Introduction To Criminal Procedure Three major topics
If arrestee is a “recent occupant” of the car, officer may search the car incident to the arrest
Download 1 Mb.
|
If arrestee is a “recent occupant” of the car, officer may search the car incident to the arrest. Justification: Once an officer determines there is probable cause to make an arrest, it is reasonable to allow officers to ensure their safety and to preserve evidence by searching the entire passenger compartment. Thornton (2004) – Police suspicious of car after it slowed down to avoid driving next to unmarked police car. Police ran tags, found irregularity, but before he could pull him over, car pulled into parking lot, parked and driver got out. Officer pulled behind him and asked D for driver’s license and told him that license tags did not match car he was driving. D appeared nervous and sweating, consented to pat-down, admitted he had drugs on him and pulled them out of his pocket at officer’s request. Officer arrested D and placed him police car, then searched D’s car and found gun under seat. Held: Valid search of D’s car. B/c D was a “recent occupant” of the car, officer could search car incident to that arrest. Pretextual Stops / Arrests Police may conduct search incident to arrest whenever they arrest a person Any arrest is sufficient If arrested for a misdemeanor, Belton search allowed – Ladson (1999) When pulled over for traffic citation, NO Belton search (b/c no custodial arrest) – Knowles v. Iowa (1998) If officer legally authorized to make the traffic stop, subsequent car search is valid under 4th Amend. – Whren Constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved. i.e. does not matter if their reason for pulling over was something else and were improper reasons under 4th BUT pretextual stop can be so unreasonable that it violates 4th Amend e.g. if real purpose is inventory search, that violates 4th Amend. Whren (1996) – Police saw D in car and were suspicious that he was involved w/ drugs. So they followed him until he did something illegal. Made a turn w/o signaling and sped away, so they pulled him over and noticed bags of cocaine in D’s hands; they had authority (probable cause) to pull them over for traffic violations. Then arrested them and searched the car. Held: Valid search. Even though the stop was pretextual, the subsequent search was valid under 4th Am. 4th Amend. issue here was the stop of the car by police. If they have authority to do traffic stop, that authorizes them to look inside the car. Permitted search covered by 4th, even though the real reasons were improper under the 4th. Officers had probable cause to believe that Ds had violated the traffic code, which rendered the stop reasonable under the 4th Amend and the evidence they discovered was admissible. The making of a traffic stop out-of-uniform does not remotely qualify as such an extreme practice and is so governed by the usual rule that probable cause to believe the law has been broken “outbalances” private interest in avoiding police contact. Effect: Permits police to be more proactive – to rely on their hunches if they can find a traffic violation Searches Not Incident to Arrest: Cars, etc. (Not Belton search) Intro. Belton Summary – search incident to arrest if there was custodial arrest of person in car, that alone authorizes a search of the passenger compartment of the car = that is search incident to an arrest Automobile exception – may or may not be an arrest Belton – always involves an arrest Probable cause not needed in Belton searches Different ways that car can be searched: Inventory search – car impounded and searched – police regulations authorizing an inventory search of the car. No probable cause, only administrative reasons. Must be routine practice pursuant to administrative regulations. Automobile “frisk” (Michigan v. Long) – requires suspicion Car search warrant exceptions (no warrant needed) Carroll–Chambers–Carney – automobile exception (probable cause) Belton search (car search incident to arrest) Auto inventory (Opperman) Automobile exception cases ö searches with probable cause Belton different: probable cause not needed For the following cases, assume this is NOT a Belton search and arrest Searches Not Incident to Arrest: Cars [Automobile Exception Cases] Automobile Exception to 4th Amend. – If police have probable cause to believe that vehicle like a car contains contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they may search the vehicle without a warrant. – Carroll Search warrant unnecessary where there is probable cause to search a car stopped on the highway; car is moveable, occupants are alerted, and car’s contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained. Distinction between warrantless search in car and home: Cars and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. Justifications: Automobiles and similar vehicles are mobile and so will not likely be available for search by the time an officer returns with a warrant People have lesser expectation of privacy in their vehicles than in their homes. Carroll (1925) – Cops had probable cause to pull over the car and search it; Court focused on mobility of car – that car could get away and evidence lost. If police are justified in making a warrantless search of a vehicle under the automobile exception at the time of stopping (e.g. they had probable cause to search vehicle), they may tow the vehicle to the police station and search it later. – Chambers Where police may stop and search a car under Carroll, they may also seize it and search it later at the police station without a warrant BUT must have probable cause to search. Search of the car at police station some time after the arrest cannot be justified as a search incident to an arrest. If an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search. Chambers (1970) – Search of the car at police station some time after the arrest and w/o warrant produced gun and other evidence. Held: This was not a search incident to an arrest, but search still valid. Police had probable cause to arrest car occupants and to search for guns and stolen money immediately after arrest. Thus, probable cause remained while car was at police station and they could search car w/ probable cause at the station. Search of car must not be too attenuated from time of arrest. Coolidge (1971) – Here, the search of D’s cars parked in his driveway hours after his arrest was too attenuated and thus unconstitutional. Contemporaneousness not required (per Chambers) but search must not be too attenuated from time of arrest. Scope of search under Automobile Exception: Search entire vehicle, including trunk, AND All containers within the vehicle that might contain the object for which they are searching – Ross (1982) Search not limited to driver’s belongings, may extend to passenger’s packages – Wyoming v. Houghten (1999) (Search of passenger’s purse upheld where officer noticed driver had syringe in his pocket.) Rationale: Like a driver, passenger has reduced expectation of privacy in a car. If police only have probable cause to search a container (recently) placed in a vehicle, they may search that container, but search may not extend to other parts of the car. – California v. Acevedo (1991) Searches Not Incident to Arrest: Motor Homes Automobile exception extends to any vehicle that has the attributes of mobility and a lesser expectation of privacy similar to a car. Automobile exception extends to motor homes if they are not at a fixed site. – Carney Justifications for search of motor home w/ probable cause: pervasive schemes of regulation lead to reduced expectations of privacy exigencies attendant to ready mobility societal interests in effective law enforcement Carney (1985) – Police suspected motor home of drug activity; kid leaving motor home told him he got drugs in exchange for sexual acts. Had kid go back and knock on door, which D opened, police identified themselves and without warrant or consent, entered motor home and observed drugs and paraphernalia inside. D arrested, motor home searched further at station and more drugs found. Held: If vehicle is being used on highways or is readily capable of such use (i.e. motor home) and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes, police may immediately search before vehicle and occupants become unavailable if they have probable cause to search it. The pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met. If vehicle is being used on highways or is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes, the overriding societal interests in effective law enforcement justify an immediate search before the vehicle and its occupants become unavailable. Less mobile it is, the more likely it is to be a home. Search valid. D’s motor home fell within automobile exception; thus police could search w/o a warrant if they had probable cause, which they did. Car Inventory Probable cause and warrant requirements of 4th Amend. do not apply to routine inventory searches. – Opperman (1976) Administrative search. Police may search arrestee’s personal belongings to inventory them before incarcerating him (Lafayette); may search an entire vehicle, including closed containers within the vehicle, that has been impounded (Bertine) Luggage and Containers Search incident to arrest must be contemporaneous in time and place with arrest includes searches of luggage and containers Warrantless searches of luggage or other property seized at the time of an arrest cannot be justified as incident to that arrest either if: the search is remote in time or place from the arrest OR no exigency exists. – Chadwick Once police have reduced luggage or other personal property not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee to their exclusive control, and there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, a search of that property is no longer incident to the arrest. Chadwick (1977) – Police were suspicious of large footlocker on train w/ person who looked like drug trafficker. They had no arrest or search warrant, and released dog near the footlocker , who signaled the presence of a controlled substance inside the footlocker . Then Ds loaded footlocker into car, and w/ car trunk still open, police arrested Ds and took keys to footlocker. Ds taken to federal building along w/ footlocker, which was opened 1.5 hours after the arrests. Searched footlocker w/o consent or search warrant, found drugs. Held: Because footlocker was safely immobilized (Ds could not reach it to destroy evidence or get weapons), and there was no exigency, it was unreasonable for the govt to conduct the search of the footlocker back at the station house without a warrant. Search was not immediate enough after arrests. Ds had a reasonable expectation of privacy. When police have probable cause to search a car without a warrant (under the Carroll-Chambers-Carney automobile exception), they may also search any containers within the vehicle that might contain the object for which they are searching – Ross (1982) (in addition to searching entire vehicle, including trunk) Expectation of privacy in one’s vehicle is equal to one’s expectation of privacy in the container. Court won’t draw distinction between “worthy” and “unworthy” containers If police only have probable cause to search a container (recently) placed in a vehicle, they may search that container, but search may not extend to other parts of the car. – California v. Acevedo 4th Amend. does not require the police to obtain a warrant to open the container in a moveable vehicle simply b/c they lack probable cause to search the entire car. 4th Amend. does not compel separate treatment for a car search that extends only to a container within the vehicle. Interprets Carroll as providing one rule to govern all car searches: Police may search a car and the containers within it if they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained. California v. Acevedo (1991) – Man got package from Hawaii that police knew from prior inspection contained drugs (wanted him to take package for further surveillance). Police saw D go into apt. where package was located then left carrying large paper bag like ones they observed in original package sent from Hawaii. He got in car w/ bag and drove away. Police feared loss of evidence, so they pulled him over, opened trunk and bag, found drugs. Held: No 4th Amend. violation. Police had probable cause to search trunk and bag, but probably nothing else. It was okay for police here to search bag in trunk. Plain View and Touch Police may make warrantless seizure if they: are legitimately on the premises discover evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of crime, or contraband that is in plain view, and have probable cause to believe (i.e. must be immediately apparent) that the item IS evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of crime. Legitimately/lawfully on premises anything under the fourth amendment that lets the cops be where they are Inadvertence NOT required – Horton Real purpose does not need to be inadvertent discovery; total good faith not required. Formerly, plain view exception only applied if evidence was inadvertently discovered – inadvertence no longer required. Ex: Police have probable cause to believe that the weapons and proceeds from an armed robbery are at D’s home. If they get warrant only to search for the proceeds, they still may seize the weapons if they are found in plain view during the search. Police must also have lawful access to the object Police may seize unspecified property while executing a search warrant. Probable cause required before you move something to determine if it’s a seize-able item during a plain view seizure. – Arizona v. Hicks Arizona v. Hicks (1987) – While investigating shooting in apartment, officer spotted 2 sets of expensive stereo equipment which he had reasonable suspicion (but not probable cause) to believe were stolen. Officer moved some of the components to check serial numbers. This movement constituted invalid search b/c of lack of probable cause. Even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate “plain view” warrantless seizures, it is not a necessary condition. Horton v. California (1990) – D was convicted of armed robbery. Police affidavit for warrant described weapons and stolen property, but magistrate only authorized search for the stolen property. Police searched D’s home but did not find stolen property. During course of search, discovered the weapons and other evidence in plain view and seized them. Seized evidence was not discovered inadvertently – searching officer admitted that while he was searching for the stolen property, he was also interested in finding other evidence connecting D to robbery. Held: Plain view doctrine applies and permits the seizure. Inadvertence not required. If police are lawfully searching a place, and see something in plain view that gives them probable cause, then they can seize the items. Second, they must have lawfully accessed the object. Search was valid. Reasonableness Ascent of Reasonableness Camara and See (1967) and enforcement of administrative regulations Camara – In administrative inspections and searches, inspectors must have a warrant for searches of private residences and commercial buildings. Court recognized different form of probable cause for administrative searches: does not require individualized suspicion instead, its P.C. based on general 4th Amend. standard of reasonableness showing of general and neutral enforcement plan will justify issuance of warrant PC also satisfied if there are reasonable administrative standards that mandate this search provides external standard for inspection (of restaurants, apartment buildings etc.) watered down warrant requirements – reasonable suspicion not needed ** Note: Although Camara–See require administrative search, no one really requires that inspectors get warrant before search Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Stop and Frisk Stop and frisk is another exception to warrant requirement Terry ö limited authority for police to stop individual and pat him down Police must have probable cause to do so Terry Stop = Police officer may stop a person without probable cause if she has an reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime. Terry Frisk = In these circumstances, if officer also reasonable believes that the person may be armed and presently dangerous, she may conduct a protective frisk to ensure detainee has no weapons. Terry – In General. Terry stop and frisk involves seizure: seizure when the officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away (stops him) and when officer frisks him stop and search is involuntary – person need not consent to the frisk officer can use reasonable force to effectuate the frisk For first time recognized exception to the requirement that 4th Amend. seizures of persons must be based on probable cause. Admissibility of Evidence ö Properly seized items in Terry patdown are admissible as evidence against D. Terry frisk = patdown Terry stop and frisk = investigatory detention Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> womenandlaw uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program uploads -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings uploads -> Medical Radiography Program uploads -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter uploads -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter womenandlaw -> Introduction – Chapter 1 (p. 2) and Chapter 2 (p. 13) womenandlaw -> Strict liability Download 1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|