Crim Pro: 4A Analysis The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
t of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreas S/S,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
START
Gov’t Conduct MUST be REASONABLE Gov’t Conduct? Does WARRANT EXCEPTION
Purpose = Protect ‘the people’ from Gov’t Burdeau v. McDowell exist? On Warrantless P/C Arrest,
(1921) Girstine Hrg req’d w/in 48 hrs to
“Search” = Gov’t intrusion restrained by 4A Burden of Proof on Gov’t to eval P/C actually present!
“Primary Directive” = Get a WARRANT! YES establish.
NO Person w/ Sufficient
Connection to U.S.? EXIGENT
U.S. v. Verdugo- NO CIRCUMSTANCES
Life Threatening Situation or
NO SEARCH Occurred Urquidez (1990) Destruction of Evidence?
Y Exception to
(so WARRANT or (hot pursuit?)
YES WARRANT ONLY
EXCEPTION NOT necessary) Warden v. Hayden (1967)
Requires P/C and
subject to SCOPE
Reas’ble Expect’n of NO
Priv. (EOP)? (subj & obj)
Know Exposed res to Public View? Katz v. U.S. (1967) SITLA / A-SITLA
SEARCH incident to lawful
Home = heightened expectation (Automatic Trigger)
arrest (“SITLA”)?
Car = reduced expectation YES Y
Chimel v. Cal. (1969) Recent occupant
3dP = no reas expectation Exception to
NY v. Belton (1981)
SEARCH subject to 4A occurred.
WARRANT and P/C,
Wingspan or Lunge Rule subject to SCOPE
YES PD WARRANT, issued upon No particularized
suspicion reqd NO
Magistrate (“M”) determination that Protect Evid & Officer
* A-SITLA does NOT incl trunk)
Strong Presumption of probable cause (“P/C”) established?
Reasonableness
in favor of Gov’t. D rebuttal: SEARCH conducted as INVENTORY
(1) NO P/C (erroneous determ by M); inventory, pursuant to Police Y
Burden of Proof on (2) M NOT neutral (has dog in fight); Dept. policies? Exception to
(3) UNREASONABLE EXECUTION WARRANT and P/C,
Defendant (“D”) to rebut.
NO subject to SCOPE
Protect D, reduce false claims, catch
missed stuff
Gates TOC Analysis
Based on Anonymous AUTOMOBILE
(1) Est / corrob AI’s Basis of
Informant (A/I)?
Knowledge (“BOK”)?
SEARCH of vehicle (incl. motor
Exception to
‡
Ill v. Gates (SCT 1983) home) based upon P/C?
(2) A/I’s veracity? WARRANT ONLY
Cal. V. Carney (1985)
Y Requires P/C and
NO YES Cal. v. Acevedo (1991)
Key: Predictive Info > Wyo. v. Houghton (1999) subject to SCOPE
N
indicates insider Apply to containers &
Can also ask for Consent!
Would Reas Person passengers—d/n have
believe offense has NO
A/E extends to (1) place of stop, and (2) back
to occur on street, but
taken / is taking place? to Police station Mobile & Regulated temporal limits
Reduced EOP
Warrant Invalid * anywhere P/C exists (incl trunk) NO
Test P/C at supression hrg! ‡ Can lead to arrest, then ASITLA
* can be after D leaves vehicle
YES Pkg in vehicle = vehicle!
CONSENT
3dP OK > joint dominion & ctrl
NO SEARCH conducted after Unless OP present & objects
Warrant Facially
Warrant executed w/ 3dP error OK officer (“O”) obtained voluntary
Valid? where good Y
PROPER FORMALITIES? and revocable consent?
faith by PD Exception to
If based on info O knew (or Bustamonte (1973)
- Oath / Affidavit supporting P/C WARRANT and P/C,
s/h known) was false, will
- Neutral & Detached M subject to SCOPE
negate good faith, but I false
Was D’s will
- Describe place to be searched stmt may be harmless error if Freedom to terminate
overborne? (TOC) Acquiescence NEVER = Consent
& item(s) to be seized w/ YES
not necessary to P/C) encounter? Did Gov’t make NO
Party stay (illegal w/ INS) Consent need NOT be Really vol? Threat, lie?
particularity (see Colonial Writ Would reas’ly well-trained O knowing! Predicate unlawful seize--negates
of Assistance) rely on warrant?
- Knock & Announce PLAIN VIEW
YES NO Item SEIZED where:
(1) O had Lawful Access
Exception to
(2) O had Lawful Vantage, and Y
Good Faith exception WARRANT for
YES (3) Incrim Nature Immed App’t
U.S. v. Leon (1984) SEIZURE
Ariz v. Hicks (1987)
Objective basis Subject to SCOPE
Did Search / Seizure
(“S/S”) EXCEED SCOPE Test or Move BEFORE Seize = circumstantial
of Warrant? NO evid of unsurity! Defeats 3d req’d element.
NO S/S Presumed INVALID
YES SEARCH—perceived need SPECIAL NEEDS
(Analyze Standing)
beyond normal crim law enfcmt
S/S REASONABLE Exclusionary Rule: (1) No PD (school/border search, chkpts) Exception to
Y
Evidence likely admissible profit from illegality, (2) Deter PD NO WARRANT and P/C,
Eval: Subst’l Interest re Public Safety,
(GOTO 5A / 6A analysis) conduct, and (3) jud’l integrity subject to SCOPE
Area / Item heavily REGULATED,
Need only be reas > not best
reduced EOP, NOT for discovery of evid
Mich. DSP v. Sitz (1990) Balancing Test: (1) gov’t interest, (2) effectiveness
City of Indy v. Edmond (2000) of method in question, and (3) level of privacy
intrusion
REASONABLENESS tied to SCOPE > CRITICAL!
(1) Probable Cause = more than reasonable suspicion
(2) Reas Susp = articulable fact more than speculation, hunch, rumor, or instinct PLUS some articulable fact >
Fruit of Poisonous Tree (“FOPT”) Doct. Analysis
which , when viewed thru lens of police intuition leads to suspicion
(3) Terry v. Ohio (1968) > Scope can turn (a) STOP (seizure) into Arrest, and (1) Is ‘tree’ poisoned? Const’l violation (NOT viol of prophylatic rule)
(b) FRISK (search) into Full Blown Search (2) Identify ‘fruit’ (what was obtained that Gov’t seeks to admit?)
(4) Public Place and P/C that indiv committed crime > no warrant req’d; (3) Where did the evidence against THIS PARTICULAR come from?
Poisoned Tree?
(5) INSIDE Dwelling > ALWAYS look for warrant (Payton v. N.Y. (1980);
NO > Independent Source
(6) Comm’l diff from residential (see Minn. v. Carter (1998)), but poss worker EOP in workplace.
YES >
(7) Arrest warrant = authority to enter dwelling and search for suspect (see also Exceptions)
Was Gov’t about to get this evidence? Inevitable Discovery (imminent > def w/h/b)
(8) Standing Analysis: suppression of prdt of 4A viol only avail to those whose rights were viol’d by the
search itself (personal EOP in place searched & EOP reasonable > NOT by those impacted by Has taint dissipated? Attenuation > Supression w/n serve deterrence
introduction ( co- , co-conspirators)
Only applies for violation of Const’l right (e.g., d/n apply to Miranda!)
