Cases to Know

Question 1

Katz

Answer 1

A search under the 4 A occurs when:

1. The suspect exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy; and
2. The suspect’s expectation of privacy must be reasonable and one that society wants to and ought to protect from gov’t intrusion without a warrant.

Bugging phone booth = search even without a physical intrusion into phone booth.

What a person KNOWINGLY exposes to the public is not subject to 4 A protection.

[4 A protects people, not places.]

Question 2

Jones

Answer 2

Police violated 4 A rights when placing a GPS tracking device on car and monitored for a month.

Physical trespass in a constitutionally protected area == search.

Question 3

Mendenhall

Answer 3

A person is seized under the 4 A, where a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would NOT FEEL FREE TO LEAVE.

Factors:

1. the threatening presence of several officers;
2. the display of a weapon by an officer;
3. some physical touching of the person; OR
4. an indication that compliance with a request is an order.

Question 4

Drayton

Answer 4

3 O’s boarded bus and started questioning passengers and asking to search. They asked D to search bag after leaning over his should and staying 12 inches from his face, Drayton consented to the search.

Court held there was NO SEARCH, because suspect consented, there was no force, no intimidating movement, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exists, no threat, no command or authoritative voice.

This case represents the outer limit of what is NOT A SEARCH.

Question 5

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Answer 5

In order to waive 5 A rights, you must first have knowledge of those rights in the first place. HOWEVER, for the 4 A you do not need to be told of your 4 A rights in order to waive them.

Facts: O stopped car because head light and license plate light were faulty. 6 men in car. No one had license, except one guy who explained the car was his brother’s. O called back up and asked 6 men to leave car. O asked owner’s brother to search, who then consented. No one was threatened prior to the search. Brother even helped open the trunk. Search revealed stolen checks. One of the passengers prosecuted for intent to defraud.

When 4 A right is waived, prosecution has burden to establish consent was voluntary and not given through duress or coercion.

Question 6

Illinois v. Gates

Answer 6

O’s received anonymous letter detailing a couple was selling drugs and explaining how. Letter had a specific date of where couple was going next and a number of other facts that were corroborated, but not all were corroborated. O’s got a warrant and arrested couple.

Court held there was SUFFICIENT P/C b/c, although letter was anonymous, the details were in-part corroborated and under a TOC it was enough.

Changed Aguilar / Spinelli 2-prong test, to a TOC one.

Question 7

Gant

Answer 7

O’s received anonymous tip that house was selling drugs. O’s knocked on door and D opened. O’s do background check and find out D has expired DL. Later that day, O’s arrive at house and arrest friends for drugs and providing fake name. They see D driving car into drive way. Wait for him to leave car and then call him over and arrest him for driving w/o a license. They search his car and find drugs.

Court held search was unconstitutional.

POLICE MAY SEARCH PASSENGER COMPARTMENT OF A CAR IF:

1. The arrestee is unsecured and within reach of the car; OR
2. There is reason to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest is in the car.

Here the search was not reasonable because there was no reason to believe GANT could have accessed his car at the time of the search OR that there was evidence of the faulty DL in the car [that evidence is at the DMV.[

Question 8

Terry

Answer 8

Terry stop is justified when there is RAS that criminal activity is afoot, cannot be a hunch.

Terry frisk is appropriate when there is RAS that a person is armed & dangerous. Limited to outside pat down of clothes. Plain feel == no manipulation or reaching in pockets.

Examples of RAS:

1. seeing bulge;
2. furtive [sus] gesture;
3. Reputation (known to carry gun)
4. Engaging in particular crime;
5. tip that someone has a gun.

Terry only allows for a STOP and a pat down, not an arrest or complete search.

Needs to be:

reasonable at INCEPTION;
suspicion need to be articulate meaning able to explain WHY SUSPICIOUS;

Question 9

Hodari D

Answer 9

O’s on patrol. They, in their unmarked car, saw 4-5 youths hunddled around small red car. When youths saw O’s they ran. D ran through alley and O’s chased him. D threw coke baggie on to the ground, and then O tackled D and handcuffed him.

Crt held there was no unlawful seizure b/c a seizure requires “either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority.”

Question 10

Whren

Answer 10

O’s parked in neighborhood known for drugs. They see car unusually stopped for long time at stop sign. They suspected car had drugs. They followed car until the car stopped suddenly w/o signaling, and then sped off at an “unreasonable speed.” The O’s stopped the car and immediately saw drugs in the drivers lap.

Crt held traffic violation was enough b/c there was P/C to make traffic stop.

Rule: for police to make a traffic stop they must have PC based on an OBJECTIVE basis. [subjective intent of officer not relevant in PC inquiry.

Question 11

Dozier

Answer 11

D was walking wearing black. 4 O’s started following. O’s asked to stop. D did not respond. O asked again. D said ok. O had no reason to believe he had weapons, but did a frisk. O felt “bulge” and the size of “ball of money.” D then ran. O’s chased. D then tossed coke.

Crt held search and seizure were unconstitutional b/c stop as not ok.

Question 12

Strieff

Answer 12

Existence of a valid warrant wholly independent of an illegal stop serves as an intervening factor that severes the connection between unlawful conduct and the discovery of evidence if sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint.

Question 13

Wong Sun

Answer 13

Established the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Rule (“FOPT”).

Evidence that is obtained directly as a result of a constitutional violation, as well as the “fruit of that evidence, is excluded at trial.”

Note: Certain fruits will be attenuated such that they won’t be excluded.

FOPT is the remedy for a constitutional violation.

Question 14

Carter

Answer 14

You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge a search of a home if you are a only there for a SHORT time period mostly for BUSINESS PURPOSES.

Facts: Here, D rented home from LL to make drugs during the day. O peeped through blinds and saw D making drugs.

Question 15

Rakas

Answer 15

Passengers in a car (not owner) have no REOP. Therefore, if you have an illegal gun as a passenger of a car and the car is pulled over and searched, you cannot challenge the search as a 4 A violation.

Note: Brendlin, allowed [have standing] the passengers to assert 4 A violations for unlawful seizures. THIS EXCEPTION ONLY APPLIES TO CARS.

YOU CAN ONLY ASSERT A 4 A VIOLATION WHEN YOUR OWN 4 A RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED.

Question 16

Payner

Answer 16

Tax evasion case.

O’s illegally searched and seized evidence implicating Payner from D’s banker. Since the banker 4 A rights were violated and not Payner’s, the court held that Payner cannot raise the ER. I.e., Payner lacked standing to challenge evidence from coming in.

Question 17

Miranda

Answer 17

This case held that the police must read to a suspect of his Miranda rights when they are in custody and subject to interrogation [or its functional equivalent].

If a statement is deemed a Miranda violation, it MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE GOV’TS CASE IN CHIEF, however, it can come in for impeachment should D take the stand.

Miranda rights do not give you the right to an atty, that’s 6 A, rather, it gives you the right to have one while being questioned.

Question 18

Innis

Answer 18

Defined the functional equivalent of interrogation as, “words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE from the suspect.”

Question 19

Seibert

Answer 19

O’s question suspect in two rounds. During the first round they did NOT give him his Miranda warnings. In the second round, they did Mirandize prior to questioning AND they also referred back to the first round.

The court held that the statements from the second round was also INADMISSIBLE because:

1. they were exploiting the first round;
2. There was only 15-20 minutes between the rounds:
3. Both rounds were in same place and same officer.

Elstad allowed the second round to come in, due to the existence of curative doctrines.

Question 20

Manson v. Braithwait

Answer 20

An unnecessarily suggestive ID can come in, IF under TOC, the ID has strong INDICIA OF RELIABILITY.

The indicia needs to be strong enough to outweigh the corrupting effect of the police-arranged suggestive circumstances.

Needs to apply a factors test using the following:

1. The opportunity of the witness to view the defendant;
2. Witness’ degree of attention;
3. Accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal;
4. the witness’ level of certainty with his identification; and
5. time between the crime and the identification.

Question 21

Neil v. Biggers

Answer 21

V raped, V participated in a number of ID procedures and never ID’s anyone. She ID’d D in show-up, it was not fully lit but there was a full moon.

It was suggestive because D was by himself, and he did not fully match the description. V, however, was very confident. Despite the facts there was 7 months in between the ID and the rape, given the fact that the V had no doubt, the ID was held to be valid.

There was no substantial likelihood of misidentification.

Question 22

Wade

Answer 22

Man with strip of tape on each side of face entered bank, pointed pistol at female cashier and VP of bank.

Man forced them to fill pillowcase with cash then drove away with accomplice.

O’s arranged lineup made of the man and 5-6 other prisoners, each wore tape and made a statement. The man, however, was indicted before the lineup. The ID was held to be invalid since formal judicial proceedings have begun.

However, they let the in court ID to come in because there was an independent source or something to attenuate the taint of the ID.