Fourth Amendment – Reasonableness Flashcards
Frank (1959)
Administrative Searches: Cops can enter home to inspect when trying to locate/abate a public nuisance (i.e., rats)
Camara (1967)
Administrative Searches: Warrant required for admin search; Probable Cause determine reasonableness by balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails. But a number of persuasive factors combine to support the reasonableness of area code-enforcement inspections. First, such programs have a long history of judicial and public acceptance. Second, the public interest demands that all dangerous conditions be prevented or abated, yet it is doubtful that any other canvassing technique would achieve acceptable results. Many such conditions–e.g., faulty wiring–are not observable from outside the building and indeed may not be apparent to the inexpert occupant himself. Finally, because the inspections are neither personal in nature nor aimed at the discovery of evidence of crime, they involve a relatively limited invasion of the urban citizen’s privacy.
Clifford (1984)
Administrative Searches: The primary purpose of administrative search warrants must be administrative.
Facts: After an early morning fire had already been extinguished, the fire marshall returned to the scene and entered the home where he found evidence of an arson device. The Court found that the administrative search did not grant a general search warrant of the premises.
Burger (1987)
Administrative Searches: Criteria: Must involve
(1) a substantial government interest (based on regulatory scheme) where
(2) search necessary to further regulatory scheme, and
(3) the statutory inspection program (certainty/regularity/limitations of search) must be a sufficient to supplant a warrant.
Facts: Court upheld NY statute used cops in searches for commercial requirements (to prevent chop shops).
Terry (1968)
Reasonable Suspicion: Cops may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot [less than probable cause]. Cops may conduct a frisk limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm cops or others nearby
Facts: Cop had no Probable Cause but had a reasonable suspicion, based upon his experience, that D and companions about to commit a daytime robbery, and his belief that D was presently armed, dangerous, and posed a threat to him and to others justified both the officer’s “stop” of petitioner and the “frisk,” or pat-down, of petitioner’s overcoat. a warrantless search of the outer clothing of D and his companions was properly limited in time and scope in order for him to determine the presence of weapons and to neutralize the danger posed.
J.L (2000)
Reasonable Suspicion: An anonymous tip cannot test veracity of informant; the accurate description of respondent’s appearance was not enough because the reasonable suspicion at issue required that the tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.
Facts: An anonymous tip led Miami-Dade cops to stop and frisk 15yr old black male at a bus stop wearing plaid shirt; search found a handgun on person.
Wardlow (2000)
Reasonable Suspicion: Reasonable suspicion must be based on common-sense judgments and inferences about human behavior (no empirical evidence to draw conlcusions).
Facts: Cop is driving in Chicago “high-drug traffic” area; D spots cops and takes flight. Presence in area and flight after spotting cops enough to arose reasonable suspicion. (5-4 with Stevens dissent: concur in adopting no per se rule; dissents indicating lack of reasonable suspicion in high-drug traffic area where people more likely to run from cops)
Sharpe (1985)
Reasonable Suspicion: Reasonableness of investigative stop: 1) articulable and reasonable facts lead to reasonable suspicion; 2) brevity of investigative detention reasonable
Facts: Overloaded Truck/Camper and Pontiac on highway; DEA agent with state highway cops attempt to pull over vehicles; pontiac pulled over but truck con’t; DEA agent initially with pontiac, left scene 15 minutes later to check truck; marijuana found in truck
Dickerson (1993)
Reasonable Suspicion: 1. Intimate search allowed under Terry for weapons; once determine not a weapon, a warrantless search stops (further squeezing, sliding to determine what the object is went too far)
Facts: Cop patrolling near a known crack house see D walking out from house down street; D spotted cops (in marked car) and reversed course; cops terry stop found a small object (not a weapon); after further searching (squeezing, sliding, pressing on object), cops removed object to ID as crack wrapped in cellophane
Hiibel (2004)
Reasonable Suspicion: Stop and Identify Statutes requiring name only (nothing further) within scope of Terry stop.
Facts: Cops receive domestic violence tip of couple in GMC truck on Grass Valley Road; cops found truck on side of road with skid marks behind it; male outside, female inside. Cops informed male of an investigation of fight; male arrested when refused to provide name when asked
NJ v. TLO (1985)
BLL: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers, including the rights of students against encroachment by public school officials. However, public school officials act in furtherance of publicly mandated educational and disciplinary policies. The substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools does not require strict adherence to probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student depends on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search:
(1) was the action was justified at its inception
(2) was the search reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.
Facts: The principle of a high school discovered two girls smoking in a laboratory. One of the girls admitted she was smoking, which violated a school rule. The second girl claimed she was not smoking and as such did not break the rule. The assistant vice-principal took the student into his private office and demanded to search her purse. While looking for cigarettes, the vice-principal found a package of cigarette rolling papers. He continued searching the purse and found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags and a substantial amount of one dollar bills and an index card with the names of various people who owed the student money.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
BLL: Drunken driving is a huge problem, and so is States’ interest in eradicating it. No difference between the levels of intrusion on law-abiding motorists from the brief stops necessary to the effectuation of these two types of checkpoints, which to the average motorist would seem identical save for the nature of the questions the checkpoint officers might ask. The ‘objective’ intrusion is minimal, measured by
(1) the duration of the seizure and
(2) the intensity of the investigation.
Facts: The Michigan State Police established a sobriety checkpoint pilot program. It only went on for one day. “Under the guidelines, checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist’s driver’s license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer’s observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately.”
Chandler v. Miller (1997)
BLL: Even if a state effectively limits the invasiveness of the testing procedure, the hazards it addresses must be specific, real, well designed to identify criminals, and be a credible means to deter criminal activity that ordinary law enforcement methods would not suffice to apprehend.
Facts: Under a Georgia statute, a candidate must present a certificate from a state-approved laboratory showing that the candidate had a negative urinalysis drug test within 30 days prior to qualifying for nomination. Petitioners were candidates from the Libertarian Party, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)
BLL: The ultimate interest of a special need cannot be general “crime control.”
Facts: In response to an apparent increase use of cocaine among prenatal patients, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) began to order drugs screens. Those testing positive were referred for treatment. Subsequently, MUSC began a relationship with Solicitor of Charleston, which led to a policy outlining legal action to be taken against pregnant addicts, including protocols for arrest, with the hope that the threat of the law would get women into treatment. No consent was given by the women for the drug screening.
