Crim Pro Q&A 1

A) Was Sackos alert a 4th A serach

a. Place, Caballes
b. Analysis:
i. Ella didnt alert at Petes door. No intrusion into the home like no intrusion into
luggage and car trunk.
ii. OTOH other argument
1. Apartment = house
2. Falls w/in reach of 4th A home
a. Not like Caballeas where effects were in public
3. Home is given greater privacy (Oliver)
4. Using Katz 2-part test
a. Actual Pete has an actual
b. Reasonable
iii. Not as if in the actual apartment, smelling aromas is akin to looking into the
unshielded window or flying above a house (Ciraolo, Riley)
1. So it might not be a search
2. Knowingly exposed activities
3. No REP of aromas hes knowingly exposing to the hallway outside the
public.
4. So this begins the problem of where does Petes property begin?
a. Curtilage argument with Dunn factors
b. Analysis of petes apartment
c. Does his property begin at the front door of the apartment?
c. Conclusion: Even though Sacko is sniffing at Petes house, Im doubtful that this alert
triggers 4th A analysis. After all, we are talking about a dog sniff that took place in a
common area maybe not an open field, but probly not curtilage either. Plus, this is non-
open-field, non-curtilage area appears to be one accessible to the public as residents and
guest may have routinely helf the door open for visitors.
d. Could go into Jardines analysis

TRESPASS & KATZ use both only if the facts support both.
Follow each rabbit trail to its end.

B) Bong
a. Rule Greenwood garbage
i. Smith third party doctrine
ii. Katz knowing exposure, no REP
b. Analysis
i. Greenwood:
1. Is garbage outside of curtilage?
2. Apply Dunn factors
3. Make curtilage argument and make argument that it isnt curtilage for each
factor
a. Ex) Common area for public/apt v. near his apartment
 b. Greenwood didnt address backyard
c. But this had a common area that led up to the trash
ii. Circalo and riley
1. Katz no REP
a. He left this for pick up, no real expectation of privacy in the
context of the open can. It may be alongside his back potch, but
you can see it from his backporch.
C) Text messages can Ella send Pete a text from a 3rd parties phone?
a. Rule Smith, Katz, White
b. Analysis:
i. Katz wiretapped phone line, 4th A search
1. He had actual and REP
ii. White false friend
1. No 4th A on wrongplace confidentiality
2. Assumed the risk
iii. Smith telephone numbers
1. No REP
2. third party doctrine
iv. Does this case look like Katz, White, Smith?
1. Argue how theyre alike/disalike from each
a. Katz
i. Knew friend misplaced? No PW protected?
ii. But most people dont expect people to look at our
messages
b. White
i. Petes friend didnt betray him
ii. Didnt assume the risk
iii. But pete did voluntary share w/ a third party
iv. He voluntarily sent the message
c. Smith
i. Public = broad
ii. Who is the public?
iii. He may have knowingly exposed the content of the
messages when he sent that number.
v. Ellas action sending a text is a search
1. If she had just read the existing texts, itd be tough, but Ellas ruse appears
to be an interception in and of itself.
vi. Argue no wiretap activity because it reached its intended location w/o interception.
c. Conclusion search
i. It was an open ended questions, so you can add some policy. But dont do that
until you knocked down the cases and the rules.
ii.