Chapter 6-Searches, in general Flashcards Preview

Briefs of leading Cases in Law Enforcement > Chapter 6-Searches, in general > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 6-Searches, in general Deck (48):


defined as exploration or examination of individual's house, premises or person, to discover things or items that may be used by government for evidence



defined as the exercise of dominion or control by the government over a person or thing because of a violation of law. Search is looking and seizing is taking.


4 basic requirements for a search warrant to be valid

1. probable cause,
2. supporting oath or affirmation
3. particular description of place to be searched and things to be seized
4. signature of magistrate


searches without a warrant, the police have to show what?

police bear the burden of establishing probable cause.


Is it valid for a warrantless search by an officer of a probationer's apartment supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation

Yes. Valid under 4th Amend.


This court held that suspicionless search of a parolee did not violate the 4th Amend

Samson v Califronia, 2006


The scope of a search is governed by the rule of ?

reasonableness, given the object sought. "Do not look for an elephant in a matchbox".


This court held that reasonableness requirement of 4th Amend requires officers to knock and announce before entering a place, subject to exceptions determined by state courts.

Wilson v Arkansas, 1995


Blanket exception to knock and announce
(Effective and applicable in all instances)

Court held that 4th Amend does not allow blanket exceptions to knock and announce req. in felony drug investigations.


The rule on no-knock entries holds even if the entry results in the destruction of property

United States v Ramirez, 1998


Court held that even if the no-knock rule is violated, it does not require suppression of any evidence seized.



Leading case in Searches

Steagald v United States, Maryland v Garrison, Wilson v Arkansas,


Gives more certainty to the time factor in searches when it held that after knocking and announcing their presence and intention to search, 15 to 20 seconds is sufficient time for officers to wait before forcing entry into a home

United States v Banks,2003


warrant is valid only if issued by a neutral and detached magistrate

Coolidge v New Hampshire, 1971
14 yr old girl left home in repsonse to mans request for a babysitter. 13 days later, girls body was found by side of hwy. Coolidge was questioned as suspect. officers working case and the Attorney General had a meeting regarding the case. Attorney General signed an arrest warrant and search warrant on Coolridge. Evidence seized in Coolridge home per search warrant was invalid. Att General was not a neutral or detached magistrate.


Coolidge case is best known for the principle

that a warrant is valid only if issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.


searches of places belonging to third parties are permissible as long as probable cause exists to believe evidence of someone's guilt or other itmes subject to seizure will be found

Zurcher v Stanford Daily, 1978
police were attacked by a group of demonstrators, resulting in injuries to officers. Two days later, a student newspaper carried articles and photographs of the clash. District Attorneys office obtained warrant to search newspaper offices.


The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the property owner is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that "things" to be searched for and seized are located on premisees to which entry is sought

A state is not prevented by 4th Amend and 14th Amend from issueing a warrant to search for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of place is not a suspect in a criminal case.


Court stressed that the search warrant can be issued only if there is

Probable cause, to believe that evidence of someone's guilt or other items subject to seizure will be found.


Warrantless murder scene search, where there is no indication that evidence would be lost, destroyed or removed during the time required to obtain a search warrant and there is no suggestion that a warrant could not easily be obtained, is inconsistent with 4th Amend because the situation does not create exigent circumstances

Mincey v Arizona,1978
Raid on Mincey's apt, an undercover officer was shot and killed and Mincey was wounded. 10 mins after shooting, Homicide Det's arrived and did an extensive search of apt that lasted 4 days.


The Murder scene exception created by Arizona Supreme Court to warrant requirement is?

inconsistent with the 4th and 14th Amend and the warrantless search of petitioners apt was not constitutionally permissible, simply because a homicide had occurred.. In sum, Court states that a warrant must be obtained for crime scene inv., regardless of the seriouness of offense.


An arrest warrant does not authorize entry into another persons residence where the suspect may be found.

Steagald v United States, 1981
DEA entered Steagald residence to arrest another wanted person. upon entry, DEA found cocaine and other evidence. Violation of 4th Amend.
Having an arrest warrant does not authorize police to enter a thirds person's home without search warrant.


Two exceptions to enter a third parties residence without a warrant

1. exigent circumstances
2. Consent of the third person.


a search warrant carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the prermises while the search is conducted.

Michigan v Summers, 1981
executing a warrant to search for drugs, Summers was descending the front steps of house when encountered. Summers advised he didnt have a key, forced entry was made, summers was detained as well as other for the search to be conducted. drugs found, summers arrested.


A warrant that if overbroad in describing the place to be searched, but is based on a reasonalbe, although mistaken, belief of the officer, is valid

Maryland v Garrison, 1987
warrant to search premises known as 2036 Park Avenue third floor apt, for drugs and paraphernalia. officers believing that there was one apt on 3rd floor, they entered wrong apt and discovered contraband.


The discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad

does not retroactively invalidate the warrant


A warrantless search and seizure of trash left for collection in an area accessible to public is valid

California v Greenwood, 1988


4th Amend requires officers to knock and announce before entering a dwelling unless there are exigent circumstances

Wilson v Arkansas, 1995
Wilson conducted several narcotic transactions with an informant over several months. officers got arrest warrant for Wilson and search warrant for the home.


common-law rule of knock and announce date to what date?

1603 and the decision in Semayne's case.


Semayne's case

held "but before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors.


Wilson v Arkansas holds

absent exigent circumstances, officers are required to knock and announce to meet the reasonablenees requirements of the 4th Amend. The announcement is based on common-law practice that was woven quickly into the fabric of early American law.


Court considers"countervailing law enforcement interest" as justifying entries without announcements, such interest include?`

threats of physical harm to police
pursuit of recently escaped arrestes
reason to believe that evidence would be destroyed, if advanced notice was given.


4th Amend does not permit a"blanket exception" to the knock and announce requirement when executing felony drug warrant. Exceptions must be decided by the court on case by case basis.

Richards v Wisconsin, 1997
officers had search warrant for the hotel room Richard was staying in and selling drugs from.


4th Amend does not impose a higher standard when officers destroy property during a no-knock entry than the requirement that the police have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous or futile or would inhibit the effective investigation of crime

Unites State v Ramirez, 1998
Federal officers obtained a no-knock warrant at Ramirez residence based on probable cause that an escaped and violent felon was staying there. Breaking windows and pointing weapons after announcing their presence, Ramirez fire a shot thru celing, then threw pistol down and surrendered. viol felon was not found.


Standard set by Supreme Court in knock and announce cases is that a no-knock is reasonable if officers have?

reasonable suspicion that obeying the rule, knock and announce, would be dangerous or futile or would hamper effective investigation.


Ramirez case decision wiped out a line of cases from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that required ?

a more compelling showing of an exigency to justiy a destructive no-knock entry than when a no-knock entry was effected without property damage.
Reasonable Suspicion that obeying the rule is the decided rule..


Person who is in a home for a short period, although with the consent of owner, has no expectation of privacy under the 4th Amend

Minnesota v Carter, 1998
Carter and another person were observed putting white powder into bags in an apt. Carter was stopped after leaving in veh, arrested for weapon and drugs. search warrant obtained.Carter was not a overnight guest, he only visited the apt to do work. no expectation of privacy.


A warrantless search by officer of a probationers residence supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation is valid under the 4th

Unites States v Knights, 2001
Court held that the search of Knights was reasonable under our general 4th Amend approach of "examining the totality of circumstances" with the probation search condition being a salient circrumstance.


The issue of whether law enforcement officers can search the residence of a probationer with less than probable cause, the court held that it could, as long as

1. there is reasonable suspicion
2. search is authorized by the condition of probation.


Court in Knights case implied that law enforcement can also be authorized by judge to search probationers, dwelling based on less than probable cause. However, without such authorization, the search here on less than probable cause would likely have been unconstitutional.

Knights case cont.


There is no constitutional requirement that a person subject to a search be shown the triggering events by police for an "anticipatory warrant " to be valid. The fact that the contraband is not yet at the place described in warrant when it was issued is immaterial as long as there is probable cause to believe it will be there when the warrant is executed

United States v Grubbs,2006
Grubbs purchased video tape containing child porn from a web site operated by undercover postal inspectors. Inspectors arranged for a controlled delivery of tape. Judge issued a " anticipatory search warrant" for Grubbs house.


Anticipatory warrant

warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time, certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place.


so-called triggering condition

Most anticipatory warrants subject their execution to some condition precedent other than the mere passage of time.


For a conditioned anticipatory warrant to comply with 4th Amend requirement of probable cause, two prerequisites of probability must be satisfied.

1. It must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs 'there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of crime will be found in a particular place', but also that ther is probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur.


the occurrence of the triggering condition in Grubbs case was?

successful delivery of the videotape to Grubbs residence.


Violation of the knock and announce rule does not require exclusion of the seized evidence

Hudson v Michigan, 2006
officers conducted a search warrant at Hudson residence for drugs and firearms. Upon announcing their presence, they waited 3 to 5 seconds before entering. usual time is between 20 and 30 seconds. Exclusionary rule does not apply to knock and announce.


4th Amend does not prohibit police from conducting a suspicious search of a parolee

Samson v California,2006
officer knew that Samson was on parole stopped him and asked about outstanding parole warrant. Based soley on Samson being on parole, officer searched Samson and found drugs. Court applied logic in US v Knights case of probationers. As a condition of his parole, Samson signed an agreement that he could be subject or search and seizure by parole officer or other peace officer, with or without a search warrant and with or without cause. Basically, the parolee waives his constitutional rights under the 4th.


Courts adhere to the principle that probationers and parolees have what type of rights?

diminished constitutional rights.


decision in Samson was based on two grounds

1. court held that parolees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
2. as a condition of his parole, Samson signed an agreement that he could be subject to search or seizure by parole officer or other peace officer