You are on page 1of 7

I.

Searches and Seizures of Persons and Things a. Intro i. Problem of Gathering Evidence ii. The Basics of the 4th Amendment 1. People as a Limiting term: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 2. Searches Against Illegal Aliens in the United States 3. The Reasonableness Clause and the Warrant Clause 4. Probable Cause 5. State Action Requirement iii. The Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule b. Threshold Requirements for 4th Amendment Protections: What is a SEARCH? What is a SEIZURE? i. The Reasonable Expectation Test 1. Katz 2. Katz as a two-pronged test 3. Privacy and Technological Advances ii. Interests Protected by the Fourth Amendment After Katz 1. Searches and Seizures Implicate Different Interests iii. Application of the Katz Principle 1. Subjective Manifestation 2. Open fields a. Questions about Oliver and the Open Fields Doctrine b. Defining Curtilage: United States v. Dunn 3. Access by Members of the Public a. Consensual Electronic Surveillance b. Financial Records c. Pen Registers i. Carnivore and Computers d. Trash i. Questions about Greenwood e. Public Areas f. Aerial Surveillance i. Ordinary Overflights: Florida v. Riley ii. Views from Above g. Manipulation of Bags in Public Transit i. Bond v. United States ii. Questions about Bond 4. Investigations that can ONLY reveal Illegal Activity a. Canine Sniffs i. Dog problems ii. Dog sniffs of people and places iii. Dog-sniff of a car during a routine traffic stop: Illinois v. Caballes b. Chemical Testing for Drugs i. Other drug testing 5. Use of Technology to Enhance Inspection a. Thermal Detection Devices i. Kyllo ii. Questions about Kyllo b. Electronic Tracking Devices i. Tracking Public Movements: United States v. Knotts ii. More Complex Beeper Issues: United States v. Karo iii. Beepers in the House iv. Informants, Beepers, and Stolen Property v. Tracking with GPS and Related Devices c. Other Sensory Enhancement Devices 6. Investigative Activity Conducted by Private Citizens a. Private Activity i. Mixed Public and Private Action b. Government Investigative Activity Subsequent to Private and Other Legal Searches i. Limits Imposed by the Initial Search: Walter v. United States ii. Reopening Permitted: United States v. Jacobsen iii. Controlled Deliveries:Illinois v. Andreas 7. Foreign Officials 8. Jails, Prison Cells, and Convicts 9. Public Schools and Public Employees

c.

d.

10. Re-Cap on Limitations Wrought by Katz The Tension Between the Reasonableness and the Warrant Clauses i. The Importance of the Warrant Clause Generally ii. The Reason for the Warrant Requirement 1. Johnson v. Untied States 2. Note on Johnson iii. The Function of the Warrant Requirement 1. The warrant req in reality Obtaining a Search warrant: Constitutional Prerequisites i. Demonstrating Probable Cause 1. Source of Information on Which Probable Cause is based a. Spinelli v. United States b. Applying Spinelli 2. Rejection of a Rigid Two-Pronged Test a. Illinois v. Gates b. Note on gates c. Strong Prong/ Weak Prong d. The Function of Corroboration after Gates e. Insufficient Corroboration f. The Gates Test Applied: Massachusetts v. Upton 3. The Citizen Informant 4. Accomplices 5. Quantity of Information Required For Probable Cuase a. Equivocal Activity b. Probable Cause to Arrest c. Mistaken Arrests d. Probabilities with Multiple Suspects i. Maryland v. Pringle ii. Questions on Pringle iii. Probable Cuase for an Arrest Different from the Charge on Which the Defendant was Arrested: Devenpeck v. Alford 6. Collective Knowledge 7. Staleness of Information 8. First Amendment Concerns ii. Probable Cause, Specificity and Reasonableness 1. The things that can be seized a. Warden v. hayden b. Note on the Mere Evidence Rule 2. Probable Cause as to Location of Evidence 3. Searches of Non-Suspects Premises 4. Describing the Place to Be Searched a. Function of the Particularity Req b. Reasoable Particularity c. The wrong Address d. The Breadth of the Place to be Searched 5. Particularity for Arrest Warrants 6. Describing the Things to Be Seized a. Andresen v. Maryland b. Note on Andresen and Particularity c. Searches of Computers d. Reasonable Particularity e. Severability 7. Reasonableness and Warrants 8. Details of the Warrant 9. Anticipatory Warrants 10. Sneak and Peek Warrants iii. Executing the Warrant 1. The Knock and Announce Requirement a. Constitutional Basis of the Knock and Announce Requirement b. Refused Admittance 2. Exceptions to the Notice Rule a. No Breaking b. Emergency Circumstances: Richard v. Wisconsin c. No-Knock Warrants

iv.

v.

d. No-Knock Entries and Destruction of Property: United States v. Ramirez Exigent Circumstances After Knocking Does the violation of the Knock and Announce Requirement Justify Exclusion of Evidence? Timing and Scope of Execution a. Destruction and Excessiveness b. Use of Distraction and Intimidation Devices c. Unnecessarily Intrusive Searches d. When is the Search Completed? 6. Presence of the Warrant 7. Enlisting Private Citizens to Help Search a. Unwillin assistance b. Willing Assistance 8. Media Ride Alongs The Screening Magistrate 1. Neutral and Detached a. Rubber Stamp 2. Legal Training a. Note on Shadwick 3. Magistrate Decisions To Apply or Not Apply the Warrant Clause 1. Arrest in Public and in the Home a. Standards for Warrantless Arrests b. Arrest Versus Summons c. The Constitutional Rule: Arrests in Public i. United States v. Watson ii. Note on the Use of Excessive force in Making an arrest iii. High-speed chases: Scott v. harris iv. Excessive Force and Public Protest d. Protections against erroneous warrantless arrests i. Country of Riverside v. McLaughlin ii. Detentions for less than 4 hours iii. Remedy for a McLaughlin Violation e. Arrests in the Home i. The Payton Rule ii. Reason to believe the suspect is at home iii. Is the arrest at home or in public? iv. Homeless persons v. Hotels and motels vi. Arrests in the Home of a third party vii. Questions in standing viii. The rights of an overnight guest: Minnesota v. Olson ix. Temporary Visitors f. Material Witness 2. Stop and Frisk a. Stop and Frisk Established i. Terry v. Ohio ii. Note on the impact of terry iii. Critique of Terry iv. AN early app of Terry Adams v. Williams v. Bright line rules under Terry Pennsylvania v. Mimms vi. Question about Mimms vii. Mimms and Passengers viii. Protective Frisk of Passengers: Arizona v. Johnson ix. Mimms Applied: New York v. Class x. Detention of Occupants of a Residence During Legal Law Enforcement Activity: Note on Michigan v. Summers and Muehler v. Mena b. When Does a Seizure Occur? The Line between Stop and Encounter i. The Mendenhall Free to Leave Test ii. Applying the Free to Leave Test: Florida v. Royer iii. Factory Sweeps: INS v. Delgado iv. Can failure to Cooperate Lead to Reasonable Suspicion to Justify a Stop v. Street Encounters vi. Problem With the Freedom to Walk Away Test vii. Bus Sweeps: Florida v. Bostick and United States v. Drayton 3. 4. 5.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g. h.

1. United States v. Drayton 2. Note on Bus Sweeps viii. State of Mind Required for a Stop: Brower v. County of Inyo ix. The Suspect Who Does Not Submit: California v. Hodari D. x. Question after Hodari xi. When Does Submission Occur xii. Summary of Seizure Cases Grounds for a Stop: Reasonable Suspicion i. Source of Information 1. Anonymous Tips: Alabama v. White 2. Questions After white 3. Anonymous tips Concerning Gun Possession 4. Florida v. J.L. 5. J.L. and a Tip about Reckless Driving 6. J.L. and a tip about Domestic Violence 7. J.L. and Anonymity ii. Quantum of Suspicion 1. Comparison to probable cause 2. Assessment of Probabilities 3. United States v. Arvizu 4. Examples of Reasonable Suspicion 5. Example of Reasonable Suspicion Lacking 6. Reasonable Suspicion of a Completed Crime: United States v. Hensley 7. Relevance of the Race of the Suspect 8. Use of Profiles 9. Overbroad Profile Factors 10. Reasonable Suspicion and Flight From the Police Limited Searches for Police Protection Under the Terry Doctrine i. Frisk Cannot be used to Search for Evidence: Minnesota v. Dickerson ii. Suspicion Required to Support the Right to Frisk iii. Protective Searches beyond the Suspects person: Michigan v. Long iv. Applying Michigan v. Long v. Protective Searches of Persons other than the Suspect vi. Inspecting Objects During the Course of a Protective Frisk vii. Protective Sweeps: Maryland v. Buie viii. Protective Sweeps Other Than During an Arrest Brief and Limited Detentions: The Line Between Stop and Arrest i. Forced Movement of the Suspect to a Custodial Area ii. Forced Movement for Identification Purposes iii. Investigative Techniques that are Permissible within the Confines of a Terry Stop 1. Criminalizing the Refusal to Provide Identification During a Terry Stop: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada iv. Overly Intrusive Investigation Techniques v. Investigation of Matters other Than the Reasonable Suspicion that Supported the Stop: Stop After a Stop 1. Reasonable Suspicion as to another crime 2. Consensual encounters after a stop has ended vi. Interrogations and Fingerprinting 1. Interrogation beyond the confines of Terry 2. Fingerprinting vii. Time Limits on Terry Stops 1. Question after Sharpe viii. Show of Force During a Terry Stop Detention of Property Under Terry i. Unreasonably Lengthy Detention of Property: United States v. Place ii. Questions after Place iii. Seizure of Property With No Deprivation of a Liberty Interest Limited Searches for Evidence by Law Enforcement Officers Under Terry i. Questions After Hicks Application of the Terry Reasonablness Analysis Outside the Stop and Frisk Context i. United States v. Knights ii. Questions about Knights iii. Suspicionless Searches of Parolees Found Reasonable: Samson v. California

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Can the Knight/ Samson Balancing Test by Extended beyond Probationers and Parolees? Search Incident to Arrest: The Arrest Power Rule a. Spacial Limitations i. Chimel v. California ii. Application of Chimels Case-By-Case Approach iii. Timing of Grab Area Determination iv. Arrest Power Can Be Invoked for any Custodial Arrest and Can Cover PostArrest Movements: Washington v. Chrisman v. Arrest Leading to Exigent Circumstances vi. Protective sweep after an arrest b. Temporal Limitations i. Sequence of Search and Arrest ii. Removal from the Arrest Scene c. Searches of the Person Incident to Arrest i. United States v. Robinson ii. Custodial Arrests for Minor Offenses iii. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista iv. Arrests for Minor Offenses after Atwater v. Robinson and Containers in the Arrestees Grab Area d. The Arrest Power Rule Applied to Automobiles i. The Belton Rule 1. Limitations on Arrest Power After the Arrest of a Recent Occupant: Arizona v. Gant a. Arizona v. Gant b. Note on Grant e. The Arrest Power Rule Where No Arrest Takes Place i. Knowles v. Iowa ii. Question of Knowles f. The Arrest Power Rule Where The Arrest Violates State Law Pretextual Stops and Arrests a. Whren v. United States b. Questions about Whren c. Testilying? d. Extraordinary pretext e. Equal Protection Issues f. Probable Cause of a Traffic Violation g. Reasonable Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law Plain View and Plain Touch Seizures a. Horton v. California b. Probable Cuase to Seize an Item in Plain view: Arizona v. Hicks c. The Plain Touch Doctrine Automobiles and Other Movable Objects a. The Carroll Doctrine b. The Progeny of Carroll i. Chambers v. Maroney ii. Questions after Chambers iii. The Diminished Expectation of Privacy Rationale: California v. Carney iv. Motor Homes c. Movable Containers In and Out of Cars i. Questions after Chadwick ii. Mobile Containers in the Car iii. California v. Acevedo iv. Delayed Search of Containers v. Search of Passengers Property: Wyomng v. Houghton vi. Questions After Houghton Exigent Circumstanfces a. Generally b. Hot Pursuit c. Police and Public Safety i. Public Safety and the Relevance of a Law Enforcement Objective: Brigham City v. Stuart d. The Risk of Destruction of Evidence i. The Seriousness of the Offense

iv.

8.

ii. Murder Scene iii. Minor Offenses e. Impermissibly Created Exigency f. Prior Opportunity to Obtain a Warrant g. Electronic Warrants h. Seizing Premises in the Absence of Exigent Circumstances i. Prohibiting Entry While a Warrant is Being Obtained: Illinois v. McArthur ii. Illinois v. McArchur Administrative Searches and Other Searches and Seizures Based on Special Needs a. Safety Inspections of Homes i. The Assessment of Cause for a Safety Inspection ii. Warranty Without Probable Cause? b. Administrative Searches of Businesses i. New York v. Burger ii. Administrative Searches of Businesses After Burger iii. Substitute for a Warrant iv. The Element of Surprise v. Administrative Inspections by Law Enforcement Officers c. Searches and Seizures of Individuals Pursuant to Special Needs i. Searches and Seizures on the Basis of Reasonable Suspicion Rather than Probable Cause 1. Limitation on Strip Searches of Students a. Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding ii. Suspicionless Searches of Persons on the Basis of Special Needs 1. Drug-Testing Employees: Skinner v. Railway Labot Executives 2. Drug-Testing of Employees: National Treasury Employees v. Von Raab 3. What if there is no Record of Drug Abuse? 4. Drug-Testing of Politicians 5. Chandler v. Miller 6. Drug Testing Cases adter Chandler 7. Drug-Testing of Schoolchildren 8. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 93 of Pottawomie County v. Earls 9. Questions After Earls\Note on Vernonia, Earls, and Chandler 10. Drug-testing for special Needs, or for criminal law enforcement 11. Ferguson v. City of Charleston 12. Note on Ferguson 13. Suspicionless Safety Searches in Airports, Subways, Public Buildings, Etc. d. Roadblocks, Checkpoints, and Suspicionless Seizures i. Individual Stops Witout Suspicion ii. Permanent Checkpoints iii. Temporary Checkpoints to Check for DUI iv. Questions After Sitz v. Drug Checkpoints vi. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond vii. Note on Edmond and Checkpoints after 9/11 viii. Drug Interdiction as a Secondary Purpose ix. Drug-Detection as a Vehicle-Related Safety Interest x. Suspicionless Checkpoints to Obtain Information About a Crime xi. Illinois v. Lidster e. Inventory Searches i. Community Caretaking Function ii. Warranties Suspicionless Searches: South Dakota v. Opperman iii. Property Carried by an Arrestee: Illinois v. Lafayette iv. Limits on Police Discretion: Colorado v. Bertine v. Unlimited Police Discretion Invalidates the Inventory Search: Florida v. Wells vi. The Problem of Pretext vii. Less Onerous Alternatives viii. Searches and Seizures that Serve to Inventory Interest f. Border Searches i. Warrantless, Suspicionless Search of International Mail: United States v. Ramsey ii. Routine Border Searches

iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix.

United States v. Flores-Montano Questions after Searches of Persons at the Border Search of Laptops, Video Cameras, Reading Material, etc. at the Border The Degree of Suspicion Required For a Non-Routine Border Intrusion Standard of Proof Between Probable Cause and Reasonable suspicion? Searches away from the border