Criminal Due Process Final Flashcards

Question

The current test(s) to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy

Answer 1

The trespass doctrine and Katz 2-part test

Answer 2

Protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government

Answer 3

- Agent suspects Kyllo of growing marijuana in his triplex in Oregon - Agent uses a thermal imager (detects infrared radiation) across the street from his car at 3 am in January - Detects heat needed for grow lamps - Uses this info plus other tips to get a warrant; searches Kyllo’s home, finds marijuana, arrests him

Answer 4

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street constitute a search with the meaning of the 4th A?

Answer 5

The use of a thermal imager does constitute a search; Kyllow wins

Answer 6

Thermal imager is “sense enhancing technology” that cannot be obtained by the general public, therefore this info could not have been found without a physical intrusion; relies on Katz 2-part test

Answer 7

- Katz is suspected of transmitting gambling info over the phone in a phone booth - Federal agents attach a recording device to the outside of the phone booth - Recordings are used to indict Katz

Answer 8

Is the placement of a recording device on the outside of a phonebooth considered to be a “search” under the 4th Amendment?

Answer 9

The placement of the recording device on the phone booth is considered a search; Katz wins

Answer 10

- Katz closed the door behind him, it’s an enclosed space, so he expected to not be heard - The 4th Amendment extends any time a person has an expectation of privacy that is both subjective and objectively reasonable in the eyes of a majority

Answer 11

There’s no such this as a constitutionally protected area, the 4th Amendment protects people

Answer 12

1) A person has to have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy 2) The expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable An AND test

Answer 13

The area immediately surrounding a dwelling

Answer 14

A system of laws concerned with crimes and the punishment of individuals who commit crimes

Answer 15

- McDonough is robbed by Smith and gives a description of Smith and the Monte Carlo he was driving to police - McDonough receives threatening phone calls from Smith - Police ask phone company to record the numbers dialed from the phone at Smith’s house using a pen register - Pen register records calls from Smith’s to McDonough’s - Police go to Smith’s and find a phone book with the page tabbed to McDonough’s number

Answer 16

Did the use of a pen register without a warrant violate the 4th A protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Answer 17

The use of a pen register without a warrant violate did not the 4th Amendment; Smith loses

Answer 18

The numbers Smith dials are shared with a 3rd party

Answer 19

- Law enforcement breaks into Wolf’s office and copied medical records indicating he was conspiring to perform abortions - Wolf objected to evidence material that would be considered inadmissible in federal court

Answer 20

Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the 4th and 14th Amendments?

Answer 21

The 4th Amendment now applies to the states; Wolf still loses because the courts do not provide him any remedy to exclude the evidence because USSC leaves it to states to decide

Answer 22

If this happened in the federal courts there would be no question that is was an illegal search

Answer 23

Only hear cases where an error of law is alleged; no witnesses, juries, or testimony; strictly determine of there was an error of law (Supreme Judicial Court and Appellate Court)

Answer 24

Where trials are conducted and witness testimony is heard

Answer 25

The highest judicial court in a country or state

Answer 26

- Robbery occurs, witnesses give a description of a car - Car is stopped; rifle shells and 2 rifles are found, everyone in the car is arrested - Rakas and other passengers claim they didn’t own car, rifles, or shells, but the evidence should still be suppressed for them

Answer 27

Did the police violate Rakas’ 4th Amendment rights by searching a car in which he was the passenger?

Answer 28

Police did not violate Rakas' rights; Rakas Loses

Answer 29

Rakas did not show any legal expectation of privacy in the car, with the guns, with the ammunition; no standing

Answer 30

A way to exclude evidence that the police got illegally; defendant has to sign an affidavit that he/she states his/her expectation of privacy; information cannot be used against them later

Answer 31

Supreme Judicial Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court, District Court

Answer 32

- Greenwood is suspected of selling drugs from his home - Police ask the trash company to set aside the garbage Greenwood leaves at the curb - Police find evidence of drug use in Greenwood’s trash, used to obtain a warrant

Answer 33

Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood’s garbage violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unjustified search and seizure?

Answer 34

The search and seizure of Greenwood’s garbage did not violate the 4th Amendment; Greenwood loses

Answer 35

Greenwood did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the garbage was intended for a 3rd party and the curb is not considered curtilage

Answer 36

- Duncan, Black teen, accused of assaulting a white boy - Duncan request a jury trial, request is denied because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases where capital punishment OR imprisonment at hard labor is on the table

Answer 37

Is the 6th Amendment right to jury trial applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment?

Answer 38

The 6th Amendment’s right to jury trial is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment; Duncan wins

Answer 39

- If this happened in federal court this wouldn’t have even been a question/issue - 6th Amendment is a “fundamental bedrock” of law and inherent in the American scheme of justice, intended to protect people from the government

Answer 40

- Jones is suspected of selling drugs - Police attach a GPS tracker to Jones’ car and use it to follow him for months - Use the data as evidence to convict him - Lower court decides to suppress the data obtained while the car was parked at Jones’ residence but allows all other data

Answer 41

Does the use of a GPS tracker attached to a vehicle and the subsequent use of that GPS to monitor a vehicle’s movements on public streets constitute a search/seizure according to the 4th Amendment?

Answer 42

The use of a GPS tracker attached to a vehicle does constitute a search; Jones wins

Answer 43

Under the common-law trespassory test, the Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information

Answer 44

- Silverthornes are arrested on a single charge for company tax trouble - Govt holds them in custody while federal law enforcement goes to their office and seize company documents and financial books without any legal authority/warrant; documents are photocopied - Silverthorne is released and petitions the court for the return of the illegally seized documents - District attorney says they found evidence of more crimes in the photocopied documents and frame a new indictment based on new knowledge - Court orders the return of the original documents from Silverthorne and gets rid of photocopies

Answer 45

Can the government use the photocopies made of the illegally seized evidence to frame a new indictment?

Answer 46

The government cannot use the photocopies; Silverthorne wins

Answer 47

The government obtained the company papers by illegal means, therefore it could not use the knowledge gained from its wrongs to frame a new indictment and use the evidence in a prosecution

Answer 48

- Weeks is suspected of transporting lottery tickets in the mail - LOCAL police enter Weeks' home without a warrant, search the home, and take possession of various papers and articles - Info and evidence gathered by local police is then turned over to US Marshal - Marshal goes to the home and takes more letters and envelopes found in a drawer WITHOUT A WARRANT

Answer 49

Did the search and seizure of Weeks’ home violate the 4th Amendment and should Weeks’ papers be allowed as evidence?

Answer 50

Weeks both wins and loses

Answer 51

Search 1 - papers are allowed as evidence because the 4th A at the time does not apply to state and local police Search 2 - Weeks gets his papers back for the second search only because it was conducted by a federal bad actor

Answer 52

- 3 police officers arrive at Mapp’s home looking for a bomb fugitive - Police demand entry but Mapp denies unless they can produce a warrant, which they cannot, so they leave - Police return 3 hours later with 4 more officers and try to enter Mapp’s home again, still without a warrant; Mapp does not answer immediately so officers forcibly enter - Mapp demands to see a warrant; an officer holds up a piece of paper he claims to be a warrant; Mapp shoves the warrant down her shirt which the officer forcibly removes and then handcuffs Mapp - Police proceed to search pretty much everywhere; they find 4 “obscene” books and several “obscene” sketches

Answer 53

Can illegally seized evidence be used in a STATE criminal trial?

Answer 54

Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a state criminal trial; Mapp wins (ER is now applicable to states)

Answer 55

1. Maintaining judicial integrity (compelling respect for the constitution; if someone goes free it’ll be because the law says they’re free) 2. Deterrence (deter police officers from commiting 4th A violations at the state level)

Answer 56

- Police receive and unverified Crime Stoppers tip that Jardines was growing marijuana at his home; a month passes between receiving the tip and doing something about it - Police bring drug-sniffing dog to Jardine’s front porch where the dog gave a positive alert for narcotics - Police obtain a warrant for a search which revealed marijuana plants - Different from Place because the sniff takes place at the home vs in public

Answer 57

Is a dog sniff at the front porch of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog a 4th A search requiring probable cause?

Answer 58

Yes, it is a search and requires probable cause; Jardines wins

Answer 59

- The dog sniffing the base of the front door gives the police information about the inside of the house that they otherwise would not have had unless they entered the house (akin to Kyllo) - The police and dog also physically trespassed on Jardines’ porch so it’s automatically a search (trespass doctrine)

Answer 60

- Officer stops Rodriguez for driving on highway shoulder, checks the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passengers, and issues a warning - Officer then asks to walk his K-9 around the vehicle; Rodriguez refuses - Officer detains Rodriguez until another officer arrives and retrieves his K-9 who alerts to the presence of drugs - 7-8 minutes elapsed between the officer issuing the warning and the dog alerting - Officer searches the vehicle which turns up methamphetamine

Answer 61

Is the use of a K-9 unit, after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a violation of the 4th A prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures?

Answer 62

Yes, it is a violation to use a K-9 unit after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; Rodriguez wins

Answer 63

- The mission of the stop determines its allowable duration, therefore the authority of the stop ends when the mission has been accomplished - A seizure unrelated to the reason for the stop is lawful only so long as it does not measurably extend the duration of the stop - Unduly delay in MA is an hour

Answer 64

- Place, at an airport, alerts the suspicion of drug agents who believed he was carrying narcotics based on his behavior and discrepancies in his luggage tags - Place agrees to a search of his bags but his plane was about to leave so agents refuse to search; instead relay this info to agents at Place’s destination airport - Agents meet Place at destination and seize bags without his consent - Bags subjected to “sniff” test by drug dogs 90 minutes after the seizure; dog signals to presence of controlled substances - Agents obtain a warrant and find cocaine in one of the bags

Answer 65

Did the “sniff test” by the dog constitute a search?

Answer 66

No, the “sniff test” did not constitute a search; Place loses

Answer 67

- The investigative technique is far less intrusive than a full-on search; they didn’t open the luggage, it was less of an embarassment/public inconvenience, and it was limited in both manner and content revealed from the procedure - IN A PUBLIC AREA

Answer 68

- Police obtain info that Rochin was selling narcotics and enter his house without a warrant - Rochin is in bed with his wife; swallows capsules containing morphine to dispose of evidence - Officers tackle Rochin and attempt to extract the capsules by force; unsuccessful, they handcuff him and take him to the hospital where doctors are instructed by police to pump Rochin’s stomach against his will - Capsules were obtained and used to convict Rochin

Answer 69

Is forcing Rochin to vomit to obtain the capsules considered a search by the 4th A, making the evidence inadmissible?

Answer 70

Yes, this is a search and the evidence is inadmissible; Rochin wins

Answer 71

- Police officers violated the defendant’s privacy, and the court found no difference between a verbal confession obtained by physical abuse and a confession taken from the defendant’s body by physical abuse - ER does not apply to states yet, Court instead uses the Shocks the Conscience test (determines which situations are so unjust or wrong that the court must intervene)

Answer 72

- Federal agents invited to execute a search warrant secured by Iowa police to search for illegal alcoholic beverages (prohibition) - Agent found strip stamps in Byars’ home (indicate that alcohol has been purchased) - Stamps admitted as evidence

Answer 73

Were the stamps obtained illegally according to the 4th Amendment?

Answer 74

Yes, the stamps were obtained illegally; Byars wins

Answer 75

- A federal agent conducted the search alongside local police, so the 4th Amendment applies - Local police can no longer participate in Silver Platter Doctrine

Answer 76

Allowed local police to be free to conduct unreasonable/illegal searches and seizures and then deliver the evidence to the federal prosecutors/police “on a silver platter” because the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to local police until Mapp

Answer 77

- A law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial - The remedy for defendants who claim that their 4th Amendment right has been violated - Extended to states in Mapp

Answer 78

- Hom Way arrested for possession of heroin → Way tells police that “Blackie Toy” sold him heroin and takes them to his laundromat - Police find James Wah Toy and arrest him w/ no indication of “Blackie” → Toy says he doesn’t sell but Johnny Yee does, takes police to him - Yee is arrested and several tubes of heroin taken → Yee says he got heroin from “Sea Dog” and Toy says he’ll take them there - Sun’s wife answers the door (Sun is asleep) and 6 officers come inside, handcuff Sun, search the house and find nothing - Toy, Yee, and Sun all arrested and released, then agents call them 3 days later to come back to station and they all go, waive all their rights, and give statements (Sun confirms accuracy but doesn’t sign) - Sun is convicted of heroin possession and appeals

Answer 79

Should certain pieces of evidence have been admitted against Sun?—statements made orally by Toy in his bedroom, heroin surrendered by Yee, Toy’s unsigned statement, Sun’s unsigned statement

Answer 80

Toy’s statement and the heroin surrendered by Yee cannot be used as evidence, however, Sun’s statement CAN

Answer 81

Toy’s statement and the heroin are pieces of evidence obtained directly following police illegality (unjustified arrests) so they are considered fruit; Sun going back to the station and giving a statement was an act of free will so it is attenuated from the initial illegality

Answer 82

Establishes 4 factors that you must look at when deciding dissipation of the taint

Answer 83

- Police conduct an unlawful search of a coat pocket and a name is found in the pocket (witness) - Police talk to witness and ask about Ceccolini’s crime, witness says they know about it and are willing to testify - Ceccolini says the witness should be excluded because their name was found in an illegal search

Answer 84

Should the witness’s testimony be suppressed?

Answer 85

No, testimony should not be suppressed; Ceccolini loses

Answer 86

- There was sufficient attenuation between the officer’s unconstitutional search and the witness’s testimony - The cost of excluding a live witness outweighs the deterrent effect

Answer 87

- Herring (a frequent flyer) has his truck impounded and goes to the lot get something from it - Officer recognizes him and asks the county clerk to run his name through the system - There’s a warrant for Herring’s arrest in a neighboring county and officer asks them to fax it over - Later found the warrant should have been removed 5 months earlier (negligent bookkeeping error) - Herring is apprehended and his car is searched → police discover meth in Herring’s pocket and a gun under the front seat - Officer searches and arrests Herring WITH A WARRANT, but the warrant is invalid

Answer 88

Is Herring’s arrest a violation of the 4th Amendment and if it is, does the exclusionary rule apply?

Answer 89

Arrest is a violation but the ER does not apply; Herring loses

Answer 90

- The unlawful search was the result of isolated negligence, not a systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements (the level of police misconduct is very minimal) - The only thing the application of ER would deter police from is running warrants before arresting; there is no appreciable deterrent in effect here

Answer 91

- Police have “knock and announce” search warrant to search Hudson’s home - Police failed to knock and announce but entered anyway - Find cocaine and a gun in the home, convicted of drug and firearm possession

Answer 92

Does the Exclusionary Rule extend to the “knock and announce” rule?

Answer 93

No, it does not apply; Hudson loses

Answer 94

- USSC is cautious extending ER that far because the police actually had a warrant - The cost of applying ER to knock and announce is too big of a risk - The deterrent benefit here would substantially outweigh the societal cost (defendants would just say police didn’t knock)

Answer 95

- Police submit an affidavit for a search warrant at Aguilar’s home which says they were told there’s drugs in the home (receive warrant) - Aguilar said the police didn’t have probable cause for the warrant

Answer 96

Did the affidavit given by the police officers provide sufficient basis for finding probable cause and issuing the search warrant?

Answer 97

No it did not; Aguilar wins

Answer 98

- The affidavit did not provide any basis for the determination that PC existed - Just the police making the conclusory statement that the info they received was reliable was not enough

Answer 99

1. The police have to provide some underlying basis of knowledge to how the informant knows the information they’re sharing 2. The police have to show in the affidavit that the informant displays credibility, veracity, and reliability by showing that the informant has been used before and that the information has been truthful/accurate - Show those 2 things, you have probable cause

Answer 100

- Federal narcotics agent is told by a paid informant that Draper was dealing drugs in Denver - Informant tells agent that Draper went to Chicago to pick up heroin and would be returning on 9/8 or 9/9, and gives a detailed description of Draper and the bag he’d be carrying - 9/9: agent sees a person matching description exit a train from Chicago - Agent stops and arrests Draper and finds 2 envelopes of drugs and syringe on his person

Answer 101

Does knowledge provided by an informant give the police probable cause under the 4th Amendment to arrest and search a suspect?

Answer 102

Yes, it gives police PC; Draper loses

Answer 103

- Evidence required to show PC is not to the same standard as evidence required to prove guilt in trial - The information the informant gave the agent would be inadmissible as hearsay at trial, but it may still be relied upon as PC for a search and arrest

Answer 104

- FBI issues a search warrant to assist in uncovering evidence of Spinelli conducting illegal gambling activities - Affidavit contains 4 items the Court looked at to determine PC: 1. Police surveillance (saw Spinelli travel to and from and apartment, park his car, and enter) 2. Phones (apartment had 2 phones with different numbers listed in the name of someone other than Spinelli) 3. Spinelli’s reputation (known to law enforcement as a bookmaker and gambler) 4. A reliable informant (informed the FBI that Spinelli was operating a handbook and accepting wagers and sharing wagering info via the 2 phones)

Answer 105

Did the affidavit included in the warrant application afford probable cause sufficient to issue the search warrant? (informant specifically)

Answer 106

No it did not; Spinelli wins

Answer 107

- The police officers did not provide a basis of knowledge of how the informant knows their information OR the credibility, veracity, and reliability of their informant - The other 3 items in the affidavit were NOT “self-verifying” that they filled in the other deficiencies

Answer 108

Standard for arrest/search warrants where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief that a crime has been committed

Answer 109

- Police apply for an arrest/search warrant (must be based on PC) - When police conduct a warrantless search or arrest (must have PC before they do so)

Answer 110

- Police receive an anonymous letter saying that the Gates are selling drugs out of their home - Police observe the Gates’ smuggling operation in action and obtain a warrant - Search the Gates’ car and home and uncover 350 lbs of marijuana, weapons, and other contraband

Answer 111

Did the search of the Gates’ home violate the 4th Amendment because the tip was unverified?

Answer 112

No, the search did not violate the 4th Amendment; Gates loses

Answer 113

- Basis of knowledge and an informant’s credibility, veracity, and reliability are important in determining PC, but they should not be rigidly applied - Applies “Totality of Circumstances”

Answer 114

PC decisions are based on all available information rather than the bright-line rule of Aguilar-Spinelli

Answer 115

- Attwater driving a pickup truck without a seatbelt with her 3 y/o son and 5 y/o daughter, also without seatbelts (misdemeanor in TX punishable only by a fine) - Officer pulls her over and arrests her—had stopped her before for the same thing and let her go but not this time - Atwater said arrest violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures - Court of Appeals said officer had probable cause

Answer 116

Does the 4th A limit a police officer’s authority to arrest without a warrant for minor criminal offenses?

Answer 117

No, the arrest was legal; Atwater loses

Answer 118

- If an officer has PC to believe a person has committed even a MINOR criminal offense in their presence, they may arrest the offender without a warrant - Atwater is a Bright Line rule

Answer 119

- Postal inspector received information from an informant that Watson had stolen credit cards—provided inspector with reliable information in the past - Postal Inspectors arrested Watson in a restaurant for stolen credit cards via a federal statute that allowed that type of arrest - Officers did not find cards on his person—asked to search his car, Watson gave permission; found 2 stolen cards - Had probable cause, did not have a warrant—Watson moved to suppress evidence because there was no warrant

Answer 120

Was the statue that allowed for Watson’s public arrest with probable cause but without an arrest warrant constitutional?

Answer 121

Yes, it was constitutional; Watson loses

Answer 122

- Congress granted the power to execute an arrest without a warrant when there’s PC to several federal agencies, not just the postal service - Largely based on history - Since public arrests were permitted in common law, the rule remains intact - Those types of arrests were historically allowed

Answer 123

Payton: - Police officers established PC against defendant in a murder case and went to defendant’s apartment to arrest him - Officers enter without a warrant and Payton wasn’t there, but officers found incriminating evidence in plain view that was admitted at defendant’s trial - Sought to suppress the evidence seized without a valid warrant Riddick: - Police officers enter the home without a warrant and find narcotics in a dresser - Sought to suppress the evidence seized without a valid warrant

Answer 124

Were the warrantless entries valid?

Answer 125

No, they were not valid; Payton/Riddick win

Answer 126

- Court looks to the history of the law - Here, an arrest warrant was required—the 4th A prohibits non consensual entries into the home - Watson and Payton now provide 2 separate rules: 1. Payton = home; didn’t have a warrant and home is at the top of the food chain 2. Watson = public

Answer 127

- Known drug dealer agreed to sell heroin to an undercover officer - Officer drove the drug dealer to Santana’s home, took the money from the officer, and entered the home - Money “marked” so it could be tracked - Drug dealer returns with heroin and is arrested - Officers enter Santana’s home and she’s standing in the doorway holding a paper bag—officers approach and she retreated into her house where they capture her - In the struggle heroin falls from the paper bag and she was found to be carrying the marked money - MTS heroin and marked money

Answer 128

Did the warrantless arrest of Santana violate the 4th A?

Answer 129

No, it did not violate the 4th A; Santana loses

Answer 130

- Santana, being in the threshold of her home, was in a public place when the police, acting on probable cause, first sought to arrest her, and such a warrantless arrest would not have violated the 4th A - Standing in the doorway of your home is a PUBLIC PLACE

Answer 131

Creates a divide between the doorway and the rest of the home

Answer 132

The illegal act(s) by the police

Answer 133

Yes, because the Supreme Court makes no distinction

Answer 134

Yes, because USSC said in Atwater (bright line rule) you can

Answer 135

No, because his 4th A rights were not protected

Answer 136

Yes, even if they had time to get a warrant, and according to US v. Watson

Answer 137

True, if an officer has probable cause

Answer 138

Commonwealth v. Marquez

Answer 139

The evidence resulting from the arrest is thrown out

Answer 140

Where the suspect lives, if there is a reasonable belief that he/she is there

Answer 141

1. Supported by probable cause 2. Approved by a neutral and detached magistrate (not in 4th A) 3. Officer swears under oath and affirmation that what he has written in his Affidavit is true 4. Particularly describe what is to be searched and seized (particularity requirement)

Answer 142

1. Place to be searched—must describe with sufficient clarity 2. Persons or things to be seized—must describe with sufficiency so that the seizure is not left to the discretion of the officers executing the warrant

Answer 143

- NY state police bought and viewed 2 films from Lo-Ji Sales, Inc.’s Adult Store and brought them to Town Justice to watch as an “affidavit” and TJ determined that they violated state obscenity laws - TJ issued a warrant for the search of the store and seizure of other copies of the 2 films and included an open-ended clause so any items found could be added later (no particularity) - TJ goes as well to determine on-scene if items were “obscene” - During the search, store clerk arrested and TJ viewed several videos, books, and other materials and determined that they were obscene—police seized all these materials, took inventory and filled out the open ended warrant

Answer 144

Did the search of the adult bookstore with an open-ended warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 145

Yes, the search did violate the 4th A; Lo-Ji wins

Answer 146

- The warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized and left it entirely to the discretion of officials conducting the search - This is exactly what this clause is supposed to protect against—protects against general warrants - TJ was anything but neutral and detached; basically another officer - The 2 initial films were allowed because they were always in the affidavit

Answer 147

- Police had reason to believe McArthur had drugs in his trailer—went there and asked permission to search, McArthur said no - One officer stayed at the trailer and another went to get the warrant—drugs are easily disposable, if officers left there could’ve been an exigency - Officer who stayed told McArthur that he couldn’t go back into the house without the officer being present - McArthur went back in a few times with the officer present and then the warrant came, they search and drugs were found

Answer 148

Was the restraint on McArthur from entering his home unaccompanied by an officer while the police obtained a search warrant lawful?

Answer 149

Yes, the restrain was lawful; McArthur loses

Answer 150

- Because of the cumulative circumstances, the police action here was reasonable - Police had PC to believe there was contraband there - Police had good reason to fear unless he was watched, McArthur would destroy the drugs - Police made reasonable efforts to reconcile law enforcement needs with the demands of his personal privacy - NOT a bright line rule - RULE: A temporary seizure supported by PC designed to protect the loss of evidence while police obtain a warrant for a reasonable amount of time is permissible

Answer 151

Search warrant must be executed within 7 days of issuance in MA

Answer 152

- Police went to Banks’ house with a search warrant, knocked, announced, and waited 15-20 seconds - No answer—battery rammed his windows - Banks was in the shower

Answer 153

By only waiting 15-20 seconds before breaking open the door of defendant’s apartment, did the police officers violate defendant’s constitutional rights?

Answer 154

No, only waiting 15-20 seconds was not a violation; Banks loses

Answer 155

- Close call, but police could have believed that had they not entered the drugs would have been destroyed - Allows for a pretty rapid entry by force after warning given if police reasonably suspect that exigent circumstances require entry—drug cases probably always do (drugs are easy to be destroyed quickly)

Answer 156

Search warrant may authorize a named individual as long as probable cause exists to search the person as well as “all persons present”—Ybarra v. IL says all persons present still have individual 4th A protection

Answer 157

Exigent circumstances

Answer 158

1. Police believe evidence will be destroyed or the suspect will flee 2. Exigency limits the scope of the search 3. The warrantless action ends when the exigency ends 4. Warrantless actions still require probable cause

Answer 159

- Hayden is an armed robber that robs a cab company, takes $363 - Over the radios, drivers give dispatcher a description of Hayden and where he went (into a house)—dispatcher gives info to police - Police didn’t know at the time that Hayden’s wife let him in the house—him being armed and entering a house creates an exigency - Police enter home and search for Hayden and find him in a 3rd floor bedroom feigning sleep - Hear running water in an adjoining bathroom so police keep searching, finding a firearm in the toilet tank

Answer 160

Was the warrantless search of the home valid?

Answer 161

Yes, the search was valid; Hayden loses

Answer 162

- Finding Hayden was not the end of the exigency, as he was an armed robber and they had not found the weapon - Hayden would have fled/evidence would have been destroyed, the scope of the search was justified, police stopped search once the exigency ended, and there was probable cause

Answer 163

An exception to search warrants that allows an officer who makes a lawful custodial arrest to conduct a contemporaneous* (at the same time) warrantless search of: 1. The arrestee’s person 2. The area within the arrestee’s immediate control 3. Closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest, if the arrest occurred in the home

Answer 164

Officer safety and preservation of evidence

Answer 165

- Police enter Chimel’s home with an arrest warrant for the alleged burglary of a coin store - Chimel returns from work, police arrest him - Police then ask permission to “look around”— Chimel objects, police search anyways they say based on their warrant - Police search the entire house and have Chimel’s wife open drawers and physically remove contents so they could view the items - Police seized coins and medals, among other things, that were later used to convict Chimel of burglary

Answer 166

Was this a valid search incident to lawful arrest by police lawful?

Answer 167

No, it was not a valid SILA; Chimel wins

Answer 168

- The search was not just of his person, area within his immediate control, or area adjoining (exceeded the scope of a lawful SILA) - USSC says this is similar to a general warrant— the reason the 4th A came about in the first place

Answer 169

Riley: - Riley stopped for traffic violation, police find he’s driving with an expired license - Car impounded and searched where firearms are found in a hidden compartment—Riley arrested - Officer searching Riley incident to arrest seized a smart phone from Riley’s pants pocket - Officer accessed info on phone and noticed repeated use of a term associated with a street gang - At station 2 hours later, detective specializing in gangs examined phone’s contents—based on photographs and videos found Riley was charged in connection to a shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier Wurie: - Wurie arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale - Officers seized a flip phone from Wurie at the station—noticed phone was receiving multiple calls from “my house” - Officers opened phone, accessed call log, determined number associated with “my house,” and traced number to Wurie’s suspected apartment - Secured SW for apartment and found drugs, firearms and ammunition, and cash

Answer 170

Were the warrantless searches of cell phones conducted incident to a lawful arrest considered “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment?

Answer 171

No, the searches of the cell phones were not reasonable; Riley and Wurie win

Answer 172

- The searches of the cell phones neither protected officer safety or preserved evidence - Absent exigent circumstances, police have to get a warrant to search your cell phone - Police could have preserved the evidence while awaiting the warrant - Now, police may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone incident to a lawful arrest

Answer 173

- No—it does not ensure officer safety or help to preserve evidence - Officer safety—can seize phones and run hands around it, take out of case to see if there’s something dangerous in case - Preserving evidence—govt argues that evidence could be encrypted or erased by 3rd party; USSC says maybe, but actions of 3rd party don’t apply to SILA

Answer 174

- Belton was a passenger in an automobile that sped by a police officer - Officer stopped the car, smelled marijuana, and saw an envelope on the car floor marked with a name for marijuana - Officer required occupants out of the vehicle and proceeded to search them - Opened the envelope and found marijuana - Searched Belton’s jacket and found cocaine

Answer 175

Were the warrantless searches of the jacket pocket and the containers in the car lawful after the occupants had exited the car and been placed under arrest based on SILA?

Answer 176

Yes, the searches of the jacket and the car containers were lawful; Belton loses

Answer 177

- Although it wasn’t within their physical immediate control after being arrested, USSC says it is within their immediate control because they were occupants in the car - Belton becomes a bright line rule—applicable to all SILA in a vehicle - MA adopts a wingspan test of determining what is/isn’t within an arrestee’s immediate control (not literal reaching, but whether a suspect could reach/grab)

Answer 178

- Police looking for someone at a home and Gant answers the door, people they want to arrest aren’t home - Police leave, run his name, and see he has a suspended license - Go back to same house to arrest original people— see Gant driving into the driveway and know he has a suspended license - After Gant was handcuffed and put in a squad car, his vehicle was searched—a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine were discovered in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat

Answer 179

Was the search of Gant’s jacket incident to a lawful arrest?

Answer 180

No, the search was not SILA; Gant wins

Answer 181

- There was no issue of officer safety - The evidence they were looking for was the suspended license which was probably on Gant’s person—no need to search the car - The car was no longer in Gant’s immediate control, and he could not destroy evidence—he was handcuffed in the back of the cruiser - Gant rejects Belton for being too broad and returns to the traditional reasoning of Chimel— officer safety and preservation of evidence - Limits SILA created in Belton, as now the arrestee must be unsecured, must be in reaching distance of the passenger compartment, and the officer must have evidentiary reason to search

Answer 182

- An officer may conduct a warrantless search of a car at the scene that he has probable cause to believe contains evidence of a crime - Police may also seize a car even if they have time to get a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle itself constituted evidence (i.e., was used in the commission of a crime) - Officer may also conduct a warrantless search of a motor vehicle away from the scene of the crime BUT there is a time restriction—what is deemed reasonable is a case-by-case basis - The general rules of exigencies still apply - Police are limited to areas in which the item can reasonably be found - Cannot search OG trunk

Answer 183

- Gulf service station was robbed by 2 men who each displayed a gun and told the attendant to put change in a glove - 2 teens had noticed their blue station wagon and saw it speed away around the same time they heard of the robbery—reported to police: 4 men in the station wagon, 1 wearing a green sweater - Gulf cashier said the 1 was wearing a green sweater and the other a trench coat - Description broadcast over police radio and within 1hr, a light blue station wagon matching description and carrying 4 men was stopped by police ~2 miles from a service station - Chambers (petitioner) is in the car wearing a green sweater, and trench coat also in the car - Occupants were arrested and the car is driven to the police station - The car was searched at the station—found concealed compartment under the dashboard with 2 .38-caliber revolvers, a right-hand glove containing change, and cards IDing an attendant at another service station who had recently been robbed at gunpoint

Answer 184

Did the warrantless search of the car away from the scene of the arrest but shortly after the arrest violate the 4th Amendment?

Answer 185

No, the search did not violate the 4th A; Chambers loses

Answer 186

- Police had PC to stop the car and search it immediately at the time and place of arrest in the first place - The car was readily movable at any time even though the people who could move it have been arrested - Like SILA (not an actual could you reach out and grab it), mobility is inherent—the car still has mobility even if the people in the car have been arrested and can’t go drive the car away

Answer 187

The exigency that justifies a warrantless car search does not end simply because the car is unoccupied, the people are in custody, and they are unable to take the car

Answer 188

- Police investigation of the murder of a 14 y/o girl focused in on Edward Coolidge - Police questioned Coolidge who was cooperative at all times - Police felt they had sufficient evidence to arrest Coolidge, which they did in his home - 2 cars were in Coolidge’s driveway at the time of the arrest - > 2 hrs after the arrest, police came back and seized the 2 cars without a warrant - 1 car was searched and vacuumed for microscopic evidence 2 days later, a year later, and again 5 months after that - Had PC for all searches, but not a warrant—try to justify under MV exception

Answer 189

Did the warrantless searches of Coolidge’s car violate the 4th Amendment? Did the MV exception apply?

Answer 190

The search was unconstitutional, MV exception did not apply; Coolidge wins

Answer 191

- Police had ample time to get a warrant and always knew that at least 1 of the cars was involved in the crime - Coolidge was cooperative, he had ample time to get rid of the cars and flee, but he didn’t - Illustrates what USSC deems reasonable time to conduct a search of MV away from the scene with PC but no warrant - Coolidge is NOT a bright line rule

Answer 192

- Officers received uncorroborated information that Carney’s motorhome was being used to exchange sex for marijuana - An officer observed Carney approach a youth and they went into the motorhome and closed doors and shades - Officers surveilled the motorhome while they were in there - Youth later stated he received marijuana in exchange for sexual contact with Carney - Agents asked youth to knock on the door, Carney came out and agents identified themselves as law enforcement officers and asked if they could search—Carney says no, they search anyways without a warrant or consent - Observed marijuana and other things - Carney was taken into custody and took possession of the motor home—subsequent search at the police station revealed more marijuana

Answer 193

Was the search of a motor home an exception to the warrant requirement?

Answer 194

Yes, the search was an exception; Carney loses

Answer 195

Although the motor home possessed some of the features of a home, it is clear it was a vehicle and therefore, falls within the MV exception 2 main reasons: - A motor home is readily moveable—still has inherent mobility - Motor vehicles and mobile homes have a reduced expectation of privacy than a traditional home; they’re pervasively regulated by the government (stickers, insurance, license, etc.)

Answer 196

Yes, because they are regulated by the government (Carney)

Answer 197

So the discretion of where to search is not left to officer’s discretion, so the suspect is aware of the scope of the search, and so the magistrate can review and assure the scope when reviewing a search warrant

Answer 198

1. The officer must observe the item from a lawful vantage point 2. The officer must have a right of physical access to the item 3. Its nature as an incriminating object (contraband, evidence, illegal) is immediately apparent when the officer observes it

Answer 199

Officer cannot have violated the 4th Amendment in order to get to the location where the evidence is 1. During the execution of a valid search warrant 2 During an in-home arrest pursuant to a valid arrest warrant 3. During a search justified under an exception to the warrant requirement 4. During an activity that does not constitute a search, falls outside the 4th Amendment

Answer 200

Officer cannot violate 4th Amendment by getting/seizing the contraband/evidence

Answer 201

Officer observes the item and it is immediately apparent as illegal/evidence/contraband = NO QUESTIONS ASKED

Answer 202

- A gun is fired through the floor of Hick’s apartment and injured a man in the apartment below - Officers entered and searched, noticed expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place - Officer moved some equipment to take down the serial numbers—reported numbers and was advised that some of the equipment had been taken in an armed robbery - Warrant obtained to take that equipment

Answer 203

Did the search of the stereo equipment fall under plain view?

Answer 204

No, the serial number does not fall under plain view; Hicks wins

Answer 205

- Officer moving the equipment to get the serial numbers constituted a separate search from the search for the shooter, victims, and weapons (lawful objective of the entry) - Yes: observed from a lawful vantage point - No: officer does not have a right of physical access (flipping it over takes it out of physical access/plain view), was not immediately apparent as an incriminating object - Need all 3 prerequisites

Answer 206

- A detective on his beat observed 2 strangers walking alternatively back and forth along an identical route and pause to stare in the same store window (~24 times) - Each completion of the route was followed by the 2 talking on a corner, and during 1 conversation they were joined by a 3rd man who left quickly - The detective suspected them of casing a job and followed them, saw them rejoin the 3rd man a couple of blocks away in front of a store - The detective approached the 3, identified himself as a policeman, asked their names, and spun Terry around to pat him down—found but could not remove a pistol - The detective ordered the 3 into the store, removed Terry’s jacket, took out the revolver, and ordered the 3 to face the wall with hands raised - The detective patted down the other 2 and found 1 had another revolver - All 3 taken to the police station

Answer 207

Are the weapons admissible as evidence even though they were obtained under a warrantless “stop and frisk” search, which is less than probable cause?

Answer 208

Yes, the weapons are admissible as evidence; Terry loses

Answer 209

- Terry was seized once the officer touched him, as he wouldn’t have felt he was free to leave - Then looks into 2-part inquiry - The officer had reasonable suspicion based on his experience, and believed that Terry was presently armed and posed a threat to him and others - The search of the outer clothing of Terry was properly limited in time and scope to determine if Terry was armed - Sole justification is the protection of officers and others

Answer 210

1. Were the officer’s actions justified at their inception based on reasonable suspicion (less than probable cause)? 2. Was the pat-frisk reasonable in scope?

Answer 211

A lesser standard of probable cause based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts that justify the intrusion (officer has to specifically state what the person did to warrant the intrusion)

Answer 212

- Dickerson left an apartment building believed to be a “crack house” and started walking towards a marked squad car with 2 officers in it - Dickerson made eye contact with one of the officers, abruptly halted, and walked in the opposite direction and into an alley - Officers pulled the car into the alley and ordered Dickerson to stop and submit to a pat-down - Search revealed no weapons but the officer felt a small lump in the front pocket of Dickerson’s jacket, which he later testified felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane - Officer reached into the pocket and pulled out a small plastic bag containing 1/5th of a gram of crack cocaine

Answer 213

Did the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement extend to the sense of touch?

Answer 214

No, it does not extend to touch; Dickerson wins

Answer 215

- The officer overstepped the bounds of the “strictly circumscribed” search for weapons allowed under Terry - The officer knew Dickerson did not have a weapon after the pat-down and only determined the lump was contraband after manipulating the contents of the pocket - The further search of the pocket was not authorized by Terry or any other 4th A exception to the warrant requirement

Answer 216

- Mendenhall (22 y/o, Black) observed by 2 DEA agents coming off a plane from LA looking suspicious; DEA felt she fit the profile of a drug courier - Agents approached her, identified themselves as federal agents, and asked for ID and airline ticket; ID was in her name, ticket in another - Agents return her things, identify themselves as DEA, and ask her to come to their office for further questioning, which she agreed to - Agents asked to search her person and handbag, and informed her of her right to decline; she consented - Female officer explained Mendenhall would have to remove her clothing for the search of her person, and Mendenhall said she had to leave to catch her plane - Mendenhall took 2 packages of heroin out of her undergarments and gave them to the officer

Answer 217

Was Mendenhall “seized” coming off the plane?

Answer 218

No, she was not seized; Mendenhall loses

Answer 219

- USSC held that a person had been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if a reasonable person would have believed that she was not free to leave - If under a show of authority or physical force you felt you were not free to leave, only then can you invoke your constitutional rights - Threatening presence of several officers, no witnesses, display of weapons, use of language/tone, physical coercion

Answer 220

No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself; privilege against self-incrimination

Answer 221

- Miranda arrested in connection with a kidnapping and rape and brought to the police station where he was questioned by officers - Miranda was never advised of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation - After 2 hours of interrogation, Miranda gave a written confession - Confession admitted as evidence

Answer 222

Does the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Answer 223

Yes, it does extend to interrogations; Miranda wins

Answer 224

- In order for the rights to be waived, the defendant has to know about them first - There must be safeguards in place to protect the privilege of the 5th Amendment

Answer 225

1. You have the right to remain silent 2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law 3. You have the right to an attorney 4. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you

Answer 226

When a person is in custody and subject to an interrogation

Answer 227

- Officer sees a vehicle swerving and initiates a traffic stop, asks the driver to get out of the car, and notices he has trouble standing - Officer charged McCarty with a traffic offense and he was no longer free to leave - Officer asked if the McCarty had been using intoxicants—he says yes - McCarty arrested, asked again about the use of intoxicants, says yes again - At the county jail, a breathalyzer detected no alcohol in McCarty’s system - The officer resumed questioning—asked if McCarty was under the influence of alcohol and if the marijuana had been treated with any chemicals “I guess, barely”; “no” - McCarty was never advised of his constitutional rights

Answer 228

1. Did the highway patrol fail to give Miranda warnings to McCarty before he made incriminating statements at the station house? 2. Did the highway patrol fail to give a Miranda warning to McCarty when he was detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop?

Answer 229

1. Yes, prior to the station house 2. No, detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop

Answer 230

- McCarty was in custody as of the moment he was formally placed under arrest - Statements before arrest are allowed, statements after are not - Arrestees in custody and under suspicion for a misdemeanor traffic offense must be informed of their constitutional rights or subsequent statements are inadmissible

Answer 231

- Victim of a burglary suspected Mathiason - Officer left his card at Mathiason’s apartment asking him to call so they could discuss something; Mathiason called and the officer suggested they meet at the state patrol office - Mathiason arrives, officer takes him to a room, told him he was not under arrest, closed the door, and told Mathiason he suspected him of the burglary - Officer falsely stated that Mathiason’s fingerprints were found at the scene - Mathiason confessed - The officer advised Mathiason of his Miranda rights and took a taped confession - After (~1.5 hrs after he arrived), Mathiason was told he was not arrested but the case was being referred to the district attorney, and Mathiason left the station

Answer 232

Did the interrogation of Mathiason violate his Miranda rights?

Answer 233

No, the interrogation did not violate Miranda rights; Mathiason loses

Answer 234

- Mathiason had come to the station voluntarily, he was seated at a desk, he was told he was free to go, and he did leave after the 30-minute interview - Not a custodial situation just because it happened at the police station - Miranda only applied in those situations where the person was in custody - The Court further stated that police officers were not required to administer Miranda warnings to every person that they questioned, nor to everyone who came to the station house for an interview

Answer 235

- Cab driver identified Innis as the person who robbed him using a sawed-off shotgun - RI patrolman spotted Innis on the street (unarmed), arrested him, and advised him of his Miranda rights - More officers arrived and Innis was advised of Miranda rights 2 more times and stated he understood his rights and wanted to speak to a lawyer - Innis was placed in a police car to be driven to the station in the company of 3 officers who were told not to question or intimidate Innis in any way - Officers engaged in conversation among themselves about the missing shotgun, said they hoped no handicapped children in the area found the shotgun - Innis interrupted the conversation and said they should turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was - Returned to the scene of arrest and Innis was again informed of his Miranda rights—said he understood the rights but “wanted to get the gun out of the way because of the kids in the area in the school,” and led the police to the shotgun

Answer 236

Was Innis interrogated within the meaning of Miranda when the police officers voiced safety concerns about children finding the weapon from the crime?

Answer 237

No, he was not interrogated; Innis loses

Answer 238

- Court held that the term “interrogation” under Miranda referred not only to (1) express questioning, but also to (2) any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect - The officers in the patrol car did not know that what they said was likely to elicit an incriminating response from Innis

Answer 239

- The test is not whether what an officer said or did actually elicited an incriminating response from your suspect, but whether that result was reasonably foreseeable - Reasonably foreseeable example—if the police knew Innis was very religious and in the car they started talking about the religious consequences of his crime, that could be reasonably foreseeable because they would have been aware of the information that made it likely for the defendant to incriminate themselves

Answer 240

1. Knowing, intelligent (fully aware of nature/consequence), and voluntary (free will/not coerced) 2. Still needs to be committed by a government actor

Answer 241

- Detectives informed Thompkins of his Miranda rights and interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died - At no point did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney - Thompkins was mostly silent during the 3-hour interrogation but answered “yes” at the end when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting - Filed MTS at trial, claiming he invoked his 5th A right to remain silent, that he had not waived that right, and that his inculpatory statements were involuntary

Answer 242

Do you invoke your right to remain silent by being silent for a period of time?

Answer 243

No; Thompkins loses

Answer 244

- You have to invoke your right to remain silent unambiguously - Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police - Thompkins’ answer to a detective's question about whether he prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim was a course of conduct indicating waiver of the right to remain silent - Thompkins waived his Miranda right to remain silent when he "knowingly and voluntarily" made a statement to the police

Answer 245

- Massiah was indicted with others for violating federal narcotics laws, retained a lawyer, pled not guilty, and was released on bail - While free on bail, Massiah had a conversation without his lawyer with one of his co-defendants in the co-defendant’s car - The co-defendant was cooperating with government agents—installed a radio transmitter under the front seat of the car for a federal agent to listen to the conversation - A federal agent testified to incriminating statements made by Massiah during the conversation

Answer 246

Are a defendant’s incriminating statements made without the presence of their lawyer AFTER a criminal proceeding has begun admissible as evidence?

Answer 247

No, such statements are not admissible as evidence; Massiah wins

Answer 248

- The Supreme Court held that incriminating statements deliberately elicited by federal agents in the absence of counsel after the proceedings had begun violate the Sixth Amendment - After criminal proceedings have started but before decision is made is a crucial time for lawyers to be helpful - Once you have an attorney the police are not supposed to speak to you - Applies only after criminal proceedings have started

Answer 249

When it is the government agent's conscious objective to obtain a statement from the defendant; focus on the subjective motivation of the officer

Answer 250

Focuses on the suspect and is based on an objective finding that the process will result in incriminating information

Answer 251

The 6th Amendment applies only after the commencement of adversarial judicial proceedings, the Court concluded this commencement starts the “criminal prosecution” for the right to counsel purposes

Answer 252

Pre-trial procedures that would impair defense on merits if the accused is required to proceed without counsel AND any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel’s absence might detract from the accused’s right to a fair trial Includes: pre-trial lineup, preliminary hearing, arraignment Does not include: photograph array to witness (with defendant included), handwriting example from the defendant

Answer 253

- FBI officer arrested Butler on a federal warrant and read him his Miranda rights - At Butler’s interrogation, the officer gave him an “Advice of Rights” form and asked him to sign it - Butler read the Miranda rights and said he understood them, but refused to sign the waiver portion, and indicated that he would like to talk to the officer—did not ask for an attorney and didn’t stop the questioning - Butler made incriminating statements that were later introduced as evidence at trial - Butler moved to suppress the evidence, but the trial court denied it, saying he had effectively waived his right to an attorney when he spoke with the FBI officer after indicating that he understood his rights

Answer 254

Is a defendant’s self-incriminating testimony inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights? (do you need to explicitly say that you are waiving your Miranda rights?)

Answer 255

No, the testimony is still admissible even when there is no express waiver; Butler loses

Answer 256

- The question is whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights - Butler impliedly waived his rights—he said he understood and that he would talk, but he didn’t sign the form - Waiving can be inferred from words or actions - In addition to him reading it out loud, he said he was going to talk but not sign the form as he probably thought they needed him to sign the form to waive rights—they don’t, you just have to look at facts and circumstances of the situation

Answer 257

A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained; if the evidential "tree" is tainted, so is its "fruit"; makes secondary evidence inadmissible as well

Answer 258

1. Temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession (amount of time between) 2. The presence of the act of free will 3. The presence or absence of intervening circumstances 4. The purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct (how bad was the initial illegality?)

Answer 259

- DEA agents have an arrest warrant for Lyons, CI tells them he's at a residence in Atlanta (Steagald's home) - Agents entered Steagald's home to search for Lyons without a search warrant - Found cocaine and other incriminating evidence, but not Lyons - Agents then got a search warrant for Steagald's home and found more cocaine - Steagald was arrested and indicted on federal drug charges

Answer 260

Does the 4th Amendment prevent police officers from searching for a suspect (Lyons) in the home of a 3rd party (Steagald) without obtaining a warrant?

Answer 261

Yes, it does prevent police from searching without a warrant; Steagald wins

Answer 262

- What the warrants are protecting differ in arrest vs. search warrants - Arrest warrant: protects the individual from individual unreasonable search and seizure - Search warrant: protects your home and possessions - Officers did not have a basis to search Steagald’s home; only had an arrest warrant for Lyons, would’ve needed a search warrant for Steagald’s home for the person of Lyons