain view is
admissible regardless of the officer’s original intentions.
III. Unreasonableness and the Warrant Requirement
a. Searches
i. Johnson v United States: In circumstances where there is
sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant prior to a search, the
warrant must be obtained, unless exigent circumstances are
present.
b. Seizures of Persons:
i. US v Watson: Postal Inspectors are allowed to make a
warrantless arrests “for felonies cognizable under the laws of
the United states if they have reasonable grounds to believe
that the person to be arrest is committing or has committed
such a felony, under congressional grant.
ii. Atwater v City of Lago Vista: Atwater was arrested on a
misdemeanor seatbelt violation, and booked, then released on
bond. The SC rules that as TX law permitted the arrest even if
it did not direct it specifically the arrest was constitutionally
permissible. Dissent points out that the idea that a
misdemeanor seatbelt violation can result in arrest is in and of
itself unreasonable.
iii. The Mendenhal Test: A 4th Am. Seizure of a person occurs
when a reasonable person under the same circumstance would
feel they were not free to leave.
iv. California v Hodari D.-A stop and seizure begins when the
chase ends. A seizure only occurs when a reasonable person
would not feel free to refuse police inquiries and go about their
business.
v. Physical seizure, vs. Show of Authority Seizure- a SoAS occurs
once the actor whom the authority is being demonstrated to
submits to said authority (in MA once the SofA is demonstrated
the seizure has begun).

c. The issuance, Content, and Execution of Warrants:

i. United States v Grubbs: Anticipatory warrants issued in
expectation of a “Triggering condition” do not violate the 4th
Am requirement that warrants be issued on probable cause.
ii. Wilson v Arkansas: The requirement that police officers
“knock and Announce” before entering a home even with a
valid warrant is part of the test for the reasonableness of a
search and failure to do so invalidates a search as
unreasonable.
d. Searches Incident to Arrests and Searches for Arrestees:
i. Chimel v California: A search incident to arrest is limited in
scope to the Arrestee and the area within his immediate
control.
ii. US v Robinson: It is reasonable for an officer to check an
arrestee’s pockets and inspect the contents following a lawful
arrest.
iii. New York v Belton: A search incident to an arrest which
included the interior of an automobile which the arrestee had
been removed from, as it was directly within his control right
before his arrest. Dissent states that by deeming the interior of
a vehicle always under the control of an arrestee the court has
 unreasonably expanded the ability of officers to search
pursuant to an arrest.
iv. Payton v NY: A warrantless entry in order to make an arrest in
a home is still considered unreasonable as a rule, and any
evidence obtained in this manner is to be excluded.
v. Exigent Circumstances:
1. Typically Accepted: Real and Immediate Threats to
Safety of the public, officers, or the arrestee. Real or
immediate threats that evidence may be destroyed.
2. Typically Rejected: An arrest (on it’s own), exigency
created by police officers
3. Warden, MD Penitentiary v Hayden: Exigent
circumstances existed due to the freshness of the crime
and the likelihood that evidence could be destroyed,
and as such the warrantless entry into Hayden’s
residence, and subsequent search were justified.
vi. Vehicle and Container Searches:
1. Carroll v US: Establishes that as automobiles are
mobile in nature, and can be easily seen into there is a
reduced expectation of privacy.
2. Chambers v Maroney: A vehicle which is searched in a
precursory fashion resulting in no evidence being
obtained may be impounded and must have a warrant
obtained prior to any further searches.
3. US v. Chadwick: The Court rules that there is a higher
expectation of privacy with luggage than automobiles
4. Inventory Searches: Interest 1: Protect the owner of
the vehicle from theft; Interest 2: preventing false
allegations of theft; SC: If a PD has a written inventory
search procedure and evidence or contraband is found
it can be used in the prosecution of the individual.
5. California v. Carney: SC rules that the fact that this
mobile home was a vehicle is enough to satisfy the
exception and does not further narrow Carroll, by
deciding a bright line rule for when a vehicle which can
be used as a home becomes more home than vehicle.
6. California v. Acevedo: Containers found within a
vehicle search incident to arrest may also be searched
without a warrant.
vii. Consent Searches:
1. Schneckloth v Bustamonte: Voluntariness of Consent
is to be evaluated on the totality of the circumstances.
2. US v Matlock: Consent of Co-Habitants against one
another is sufficient to avoid the requirement for a
warrant.
 3. Georgia v Randolph: The consent to conduct a
warrantless search of a residence given by one resident
is not valid in the face of refusal by another co-occupant
who is physically present to permit or deny the search.
4. Illinois v Rodriguez: If the police reasonably rely on
the consent of a purported co-occupant
IV. Plain View:
a. Generally: Evidence found in plain view during the course of an
otherwise legal search can be admitted into evidence.
b. Horton v California: Inadvertent discovery is not required for the
plain view doctrine to apply.
c. Arizona v Hicks: If an item is in plain view but its evidentiary value is
determined only by further manipulation this constitutes a search and
the evidence must be suppressed.
V. The Balancing Approach to 4th Am Reasonableness:
a. Terry v. Ohio: Officers may carry out a “stop and frisk” based on
reasonable suspicion than an actor is either committing a crime will
commit a crime or has just committed a crime.
b. Dunaway v New York: Although Terry carved out a small exception
to the Probable Cause requirement it applies narrowly to the stop-
frisk type of intrusion, and does not waive the PC requirement for
arrest.
c. Illinois v Wardlow: An officer who carries out a Terry stop based on
commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior is
justified.
d. Alabama v White: An anonymous tip once somewhat corroborated is
sufficient to allow for a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion
without a warrant.
e. Michigan v Long: The Terry ideal of a protective search based on
reasonable suspicion extends to vehicle interiors as well.
VI. Special Balancing Contexts:
a. School Searches: School officials are under the same restrains as
police officers with respect to the fourth amendment. (New Jersey v
TLO)
b. Sobriety Checkpoints: Sobriety checkpoints do not violate the 4th
Am, as the state has a heavy interest in preventing Drunk Driving, and
the intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens is minimal. (MI State
Police v Sitz)
c. Drug Checkpoints: If the purpose of these checkpoints is ultimately
indistinguishable for the general state interest of crime control they
violate the 4th Am. (City of Indianapolis v Edmond)
d. Drug Testing: Permissible and not a violation of the 4th Am when
applied to safety situations, and to students
e. Border Searches: Permissible even without reasonable suspicion,
includes removal of gas tank