Search:

 Lo-Ji: search warrant elements: must be supported by PC; must be supported by oath or affirmation to
truthfulness; must be rendered by neutral, detach magistrate must describe the area to be search in
particularity, and describe the items to be searched in
 Richards v. Wisconsin: must knock in execution of the search unless visible destruction of epidence or
Exgency, or no knock state
 Illinois v. Gates: warrant, satisfies 4th amend PC requirements as long as it establishes a substantial basis
for concluding that search will uncover evidence of wrong doing
 Katz v. United States: police wire, tap public phone… There’s a reasonal expectation of privacy in the
public phone booth, home, home for the night, movements beyond plain eye surveillance. Search occurs
when breach of REP
o Katz test: Was there an subjective, actual expectation of privacy… Was the defendant in the home
etc.? Was the expectation, objectively reasonable?
 United States v. Jones: 4th amendment protects from GPS tracking, constitutes a physical trespass
 Search test: Was there a physical trespass? If not, was there a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Search Exceptions
 NY v. Belton: (car) Police may only search the area within arrestee’s reach AND immediate control
 Whren v United States: when PC of illegal conduct exists, and officers, true motive for searching or
detaining a person does not violate constitutionality
 MD v buie: SITA, police can do protective sweep of premises based on reasonable suspicion Other people
who pose a threat are there, can only search areas that can hold people.
 Smith v MD: known exposure, cannot violate 4th amend, when defendant knowingly exposes information
to the public
 Hoffa v. US: police wearing a wire
 US v. white: informant wearing a wire,
 does not violate fourth amendment whatever you raised to the public, you risk that public being a police
 drug dog sniff: Caballes (car) and jardines (home)
 Open field doctrine: Oliver v. US
 Aerial surveillance: CAL, v Cirado
 Garbage: Greenwood v. CAL
 Technology: Kylo v. US

Seizure:
 Seizable objects: contraband; fruits of crime; instrumentalities to commit crime; and evidence to connect
you to crime
 US v. Karo: device inside of container is not a seizure because the use of the container is intact, it is a
search; seizure occurs when there is a meaningful interference with an individual possessory interest
 US v. Mendenhall: seizure occurs when a reasonable person would believe that they are not free to leave;
TOC a test of objective belief of person, not subjective intent of officer to make a seizure
 Brendelin v. CAL: physical seizure occurs when police show physical restraint or appede on a person‘s
freedom of movement

Terry Doctrine:
 Terry v. OH: if police have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is a foot, they may briefly stop the
person and conduct a protective frisk
 Reasonable suspicion:Anonymous tip, Alabama, V, white; Flight in a high crime area, Illinois, V Warlo

Due process: involuntary coercive confession not admissible per 14th amendment, totality of circumstances my
show course of please contact that overcame the will of defendant
5th amendment & 6th amendment:
 Arizona V Miranda: once in custody prior to interrogation awarding, regarding the right to council is
required
 NY v. quarrels: Miranda exception, asking arrestee where the bomb is? question is to secure, immediate,
public safety Miranda not needed
 Oregon v Elstaad: the second confession, after a Miranda warning is given is not tainted by the first
confession given without warning… Missouri v. Seibert: the second admission is only admissible if there’s
enough time between the first confession without warning, enough time to know, one can stay silent
 MI v Mosley: When suspect invokes to remain silent, police must scrupulously honor, can reapproach and
re-Miranda suspect, and seek voluntary and knowing waiver
 Beckermer v. McCarthy: police must issue Miranda warning prior to all custodial interrogation’s regardless
of severity of the offense
 Edwards v AZ: once suspect his right to counsel police must cease all interrogation, lasts about 2 weeks,
unless suspect reintiaties
 Massiah v. US: a person who has been through the initiation of adversial proceedings, has six amendment
right to counsel for police interrogation on indicted offense
 Patterson v. Illinois: Miranda warning sufficiently informed defendant of dangers of waving right to
counsel a ballot Miranda waiver, also constitutes a valid Messiah waiver

Wade Gilbert rule:

Protection from post indictment witness ID without counsel present
Probable Cause:
 Aguilar v TX: statements from anonymous informant, can establish probable cause if coroporated by police
affidavit in support of warrant
 Spinelli: An affidavit must contain sufficient detail to explain why informant is reliable, and how they came
to conclusions about alleged crime\
 MN V Olson: 4th amendment protects house guests from police, REP in home and home others

Arrest warrant for exceptions:

 Bustamante: consent, consent must be freely and voluntarily given look at totality of circumstances to
obtain the consent
 AZ v. Hicks: plain view, warrantless, search, or seizure, can only be invoked if police have pc of evidence’s
incriminating character
 Horton v. CAL: police have legal right to be where they are and incriminating evidence is immediately
apparent they can seize evidence without warrant
 CAL v Aceveo: containers in cars police made you warrantless surges of containers within cars if they have
probable cause that container in the car hold illegal items to be seized
 Carrol v. US: (car) SITA if police have a reasonable suspicion car contains items they are entitled to seize
as cars can easily leave the jurisdiction that the warrant was processed in
 Chambers v marroney: If you have PC to seize without a warrant, they have probable cause to search while
the car is sitting in the police lot and you’re waiting for the warrant
 CAL v. Carney: RV that is readily movable can be searched if police have PC to believe there are items to
be seized, or illegal activity occurring inside
 Chimel v. CAL: a warrantless SITA my only cover area in possession or control of the person being
arrested
 US v. Robinson: when police make custodial arrest they must ensure own safety, so it is reasonable to
search arrestee
 Riley v. CAL: police cannot search cell phone incident to arrest bc phone does not pose threat to police
 AZ v Gant: police may only search area within defendants, immediate control or it is reasonable to believe
evidence of crime being arrested for is in vehicle
 Can only search vehicle, if arrestee is unrestrained, and within reach of car