Constitutional Law/Criminal Procedure

• 
  Suspicionless, law enforcement behavior (special needs detentions)
  
• 
  Justifiable state need (generally cannot be for typical law enforcement evidence gathering) vs. intrusion
  

• 
  Knowles v. Iowa
  
  • 
    Allowed search incident to lawful summons in Iowa
    
  • 
    Supreme court eliminates this and holds the search unlawful
    
  • 
    Too much power given to police
    
• 
  Illinois v. Caballes
  
  • 
    Caballes stopped for speeding and dog brought on scene
    
  • 
    this causes issues because changes the nature of the stop to a search rather than temporary traffic stop (minor motor vehicle stop to drug investigation)
    
  • 
    no reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband and that is all the dog does as long as dog in lawful place, which it was here
    
  • 
    what makes the dog tolerable and not unreasonable under 4^th amendment?
    
    • 
      The dog did not increase length of Terry stop or make it excessive
      
    • 
      Whole thing took 10 minutes; no delay in detention
      
  • 
    When pulled over, Caballes is seized—not under arrest though even though probable cause to arrest
    
  • 
    When in back of cruiser—temporary investigative detention; not arrest
    
    • 
      Detained for further investigation; not for speeding
      

• 
  Commonwealth v. Lora
  
  • 
    Selective prosecution is not wrongful conviction—generally selecting someone because they belong to a class
    
  • 
    Presumption is police are not acting with discriminative intent—burden is on the defense
    
  • 
    Lora pulled over for driving in the left lane when he should have been in the middle or right lane
    
  • 
    Do consider officer’s subjective belief when violation of 4^th amendment
    
  • 
    Statistician’s expert testimony relies on demographics of Auburn rather than demographics of the derivers who pass on the highway which is wrong
    
• 
  Florida v. Harris
  
  • 
    Dog is reliable/trustworthy
    
  • 
    Can challenge dog not trustworthy but burden on defendant; no burden on prosecution
    
• 
  Michigan v. Sitz
  
  • 
    Notice in advance sounds like a warrant thus more tolerable
    
  • 
    The amount of time is brief
    
  • 
    Undisputed strong state interest vs. limited intrusion
    
    • 
      Not that effective though—very little arrests
      

• 
  If officer had reasonable suspicion driving under the influence, go to second line which required field sobriety tests—no 4^th amendment issue
  

• 
  City of Indianapolis
  
  • 
    City sets up check points for narcotics/drugs
    
  • 
    After Michigan v. Sitz, ruled that it went too far—general law enforcement is not enough
    
• 
  U.S. v. Rodriguez
  
  • 
    Dog sniff at traffic stop
    
  • 
    Rodriguez stopped for motor vehicle violation, traffic stop concludes and then asked by officer if office can walk dog around car to sniff for narcotics—Rodriguez says no
    
  • 
    Cop does it anyways
    
  • 
    The extra 6-7 minutes was held an unlawful detention (6-3 decision)
    
  • 
    Suppression is not automatic from exclusionary rule—case specific instead
    

• 
  SC has upheld certain searches without warrants upon demonstrations that officers reasonably believed delays necessary to apply for search warrants would result in the destruction of evidence
  

• 
  Only dispenses need for a warrant: officers still must have probable cause to believe evidence or contraband will be found
  

• 
  Facts: Officers had 2 warrants for Vale’s arrest and having information he resided at specified address they proceeded there in an unmarked car to perform surveillance. Saw what they believe to be a drug transaction in a car outside his house and proceeded to place Vale under arrest. They then informed him that because of the transaction they were going to serach in house in which they subsequently found narcotics.
  
• 
  Issue: Was this an exigent circumstance in which a search would be permissible without a warrant
  
• 
  Rule: Only in a few specifically established and well delineated situations may a warrantless search of the dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny, even though probable cause, and burden on state to show existence of an exception. Here, not responding to an emergency, no consent, not in hot pursuit from a fleeing felon, and goods seized were not in process of destruction nor were they about to be removed from the jurisdiction.
  

• 
  Minnesota v. Olson: cops investigating robbery-murder at 6 am and had probable cause to believe Olson was the driver of the getaway car. Next day it was determined he was staying at a duplex unit and proceeding to search that duplex, finding him in the closet.
  

• 
  Warrantless entry was not justified by exigency and in absence of hot pursuit officers must have probable cause to believe that there was imminent destruction of evidence, danger to police or persons inside or outside dwelling or suspect is escaping.
  

• 
  Hot Pursuit: Warden v. Hayden: 2 cab drivers followed a robber to residence, informing police, who arrived and searched the premises. Held entry to be reasonable because any delay may have endangered officers or others.
  
• 
  Crime Scene: Mincey v. Arizona: entered apartment to arrest and cop was shot and killed. Mincey was arrested and cops proceeded to search the apartment for 4 days without a warrant for evidence relating to the homicide. SC held search to be unreasonable just because it was a crime scene it does not dispense the warrant requirement.
  

• 
  Facts: Cops accompanied Tera while she removed her stuff from her home with her husband and suggested to the cops that they check out the trailer because her husband had dope in it. Cops asked for his permission to search, which he denied, and then went to get a warrant and told him he could not re-enter until cops come back.
  
• 
  Issue: Does 4^th prohibit this sort of temporary seizure?
  
• 
  Rule: Restriction was reasonable as police had probable cause to believe home contained evidence of a crime, had good reason to fear, unless restrained that he would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant, and made reasonable efforts to reconcile law enforcement with demand of personal privacy and imposed restraint for limited period of time (2 hours).
  
• 
  Even for a minor offense you don’t have to let someone back in their home.
  
• 
  Courts look to the length of seizure of the property
  
• 
  Was the wife trustworthy? She’s putting her neck out there. She’s with the police.
  

3. 
   Seizure and/or
   
4. 
   Search
   
   1. 
      Even a minor offense you don’t have to let someone go back in there.
      
   2. 
      The length of seizure of property.
      
   3. 
      Wife is trustworthy. She’s putting her neck out there. She’s with the police.
      

5. 
   State Action
   
6. 
   Where did the defendant and state actor meet for 4^th Amendment?
   
7. 
   Has there been a seizure?
   
   1. 
      If yes, what type of seizure?
      
      1. 
         arrest of a person
         
      2. 
         temporary detention
         
      3. 
         or his property
         
8. 
   Was it justified?
   
   1. 
      If arrest of a person or temporary stop and frisk of a person or property what justifies it? No warrant or if necessary we seize it for a short period of time when a warrant is obtained.
      

• 
  Emergency Aide: Utah v. Stewart: cops responded to a call that there was a loud house party. Observed fight taking place inside and entered arresting 3 occupants.
  

• 
  Emergency Aide exception to requirement of a warrant is a part of the 4^th amendment and officer can enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to injured occupant or to protect from imminent injury
  

• 
  Frank v. Maryland: health code required all buildings be kept clean and free from rodents. Health inspectors had cause to suspect a violation and Frank refused entry.
  

• 
  Power of inspection is strictly limited and no evidence for criminal prosecution is sought to be seized. Hedged with safeguards designed to make least possible demand in individual and cause only slightest restriction to privacy.
  

• 
  1967, held that warrant is required for nonemergency housing cose inspections but need not be based on probable cause
  

• 
  Issue: whether warrantless search of car junkyard, conducted pursuant to statue authorizing such a search, falls within exception to warrant requirement for administrative inspections of regulated industries?
  
• 
  Facts: Burger owns a junkyard in NY which is subject to NY vehicle and traffic laws in which police conducted an inspection of the lot determining he was in possession of stolen property.
  
• 
  Rule: 4^th is applicable to commercial premises, as well as private homes. However, this expectation is attenuated in commercial property in a closely regulated industry.
  

2. Warrantless inspection must be necessary to further regulatory scheme

3. Statutes inspection program, in terms of certainty and regularity of its application, must provide a constitutionality adequate substitute for a warrant.

Here search falls in warrant exception as closely regulated business and satisfies 3 criteria necessary to make reasonable warrantless inspections.

• 
  Arson Investigations: Michigan v. Tyler: firemen arrived at furniture store and after extinguishing fire discovered two plastic containers holding flammable liquids. Couldn’t conduct thorough inspection at the time so came back a couple other times without a warrant.
  

• 
  No warrant needed to enter a building to fight fire but other entries require a warrant. If probable cause to suspect arson, then need warrant by traditional probable cause requirement.
  
• 
  Later-Clifford rejected need for warrant in post fire investigation
  

• 
  Probation: Griffin v. Wisconsin: administrative like considerations justify flexibility of 4^th
  

• 
  Inherent in the nature of probation is that they do not enjoy liberty to which every citizen is entitled and probation may impose reasonable conditions
  

• 
  Drug Testing: Ferguson v. Charleston: do drug test fit permissible suspicionless category? Use a balancing test which weighed intrusion on individual privacy against the special need of that supported program.
  

1. 
   exigent circumstances—community care taker
   
2. 
   safety issues
   

• 
  exigent circumstances exception to a search warrant requirement (emergency)
  
• 
  community care taking exception differs from emergency
  
  • 
    it justifies entry and search for missing person (can search anywhere reasonable)
    
  • 
    if while searching, officers see contraband or evidence of a crime in plain view, can seize without a warrant—look at what is reasonable given totality of circumstances
    

• 
  seeing in plain view vs. plain view seizure
  
  • 
    for plain view seizure=probable cause and entitled to freeze situation so not much more intrusion to seize it then—must be immediately apparent
    

• 
  exception to search warrant requirement
  
• 
  primary purpose is not general law enforcement
  
• 
  secondary reasons of prosecution do not take away from primary purpose
  
  • 
    ex: pilots take blood/drug tests before flying; teenager required to take drug tests if involved in intramural sports
    

• 
  primary purpose is generally SAFETY for special needs which excuses the requirement of a warrant
  
  • 
    Charleston case—primary purpose is for general crime enforcement; prosecute them and targeted pregnant women
    
• 
  Highly regulated industries included in special needs= air travel, junkyards, mining, food industry, arson/fire investigation, health hazards
  
• 
  Entering private land not a search unless unreasonable expectation of privacy—yes expectation of privacy in commercially owned property but not as much as a home
  
• 
  Requires reasonable belief
  

• 
  Minnesota v. Olson
  
  • 
    Said unreasonable to go into house for the getaway car driver
    
  • 
    Police surrounded the home for hours—could have gotten a warrant
    
  • 
    No exigent circumstances found here
    
• 
  Kentucky v. King
  
  • 
    Stands for warrantless searches
    
• 
  Missouri v. McNeely
  
  • 
    Police force doctor to take blood of defendant—thus search but no warrant
    
  • 
    Exception= exigent circumstances, blood evidence will be lost
    
  • 
    Sounds like Schmerber case—difference though is that Schmerber was at hospital and here McNeely was brought to hospital
    
  • 
    Missouri wanted a per se rule to allow anyone suspected of an OUI to be brought to hospital/clinic to get blood alcohol test—did not happen
    
  • 
    Go back to specific facts and look at what is reasonable
    

• 
  Ferguson v. City of Charleston
  
  • 
    Targeted pregnant women—raises 4^th amendment because taking urine from them to conduct test for cocaine, thus search and probably seizure
    
  • 
    No warrant here—what is the reasonable exception?= special needs; primary purpose for the safety of the fetus
    
  • 
    Must look at totality of circumstances—police in on it from beginning and threat of criminal prosecution make it appear primary purpose for general law enforcement/investigative
    
• 
  New York v. Burger
  
  • 
    Police copied down VIN numbers of stolen vehicles and compared them to determine if stolen or not
    
    • 
      Essentially had to seize the property—seizure and search without warrant
      

• 
  What justified search without a warrant?= special needs—strong state interest and notice which acts like a warrant
  

• 
  automobile exception to search warrant requirement
  
• 
  inventory search when legally towed
  
• 
  4 most famous motor vehicle cases in the U.S.=Sanders/Chadwick and Carroll/Ross
  
• 
  Sanders/Chadwick= containers taken from motor vehicle where probable cause exists to believe evidence of a crime in container
  
  • 
    Container alone is guilty BUT innocent car—cannot use motor vehicle exception
    
  • 
    Probable cause to believe contraband in car—motor vehicle exception allowed; search entire car
    
• 
  Officers are allowed to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles as there is an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement
  
• 
  Motor homes are considered vehicles and the automobile exception applies to them as well
  
• 
  4^th amendment allows for inventory searches of seized vehicles
  
• 
  Acevedo- a container is in an otherwise innocent car where there is probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime or contraband in the container. You can now search an innocent car without a warrant for a container. You cannot search the entire car.
  
• 
  Using the MV exception to the search warrant requirement you can only search the container.
  
• 
  No MV exception if mobile home and on concrete.
  

• 
  California v. Acevedo
  
  • 
    Acevedo puts bag in trunk and that bag contains drugs
    
  • 
    Police search trunk as part of the motor vehicle exception—no search warrant and thus warrantless search
    
  • 
    Officers had probable cause but also used automobile exception
    
  • 
    Nothing other than that package associated Acevedo with a crime
    
  • 
    Court comes down here and allows the search of the container ONLY under motor vehicle exception—cannot search rest of car
    
    • 
      However, don’t forget plain view or search incident to arrest as other options to search the rest of the car
      

Issues raised by this case.

1. 
   Has there been a seizure of Mr. Acevedo?
   
   1. 
      What type?
      
2. 
   Has there been a search of him and/or property?
   
3. 
   Are there any statements that might also be unlawful?
   
4. 
   If the search, seizure were unlawfully obtained are they subject to exception?
   

Legal principle related to seizure:

1. 
   Mr. Acevedo was seized because objectively he was not able to go about his business.
   

1. 
   Has there been a seizure of him or his property and where did that take place?
   
   1. 
      Trespass of property of another entering zone of privacy
      
   2. 
      No question that applying the definition of seizing, taking it and looking at it
      
      1. 
         What type of seizure?
         
         1. 
            Arrest
            
            1. 
               Legally is where objectively viewed the kind of behavior by police would reasonably believe that they are entering into the criminal justice system
               
            2. 
               Only supported by probable cause of criminal evidence
               
         2. 
            Temporary, Limited, Investigatory
            
            1. 
               Limited in time and space
               
            2. 
               Reasonable suspicion
               
         3. 
            ***Based on objective view of all the evidence they initially did not arrest him, but detained him to investigate further.
            
2. 
   Has there been a search of him or his property?
   
   1. 
      When there is a search it’s legally presumptive to be unreasonable without a search warrant unless there is an exception.
      
      1. 
         Ex. Search incident to a lawful arrest. Search has to be within reasonable time after arrest
         
   2. 
      You have to justify search without a warrant.
      
   3. 
      2^nd way automobile exception. As along as probable cause to believe container in car the police ca open it and look into it.
      
   4. 
      Inventory search is another exception.
      
3. 
   Are there any statements that might be unlawful?
   
   1. 
      Involuntary Statements
      
      1. 
         Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
         
      2. 
         14^th or 5^th Amendment
         
4. 
   If the search, seizure were unlawfully obtained are they subject to exception?
   

1. 
   What is the scope of the search?
   

1. 
   Ross- As far as a magistrate could authorize
   

1. 
   So containers in the car can be searched if object could be secreted there
   
2. 
   Scope is defined by the object of the search
   

2. 
   But only in places where expected contraband would be found (Ross)
   

3. 
   Same rule as in other context
   
4. 
   All that is dispensed with is the magistrate’s authorizing the search
   

3. 
   Container Searches
   
   1. 
      If reasonable suspicion a container contains evidence of contraband, may secure it BUT need warrant to search
      
   2. 
      Can search containers in other contexts e.g. in interior of car and within reach after arrest (Gant)
      
4. 
   Inventory Searches
   
   1. 
      Basic Principle: After police take lawful custody of property, they may conduct a warrantless search for inventory purposes to
      
      1. 
         Protect the property
         
      2. 
         Protect the police from claims
         
      3. 
         Protect the police from danger (Opperman)
         
   2. 
      Standardized police procedures are key (Bertine, Wells)
      
   3. 
      But fear of abuse (Wells, Bertine)
      
      1. 
         If bad faith—where motive is to search for evidence…might be suppressed?
         

• 
  Seized at the border—not arrest and not temporary detention
  
• 
  Rather special need when seized at the border—balancing test of governmental interest in public safety/health, right to know who is entering the country vs. intrusion into privacy
  
• 
  Is a warrant needed?= no, can take you to the side and conduct a search
  
  • 
    Tremendous discretion at the border—no need to explain
    
  • 
    Unless intrusive body searches/strip searches
    

1. 
   at the international border
   
   1. 
      routine border searches
      
2. 
   interior checkpoints (Homeland Security)
   
   1. 
      temporary or permanent—similar to checkpoints for OUIs
      
   2. 
      more privacy rights 66 miles north of border—further from border more rights
      
   3. 
      what makes checkpoints legal?= can detain briefly but still need probable cause to arrest and search
      
   4. 
      to send someone through secondary checkpoint you need at least reasonable suspicion
      
   5. 
      can use ethnicity at interior checkpoints but cannot search car without probable cause
      
3. 
   airports
   
4. 
   roving patrols
   
   1. 
      can you stop someone’s vehicle if using a roving patrol?=no
      
   2. 
      make it tolerable at fixed checkpoint—here just signaling out certain people
      
   3. 
      need at least reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe crime committed to stop a car or that they are here illegally
      

• 
  United States v. Montaya de Hernandez
  
  • 
    Officers got a court order for rectal exam
    
  • 
    What standard is needed?= probable cause; reasonable suspicion for routine stops at border
    
  • 
    Has the Terry stop exceeded the scope of what is justifiable under Terry stop where it now becomes unreasonable based on totality of circumstances?= detain her for 16 hours because suspect she has drugs in her system
    
  • 
    Government interest greater at the border
    
• 
  Winston v. Lee
  
  • 
    Search by government agents in area where reasonable expectation of privacy (the body)
    
  • 
    Exception to search warrant—emergency? (normally would suspend with warrant requirement but none here)
    
  • 
    Evidentiary emergency not applicable; medical emergency might work (balloon carriers)
    
  • 
    Probable cause to believe he has bullet in body—it is a search and need a warrant because no emergency
    
  • 
    When it comes to human body, must be greater caution
    
    • 
      If we treat privacy of our body like we treat everything else, then no value in the right of privacy in our body
      

• 
  Balancing test arises where established rules don’t give us an answer—used here
  
• 
  Very rarely and very specific circumstances can enter the human body