Fourth Amendment Flashcards

Question

Warrant exceptions Plain view rationale

Answer 1

If contraband is left in plain view and is observed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no “search”

Answer 2

Applies if (1) police are lawfully next to the car; and - doesn’t get you TO the car, just IN the car. - If it looks like something that could drive away = automobile (2) have probable cause to believe something subject to seizure is in the car - as long as you have the PC necessary to get a warrant if there was a tiny judge in your pocket, you can search the car. Allows: - Police to search the WHOLE car. Including closed containers in the car.

Answer 3

1. The mobility of the vehicle — will lose the chance to seize if officers take the time go get a warrant 2. There is a reduced expectation of privacy in a car that makes it different than a home. it’s in public places all the time and under a lot of regulation.

Answer 4

**Analyze separate warrant exception for arrest as well** Applies if (1) there was an arrest made. (that’s it — anytime there is an arrest they can SILA) — the probable cause of the arrest is sufficient PC to conduct SILA w/o any additional evidence Allows - Search of person PLUS - the area “within his immediate control” (think, area from which he might gain possession of destructible evidence/weapon) - In a car, this would be like anywhere someone driving or riding int he car could get to without using tools. (no trunk, gas tank, etc.). If they want to search the trunk, need SEPARATE PC to then use to get automobile exception.

Answer 5

1. Safety of officers (disarm) 2. Prevent concealment or destruction of evidence (preserve evidence)

Answer 6

Genuine consent serves as a valid substitute for a search warrant. - Proof of knowledge of right to refuse is not required to establish consent, but can be considered in totality - Officers can rely on the consent of an occupant who shares or is **reasonably believed to share authority over the common area (even if they later find out they were wrong, still reasonable search)

Answer 7

A physically present co-occupant’s refusal prevails. Any subsequent search is unreasonable (according to 60 y/o judge who lives with his mom in New Hampshire) - In absence of co-occupant, the consent of the physically present co-occupant is valid over absent non-consenting person.

Answer 8

1. Hot pursuit of a fleeing criminal suspect 2. protection of public safety from immediate threats, and 3. preservation of evidence from destruction

Answer 9

Allows: - officer to follow a fleeing felon into a house and look around to protect themselves, find weapons, find suspect, etc. - even allows officer to search washing machine downstairs right after suspect was caught elsewhere When: Officers see someone commit a crime and then run into a house - Pursuit still hot if they get a “he went into that building” Rationale: - it would be dumb if criminals could evade police chase by running into a private house

Answer 10

Allows - officers to exeter a home w/o warrant to render emergency assistance When: - Police believe public safety is at immediate risk (911 calls; person in need of medical aid; hear screams; protect from imminent injury) Rationale - Need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury - Absent this exception public officers could not effectively and protect

Answer 11

Allows officers to search/ seize w/o a warrant When 1. officers have probable cause to believe items subject to seizure are in a particular place; and 2. that waiting for a warrant would put the evidence at serious risk of destruction Common scenarios: - Suspect about to flush drugs (including “hearing people shuffling around” after police knock - Burn documents - Tamer w electronic devices - DRUNK DRIVING

Answer 12

Warrantless blood test - If just a normal DUI and the guy refuses consent to blood test, can’t take blood w/o a warrant (McNeally) - Can’t get around this by saying (or a law that says) if you don’t consent we will prosecute you for your refusal (Birchfield) - If you get in a wreck or something, or has to be taken to the hospital (Schmerber), or dude is passed out in his car (Mitchell) it’s fine to ask to do a blood draw - Also if DD makes it home and and is asleep you can’t blood draw (Welsh) Warrantless breath teset - For sure fine. Less intrusive – impact on privacy is slight (not like sticking a needle in you) and the need is great. (Birchfield)

Answer 13

Rule: searches made at the border are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact they occur at the border. Don’t even need reasonable suspicion. - Don’t want your gas tank searched? Don’t come. we treat the mail and international airports the same way FIXED v. ROVING 1. Fixed checkpoint near the border - You can stop people randomly. And even stop them worse than randomly based on race. ROVING - if it’s a roving checkpoint, then police need reasonable suspicion. (“they looked mexican” is not reasonable suspicion)

Answer 14

Permissible. Court compares it to border stops. The problem is incredibly large, the intrusion is small, and this would immediately improve public safety by immediately removing the danger.

Answer 15

NOT allowed. Purpose of suspicionless checkpoints serves the purposes of border safety or ensuring roadway safety. Narcotics checkpoint doesn’t ensure roadway safety.

Answer 16

If for a very specific purpose like handing out flyers to people near the homicide location = permissible. Very limited imposition. Not even trying too catch the people they were pulling over.

Answer 17

Potective Sweep = quick and limited search of premises incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of officers or others. Narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. Scope - NOT a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found. The sweep lasts no longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.

Answer 18

(1) the physical scope of a protective sweep will often extend beyond the area in which a SILA is permissible, (2) because sweeps are permitted only to protect against dangers to those present during the arrest, police may search only areas in which an officer may reasonably suspect a person could be found, and (3) the searches must be “cursory inspections” of those spaces. Ex: arrest guy upstairs. SILA search basement looking for evidence = no. Too far away. Protective sweep of basement = cool.

Answer 19

Reasonable suspicion required - search must be justified for reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up evidence the student had or is violating EITHER the law or school rules Scope of search justified - must be reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student. what was the reasonable suspicion that justified it? was it the advil dealer or was it the meth dealer? Balance the annoying mess of the search with the importance of the evidence.

Answer 20

Suspicionless IF optional You can’t drug test everyone at a public school (or even a random sample)… but you can pretty much drug test any group of students that’s opting into something. originally said you can drug test athletes because they are more likely to use drugs than normal population, higher health risks due to physical activity, leaders at school, and optional to be on team… BUT did away with this reasoning upholding drug tests for any extracurricular activities (DECA, band, debate, quiz bowl, etc.). Only rationale seems to be “don’t like it? Don’t join.” Lower courts have even expanded this reasoning to requiring drug tests for parking passes or dance admission.

Answer 21

Reasonable suspicion Supervisors of public employees have a duty to monitor the work of subordinates for the public interest. A government employer’s warrantless search is reasonable if it is: 1. justified at its inception 2. the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives and not excessively intrusive

Answer 22

Can’t randomly drug test any employee. Court has been reasonably open to explanations for why certain categories of employees should be subject to sucipisionless drug testing

Answer 23

Not allowed if you call the cops on the positive tests lol

Answer 24

Obviously can search the shit out of someone locked up in the interests of safety and order for both other inmates and correctional officers. - Don’t have to be “best practices” or least invasive search - Florence v. Board of Freeholders (SCOTUS upheld as reasonable the ole “lift your balls, bend over, and cough gotta check yo booty hole” test) Also you don’t get less search for less serious crimes

Answer 25

Search Condition = Courts review reasonableness of search if there is a search condition Probation [reasonable suspicion] - A probationer’s home may be searched if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (United States v. Knights; Griffin v. Wisconsin) Parole [suspcionless] - The suspicionless search of a parolee does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (Samson v. California)

Answer 26

Suspicionless + preexisting policy - only real rule is that it can’t be a pretext. All you need is a preexisting policy that’s fair to everyone. Policy can even be “we search every car”

Answer 27

Gov can get a warrant for fire code or housing code issues as long as they have a good faith reason to believe this neighborhood is likely to have some violations. Dangerously close to a general warrant (“search for violations of housing code in this neighborhood”) (Camera)

Answer 28

rule = if you get arrested, the police can make you do a cheek swab DNA test

Answer 29

A person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Translation: Seizure = a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.

Answer 30

1. threatening presence of several officers 2. display of a weapon by an officer 3. some physical touching of the person of the citizen or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled 4. they took my luggage / keys (can effectively restrain someone)

Answer 31

Compliance = seizure No compliance (such as flight) = no seizure until tackled or otherwise submits

Answer 32

When police have a reasonable belief of guilt, they can arrest w/o a warrant. - presumptively lawful if you have probable cause to believe that he committed an offense - EVEN if it’s a really minor offense. Still constitutional. Just dumb. - EVEN IF the crime is not arrestable under state law. (state law restrictions do not alter 4A protections

Answer 33

When a reasonable officer considering the circumstances and reasonable inferences has reasonable suspicion that the officer’s safety or the safety of other was in danger. Stop can last as long as reasonably needed to effectuate the purpose of the stop. - the mere passing of 20 minutes is not enough.

Answer 34

Reasonable diligence. If an officer can complete the purpose of the stop expeditiously, then that is the amount of time reasonably required. A stop prolonged beyond that point is unlawful. Critical question: whether the doc sniff prolongs or adds time to the stop.

Answer 35

If reasonable stop then officers are allowed to conduct a quick search, confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of a police officer. Outer closthing pat down. The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby NOT a search for evidence. Only dangerous items (guns, knifes, clubs, etc.)

Answer 36

Described: more than a hunch, but less than probable cause. Need some objective basis. But hunch + able to write down specific things that gave you that hunch = probably enough Test: look to the totality of the circumstances and see if there is a particular lived and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. This process allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make these inferences. Pretty low bar. Kids with high knees looking like they were told not to be suspicious in a van taking an odd route = passes

Answer 37

Flight from police + literally anything that makes it a little more suspicious = reasonable suspicion - Flight + in a “high crime area” counts

Answer 38

There are behaviors and characteristics that officers have come to recognize as being common in certain criminal trades. Observation of those characteristics can justify reasonable suspicion. This is different than profiling.

Answer 39

Anonymous tip + more police work (i.e. they see things predicted in the tip occur) = reasonable suspicion Anonymous tip + person is where they said they would be = . . . ??? - Florida v. JL says this is not enough. Too easy to make up / prank - Navarrete = this is enough BT: idk how to square these cases. Probably better if it involves a little bit of police work. Better if it’s a tip about the future.

Fourth Amendment Flashcards

(63 cards)