Criminal Due Process Quiz #4 Lo-Ji - Carney

Question 1

4 requirements of search warrants

Answer 1

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)

Question 2

2 parts of particularity requirement

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Lo-Ji v. NY (1979)

Answer 3

• NY state police bought and viewed 2
  films from Jo-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

Question 4

Lo-Ji Issue

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Lo-Ji Holding

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Lo-Ji Reasoning

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

IL v. McArthur (2001)

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

McArthur Issue

Answer 8

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

Question 9

McArthur Holding

Answer 9

Yes, the restrain was lawful; McArthur loses

Question 10

McArthur Reasoning

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

Time of execution of search warrant

Answer 11

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

Question 12

US v. Banks (2004)

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

Banks Issue

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Banks Holding

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Banks Reasoning

Answer 15

• 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)

Question 16

Who can be searched when a search warrant is executed?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

What do most exceptions to search warrants rely on?

Answer 17

Exigent circumstances

Question 18

General rules to exigencies and exceptions allowing for warrantless actions

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

Hayden Issue

Answer 20

Was the warrantless search of the home valid?

Question 21

Hayden Holding

Answer 21

Yes, the search was valid; Hayden loses

Question 22

Hayden Reasoning

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

Search incident to lawful arrest (SILA)

Answer 23

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 arrest occurred in the home

Question 24

Breakdown of SILA rationale

Answer 24

Officer safety and preservation of evidence

Question 25

Chimel v. CA (1969)

Answer 25

• 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 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

Question 26

Chimel Issue

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Chimel Holding

Answer 27

No, it was not a valid SILA; Chimel wins

Question 28

Chimel Reasoning

Answer 28

• 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

Question 29

Riley v. CA (2014) & Wurie v. Comm of MA (2014)

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Riley/Wurie Issue

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Riley/Wurie Holding

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Riley/Wurie Reasoning

Answer 32

• 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

Question 33

Does SILA apply to cell phones based on Chimel?

Answer 33

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

Question 34

NY v. Belton (1981)

Answer 34

• 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

Question 35

Belton Issue

Answer 35

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?

Question 36

Belton Holding

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Belton Reasoning

Answer 37

• 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)

Question 38

AZ v. Gant (2009)

Answer 38

• 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

Question 39

Gant Issue

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Gant Holding

Answer 40

No, the search was not SILA; Gant wins

Question 41

Gant Reasoning

Answer 41

• 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

Question 42

Motor vehicle exception to search warrants

Answer 42

• 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

Question 43

Chambers v. Maroney (1970)

Answer 43

• 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

Question 44

Chambers Issue

Answer 44

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

Question 45

Chambers Holding

Answer 45

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

Question 46

Chambers Reasoning

Answer 46

• 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

Question 47

Consequence of Chambers

Answer 47

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

Question 48

Coolidge v. NH (1971)

Answer 48

• 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

Question 49

Coolidge Issue

Answer 49

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

Question 50

Coolidge Holding

Answer 50

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

Question 51

Coolidge Reasoning

Answer 51

• 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

Question 52

CA v. Carney (1985)

Answer 52

• 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 and
  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

Question 53

Carney Issue

Answer 53

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

Question 54

Carney Holding

Answer 54

Yes, the search was an exception; Carney loses

Question 55

Carney Reasoning

Answer 55

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.)

Question 56

Does an RV qualify under the motor vehicle exception?

Answer 56

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

Question 57

Why is the particularity requirement is necessary in a search warrant?

Answer 57

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