4th Amendment

Question 1

What will courts look to in determining if something is more ‘open to the public’ vs. REOP?

Answer 1

1. Proximity to the house
2. Whether area is enclosed
3. Nature of use of area
4. Steps taken by persons to protect the privacy. (Bk423)

Question 2

Open Areas/Flyovers

Answer 2

Areas outside the home that are held out to the public do Not have REOP.
(Ex. = distant barns, yards visible by planes, discarded trash) (Bk423)

Question 3

What is REOP based on?

Answer 3

Totality of the Circumstances. (Bk423)

Question 4

What are some Fact Triggers to recognize Search/Seizure?

Answer 4

1. Police search a home/car
2. Police stop a car @ checkpoint
3. Police search clothing on person
4. Police search a person’s belongings
5. Police arrest a person anywhere w/ or w/o a warrant
6. Police stop person in a car or on foot for violating the law
7. Police dog to sniff for drugs/other contraband. (Bk424)

Question 5

What does SILA stand for?

Answer 5

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

Question 6

What do you need to constitute a Search/Seizure?

Answer 6

1. Govt’l action
2. REOP
3. Warrant or Exception thereto

Question 7

Search & Seizure

Answer 7

A search warrant is needed and is REQUIRED for a government Search/Seizure of property that is located where one has a REOP because a person has a right to be free from an unreasonable search/seizure. (Bk423)

Question 8

Arrest Warrant

Answer 8

An arrest warrant is generally NOT required for an arrest unless a person is arrested in his home. (Bk423)

Question 9

Routine Stop

Answer 9

…by the gov’t is typically permitted. (Bk423)

Question 10

Automobile Stop

Answer 10

The police may randomly stop automobiles if there is a ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ of wrongdoing based on an Objective Standard.

• All occupants may also be asked to exit the vehicle for any reason. (Bk423)

Question 11

Checkpoints/Roadblocks

Answer 11

Police may set up fixed checkpoints to test for compliance with laws related to driving or if a special law enforcement needs are involved, such as immigration.
*THE STOP MUST BE BASED ON SOME NEUTRAL ARTICULABLE STANDARD. (Bk423)

Question 12

Stop & Frisk

Answer 12

= Terry Stop
Police may stop and frisk someone without arresting them. (Bk423)

Question 13

4th Amendment

Answer 13

Prohibits the government from performing unreasonable Searches & Seizures. (Aud)

Question 14

What will the courts do to prevent the government from violating a person’s rights?

Answer 14

To prevent the Gov’t from violating these rights, courts will generally suppress evidence from being aditted if the evidence was obtained in violation of said rights. (Aud)

Question 15

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Answer 15

Any evidence that has been illegally obtained, must be excluded from CRIMINAL TRIALS ONLY. (Aud)

Question 16

Is the Exclusionary Rule in the Constitution?

Answer 16

The Exclusionary Rule is not in the Constitution. It is court made rule established in Weeks v. Ohio (Aud)

Question 17

What court case established The Exclusionary Rule?

Answer 17

Mapp v. Ohio

Question 18

Weeks v. US

Answer 18

Warrantless search for evidence of gambling. The 4th Amendment bars the use of any evidence obtained through a warrantless search. (Aud)

Question 19

What is the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule?

Answer 19

To bar police misconduct and to protect defendants who’s rights have been violated. (Aud)

Question 20

Does the Exclusionary Rule apply to any other proceedings?

Answer 20

The Exclusionary Rule does NOT apply to any other criminal proceedings, only trial proceedings and does not apply to civil proceedings.

Question 21

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 21

Made the Exclusionary Rule applicable to the states

Question 22

Due Process of the 14th Amendment

Answer 22

Is what brings the applicability down through to the states

Question 23

What are the exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule?

Answer 23

1. Law enforcement acts in good faith
2. Defendant testifies in his own defense
3. Knock & Announce violation

Question 24

What case brings about the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule?

Answer 24

U.S. v. Leon

(information in warrant application was not up to date and error on part of judge for granting it). Need not exclude this honest mistake.

Question 25

Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule

Answer 25

Evidence that is illegally obtained, will nonetheless be admissible if law enforcement, in good faith, thinks they are acting pursuant to a valid warrant. **Even possible where they in good faith believe a warrant is not even required for a search...(lawd!)

Question 26

Arizona v. Evans

Answer 26

Good Faith Exception case. Evidence seized because of clerical error may be admitted as an exception to the Exclusionary Rule. (Aud)

Question 27

3rd Exception to the Exclusionary Rule - Knock & Announce

Answer 27

Exclusionary Rule does not apply if the police reasonably suspect that in doing so it may lead to: -Evidence destruction - Escape of suspect -Physical violence going on inside **A warrant itself can permit forcible entry**

Question 28

Derivative Evidence

Answer 28

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree = Secondary Evidence

Question 29

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Answer 29

Illegal search that leads to new evidence (aka Secondary Evidence, Derivative Evidence)

Question 30

What is the 2nd Exception to the Exclusionary Rule?

Answer 30

For Impeachment Purposes -A defendant testifies in his own defense. Illegally obtained evidence may be admitted to impeach the defendant's testimony. Only applies to the Defendant. (Aud)

Question 31

Arizona v. Gant

Answer 31

Warrantless Search of Passenger Compartment.. Only if: 1. Arrestee has access to passenger compartment (which will virtually NEVER be the case if standard police prctice is followed) 2. The police reasonably believe the passenger compartment may contain evidence OF THE OFFENSE for which the arrest is being made.

Question 32

Arizona v. Gant. What was the case about?

Answer 32

Warrantless search of the passenger compartment and narrowed the Belton case.

Question 33

Consequences for vehicle outside of curtilage

Answer 33

Because the non-curtilage portion of a residential property is treated the same for Fourth Amendment purposes as a public place, it follows that when a vehicle is located in the non-curtilage portion, the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement relieves the police of the need to procure a warrant before they enter the property and search/seize the vehicle just as if the vehicle were parked on the street. (Eman139)

Question 34

Collins v. Virginia

Answer 34

The vehicle exception does Not apply to allow the warrantless search of a vehicle located within the curtilage. (Eman140)

Question 35

Arizona v. Gant establishes that the search incident to arrest rationale allows a warrantless search of the passenger compartment only if....

Answer 35

1. The arrestee has access to the passenger compartment at the moment of the search (Which will virtually Never be the Case!!) 2. The police reasonable believe that the passenger compartment may contain evidence of the offense for which the arrest is being made. (Eman107)

Question 36

Automobile Exception + Exigent Circumstances

Answer 36

Exigent circumstance even though it is its own 'exception', will apply to the "Automobile Exception" as well (wrap your head around that one!). Exigent circumstances will often cause the warrant requirement to be suspended when a car search is involved. Ex. Can search to preserve evidence.

Question 37

Automobile Exception, Statement of Rule

Answer 37

A police officer may search a vehicle without first obtaining a warrant, as long as she has P.C. to believe that evidence or contraband is located in the vehicle. The Rationale: = 1. Ready mobility, 2. Lesser expectation of privacy. (Eman135)

Question 38

Brown v. Illinois

Answer 38

Established 3 Factors whether an event/time is enough to Purge Taint. 1. Temporal Proximity 2. Presence of Intervening Circumstances 3. Purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.

Question 39

Purged Taint (Defined)

Answer 39

If enough additional factors intervene between the original illegality and the final discovery of evidence, neither the 'deterrence' nor 'judicial fairness' rationales behind the Exclusionary Rule applies. Therefore, the evidence may be Admissible despite the fact that it would not have been discovered 'but for' the illegality. (Eman 334)

Question 40

Rationales behind the Exclusionary Rule

Answer 40

-Deterrence of Police Misconduct - Judicial Fairness ***If neither of these are being served, the evidence could be allowed under Purged Taint. (Eman 334)

Question 41

Standing

Answer 41

A defendant may assert the Exclusionary Rule only to bar evidence obtained through violation of his Own constitutional rights,, not to bar evidence obtained through violation of the rights of some 3rd party. (Eman 319)

Question 42

'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' Doctrine

Answer 42

Even evidence that is only Indirectly obtained by violation of a defendant's rights is subject to Exclusion. Once the original evidence is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, all evidence 'Stemming from' it, is equally unusable. (Eman 319)

Question 43

INDEPENDENT SOURCE EXCEPTION (to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

Answer 43

When the police have an Independent Source for the evidence, which does Not involve illegality, the evidence is Not barred by the Exclusionary Rule. (Eman 319)

Question 44

INEVITABLE DISCOVERY EXCEPTION (to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Rule)

Answer 44

Evidence which would inevitably have been discovered anyway through other police techniques and channels may be admitted at trial. (Eman 319)

Question 45

Intervening Act of the Defendant (Exception to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine)

Answer 45

Where there has been passage of time and an Intervening Act of free will was made by the defendant. = ATTENUATION

Question 46

Attenuation

Answer 46

Passage of time and an intervening act of free will by the defendant was made. (Aud4)

Question 47

3 Exceptions to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (FOPT)

Answer 47

1. Independent Source Doctrine 2. Inevitable Discovery Doctrine 3. Intervening Act by the Defendant. (Aud 4)