The 4th Amendment - Arrest, Search, and Seizure

Question 1

What are the two major schools of interpretation when it comes to the 4th amendment?

Answer 1

A) 2-Clause Interpretation: 2 independant thoughts joined by an “and.” Such that government must have reasonable searches and seizures. Then there are also warrants. But the two groups dont have to go hand in hand.

B) 1-Clause Interpretation: In order to do a reasonable search or seizure, there must be a warrant present. This sets the presumption at the needing a warrant, with narrow exceptions.

Question 2

Is the two-clause or one-clause interpretation of the 4th amendment the default?

Answer 2

The One-Clause interpretation is the default setting. The only well known 2 clausers are Scalia and Thomas.

Question 3

What did Weeks v. United States (1914) impact the 4th amendment?

Answer 3

This was the first time the SCOTUS had ruled on this issue. They held that evidence seized illegally is excluded and cannot be used against the defendant in trial. But this did not apply against the state, just the federal government.

Question 4

What was the impact of Wolf v. Colorado (1949) on the 4th amendment’s search and seizure requirements?

Answer 4

This case incorporated the Exclusionary Rule against the 14th amendment through the 14th amendments due process clause.

Question 5

What remedy does the court create through Mapp v. Ohio (1961) for a 4th amendment violation and what was the reasoning?

Answer 5

Makes the first remedy of a 4th amendment violation the exclusionary rule against both the federal government and the states.
The reasoning was two fold:
1) Deterrence: Make sure the police follow proper procedure to ensure successful conviction.
2) Judicial Integrity: We want good cases with good evidence to get good convictions.

Question 6

What are the “Dimensions” of the exclusionary rule? Would it apply in the following:

1) Forfeiture Proceedings?
2) Grand Jury Proceedings
3) Probation Hearings
4) Civil Matter following a Criminal Matter

Answer 6

1) Yes. The 4th amendment applies here - Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania
2) In a grand jury proceeding the witness cannot refuse to answer the questions on grounds that the search violated the 4th amendment. The defendant must answer, then later raise their concerns with the search and seizure.
3) No, by a 5/4 decision, the 4th amendment does not apply to probation hearings.
4) The 4th amendment doesn’t apply in the civil trial following a criminal trial - United States v. Janis.

Question 7

What is the exception to the requirement of a warrant created under United States v. Leon (1984)?

Answer 7

The good faith exception. This states that the police can reasonably rely on a warrant they reasonably believe to be sufficient, even if it is invalid. So, if the police objectively had reasonable belief that the warrant is good, but it is actually invalid due to something out of their control, the evidence will not be suppressed.

Question 8

What is the reasoning behind the Good Faith Exception found in United States v. Leon?

Answer 8

The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, not punish judicial errors because there is no need to deter judicial misconduct because they are essentially neutral.

Question 9

What does the 4th Amendment’s particularity clause state and mean?

Answer 9

“…and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause… and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person’s or things to be seized.”

Basically means that the affidavit that is trying to get the warrant must be specific about what the police want to search/seize.

Question 10

In Massachusetts v Shepard (1984) the Warrant and Affidavit don’t match exactly, it was the judges mistake, what does SCOTUS hold?

Answer 10

The Supreme Court held that the police officer could objectively reasonably rely on the judges actions. So this wasn’t the officers fault, it was the judges, so there was no bad police conduct to deter, thus the good-faith exception applies and the evidence cannot be suppressed.

Question 11

What are the four exceptions to the good-faith exception found in United States v. Leon (1984)?

Answer 11

1. Judge was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth.
2. Judge wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner that no reasonable officer would ever be able to reasonably rely on the warrant.
3. The Officer knows or reasonably should know that they cannot objectively rely in good faith on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking of probable cause as to render reasonable belief impossible;
4. The warrant is clearly facially deficient that the officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid.

Question 12

What did the Supreme Court say about relying on a statute rather than a judge’s discretion and how that applies to the good-faith exception in Illinois v. Krull (1987)?

Answer 12

The Supreme Court held that there is not any distinguishable difference between relying on a warrant invalidly issued by a judge or relying on a statute passed by the legislature. The good-faith exception still applies and the police can reasonably rely on the legislature when doing investigations as long as they are objectively reasonable in their actions.

Question 13

What are the types of Warrants?

Answer 13

1) Knock and Announce: The most common warrant which requires the police to knock on the door and announce themselves, then wait a reasonable amount of time before entering.
2) No knock: The police do not have to announce themselves at all before entering the building. Not used very often and only in cases of danger to the police or evidence.

Question 14

Under Hudson v. Michigan (2006) was a violation of the knock and announce requirement of the 4th amendment enough to warrant the suppression of the evidence? and why?

Answer 14

No. A knock and announce violation is insufficient alone to require the suppression of the evidence. This is due to the type of violation that occurred; the police did have a valid warrant, they simply made a mistake in execution. This does not warrant exclusion.

The majority went away from determining the outcome based on police deterrence and rather did a balancing test between the benefits of suppression vs the costs of the suppression.

Question 15

What is required under Herring v. the United States (2009) for evidence to be suppressed?

Answer 15

“To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. The exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence…”

Question 16

What is the analysis outline that the court will examine when determining if exclusion is appropriate found in Davis v. U.S. (2011)?

Answer 16

It will look something like this:

1) Was there a fourth amendment violation? Yes –> go to 2;
2) Would it deter police misconduct? Yes –> go to 3;
3) Was it deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent? If yes, what was the degree of culpability?

Question 17

As seen in United States v. Jacobsen, what happens to evidence discovered by private persons, which would be excluded if found by the government?

Answer 17

In this case, shipping employees opened a suspicious package and found bags of white powder. They called the DEA and they discovered it was cocaine. The court held that the government actions did not expand past what had already been done by a private individual. For this reason, a warrant was not required.
Once the package was opened, its 4th amendment protection was broken.

Question 18

What is the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine?

Answer 18

There is no remedy at trial for unconstitutionally producing the defendant. If evidence is found during the illegal arrest, the defendant can move to have the evidence suppressed or file a motion to quash the arrest, but if nothing comes from the illegal arrest except the defendant, then you cannot file a motion to quash the arrest.

Question 19

What is the Katz Rule found in Katz v. United States (1967) regarding a search?

Answer 19

A search has occurred if the government has infringed on your reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question 20

What is the 4th amendment designed to protect under Katz v. United States (1967)?

Answer 20

The 4th Amendment is designed to protect people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even if his own home or office, is not under the 4th amendment protection but what he seeks to keep private, may not be protected by the 4th amendment.

Question 21

What test does Justice Harlan’s Concurrence in Katz v. United States create regarding what is a 4th amendment violation?

Answer 21

He created a two part test to determine if a 4th amendment violation has occurred:

1) Does the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
2) Is society willing to accept that this expectation is reasonable?

Question 22

Under the Katz Test, what are the 3 parts that a State’s Attorney can hit to win under the 4th Amendment?

Answer 22

1) This was not a search or a seizure.
2) Even if there is a search or seizure, it was a reasonable search or seizure;
3) If the search or seizure was unreasonable, then there was a good-faith exception.

Question 23

What does Florida v. Riley (1989) do to the Katz Test?

Answer 23

The court stated that under the Katz Test, the subjective expectation does not matter. The court only cares about the objective expectation of privacy.

Question 24

Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage as sen in California v. Greenwood (1988)?

Answer 24

No. The court held 6/3 that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage because anyone can access it, so objectively it is no longer protected.

Question 25

What is a binary search?

Answer 25

A dog search is an example of a binary search and is not covered by the 4th amendment. This is because there are only two outcomes to a dog sniff. Either the government learns that there is illegal drugs in the bag, or they learn absolute nothing.

Question 26

If the police take a thermal image of a home from the outside to determine if there is excess heat in the home to determine if drugs are being grown inside, is this a binary search, or does the 4th amendment apply? (as seen in Kyllo v. United States; 2009)

Answer 26

The court held that this was not a binary search and violated the Katz Test because homes are heavily protected under the 4th amendment. It would also be against what society would consider to be a heavily protected area.

Question 27

In United States v. Jones (2012) the court examined whether the Katz test replaced the old trespass test. What did they determine?

Answer 27

The court combined the tests. So now if the government commits a trespass to obtain incriminating information, or violates the Katz Test, then a search has been committed and the 4th amendment is activated.

Question 28

What is the Mosiac Theory as seen in Justice Alitos Concurrence in U.S. v. Jones (2012)?

Answer 28

The court should put more weight on the amount of information gathered. One or two pieces of information is not that big of deal, but the more information gathered, the more likely a search has been committed.

Question 29

What is the "Open-Field Doctrine" and its exception?

Answer 29

Open Field Doctrine - An individual has no 4th amendment protection in the area around their home, especially in the backyard. Exception: 4th amendment protection does apply to the "curtilage" around the home. Curtilage is areas like an attached garage, front porch, etc.

Question 30

Why is Florida v. Jardines (2013) an interesting search case?

Answer 30

In this case, the police, believing that there were drugs inside a home took a drug dog up to the front door and knocked. The dog then indicated that there was drugs in the home and the police used that to get a warrant to search the premises. This is interesting because the court relied on the intent of the police rather than using the usual objective test.

Question 31

Why did the court hold in favor of the defense in Florida v. Jardines (2013)?

Answer 31

In this case, the police had a temporary license to be on the property and the property curtilage, BUT once the police had the intent to commit a search it became an unlicensed physical intrusion and the 4th amendment protected the home.

Question 32

What does "probable cause" mean?

Answer 32

Probable cause is a term of art. It is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. It is more of a reasonable grounds for the belief of guilt.

Question 33

What is the current rule for the reliability of criminal informants under Illinois v. Gates (1983)?

Answer 33

It is the totality of the circumstances test. 1) The totality of the circumstances: reliability, veracity, basis of knowledge, and any other relevant information should be considered to determine the reliability of the information for probable cause. 2) Taking the totality of the circumstances, is there a "fair probability" that the information is accurate? This is an examination of fair probabilities to determine if a common-sense conclusion could be drawn to support the information.

Question 34

What is the standard of review on trial court determinations that criminal informants are reliable under Illinois v. Gates (1983)?

Answer 34

Clearly erroneous.

Question 35

Does the state always have to produce the criminal informant for a suppression hearing under McCray v. Illinois?

Answer 35

No. The state does not have to produce the criminal informant at a suppression hearing as long as the state has a reasonable reason to not produce the informant.

Question 36

What is the rule regarding citizen informants?

Answer 36

The default is that citizen information is reliable. Police can immediately rely on a citizen informant, as long as there is no reason to suspect the citizen is lying or that the citizen expects anything in return for the information.

Question 37

What is the collective knowledge doctrine?

Answer 37

An officer down the line of collective knowledge (ie officer A tells officer B tells officer C) can rely on the information as correct and the information given is valid.

Question 38

What is an Anticipatory Warrant?

Answer 38

The item is not at the location yet, but it will be. So the police try to get a warrant for a later time, when the item is at the location.

Question 39

Are Anticipatory Warrants allowed under United States v. Grubbs (2006)?

Answer 39

Yes. There is simply another wrinkle added the requirement of probable cause. They must prove that the item will be there at a specific time, in a specific place.

Question 40

What is the roadmap for the state in winning a suppression motion for invalid search/ seizure? What is the defenses?

Answer 40

State: 1) No search/seizure took place; 2) If search/seizure took place, then it was a reasonable search/ seizure; 3) If the search/ seizure was unreasonable then the police followed the rule enough to obtain the good faith exception. Defense: The defense is the reverse of the state. But if they lose on any of the three stages, then the evidence gets admitted.

Question 41

What is the test for a factually inaccurate affidavit to obtain a warrant under Franks v. Delaware (1978)? Also, what does the challenger have to prove?

Answer 41

This is a subjective test based on the officer who writes the affidavit. Did the officer know or not care that he was lying on the affidavit? The falsity of the affidavit does not need to be intentional, but it must be a reckless disregard of the law. If the challenger of the affidavit can prove that some of the facts are lies then the court will eliminate the lies, leaving only the truth then determine if probable cause still exists for the warrant.

Question 42

Who may issue a warrant under Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)?

Answer 42

SCOTUS held that a member of the executive branch cannot issue warrants. To issue a warrant it must be checked and signed by a neutral and detached magistrate.

Question 43

What are the exceptions to the good faith exception?

Answer 43

1) The judge was misled by the police's affidavit. 2) The executive branch (police or state) interfered with the issuance of the warrant or the magistrate is not a neutral and detached member. 3) The warrant is clearly lacking probable cause, but it is issued anyway, that the police could not reasonably rely on it in good faith. 4) The warrant is facially deficient that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.

Question 44

What is the default setting for entry into a residence with a warrant under Wisconsin v. Arkansas?

Answer 44

SCOTUS states the default rule for gaining entry with a warrant requires the police to knock then announce their presence then wait for a reasonable amount of time before forcing their entry into the residence.

Question 45

What about blanket exceptions to the requirement of knock and announce warrants discussed in Richards v. Wisconsin?

Answer 45

Wisconsin allowed a blanket exception to the requirement of a knock and announce warrant for felony drug searches. SCOTUS held that there cannot be a blanket exception to the default rule of knock and announce. There are exceptions, but these types of warrants must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Question 46

When police enter a residence legally with a warrant, can they detain the individuals under the Rettele and Mena cases?

Answer 46

Yes. When the police are doing a reasonable search they have the right, for police safety purposes, to detain individuals while the search takes place for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.

Question 47

What do the Bailey and Summers cases stand for in regards to an individual outside of their home when the police attempt to do a reasonable and legal search?

Answer 47

Summers: The police can detain an individual who is within the immediate vicinity of his home and return him to the home to do the search. Bailey: Once the person is outside of the immediate vicinity of the home, the police cannot detain him and return him to the home. The key is the reasonable vicinity of the location of the search.

Question 48

Can the police search individuals simply for being on the premises when the police enter to search under Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)?

Answer 48

SCOTUS holds that without any reason to believe that the individual has something illegal or is a threat to the police, they cannot search them. Simply being on the premises allows them to be detained, but not searched.

Question 49

What is the particularity clause and what does it require?

Answer 49

Requires that the warrant list the items to be searched and seized as well as the location to be listed in particularity. While doing a search, the police cannot search somewhere that the items they are looking for could not be. So if the police are looking for stolen 60 inch tvs, they cannot look in a drawer that they could not fit.

Question 50

What is the "Plain-View Doctrine" seen in Horton v. California?

Answer 50

A seizure exception that allows police to seize an item that is not listed in the warrant if and only if they are objectively in a place they are legally allowed to be and the item is in plain view for them to see while there.

Question 51

What is the categorical rule found in United States v. Watson (1976) regarding arrests in a public place?

Answer 51

If the police and the individual are in a public place and have probable cause that a felony has or will occur, they can make an arrest. No warrant is required.

Question 52

What is the rule regarding how long an individual can be held after a warrantless arrest occurs found in Gerstein v. Pugh?

Answer 52

After a warrantless arrest occurs in public, the individual has a right to have that arrest "double-checked" by a judge to ensure that probable cause was present to make the arrest. This is designed to equalize the power of the police with the rights of the citizens. This hearing must occur within 48 hours, usually.

Question 53

Under Powell v. Nevada, what occurs when there is a gerstein violation (ie the individual does not go before a judge following a warrantless arrest within a reasonable amount of time)?

Answer 53

Suppression of evidence obtained is not a remedy. The only possible remedy for this sort of violation is a possible 1983 civil action.

Question 54

What can a police officer do during a traffic stop without a warrant?

Answer 54

1) As a categorical right, Police can order the occupants of the vehicle from the vehicle during a traffic stop for police protection and safety. 2) Ask for license, registration, and insurance information to run a check or issue a warning or citation. 3) The police can arrest the individual with probable cause for arrest, then do a frisk of the individual for weapons.

Question 55

What is the definition of frisk?

Answer 55

Term of art meaning an over the clothes pat down looking for hard objects such as weapons.

Question 56

What does United States v. Robinson (1973) allow the police to do upon lawful arrest of an individual?

Answer 56

If the police officer has probable cause to do a lawful arrest of the individual, as a categorical right, the police can do a full and complete search prior to arrest without a warrant.

Question 57

Under Riley v. California (2014) may the police search a cell phone without a warrant during a lawful arrest?

Answer 57

No. The police cannot search a cell phone without a warrant because once a cell phone is removed from the individual it is no longer a threat to police, nor is there any risk of the destruction of evidence.

Question 58

Is there any offense that is too minor for a police officer to commit a lawful arrest under Atwater v. City of Lago Vista?

Answer 58

No. The court states there is no offense minor enough that an arrest is categorically unreasonable.

Question 59

Does the subjective intent of a police officer when committing a traffic stop under Whren v. United States (1996) matter?

Answer 59

No. The subjective intent of a police officer when committing a traffic stop does not matter. The test when doing a traffic stop and/or arrest is objective test.

Question 60

What is created by the Atwater, Virginia, and Whren cases when they are combined in regards to the arrest?

Answer 60

As long as there is a lawful arrest under the objective test, even if for a minor traffic violation, the subjective intent of the officer does not matter, then the search is valid.

Question 61

What is required for a valid search or seizure?

Answer 61

To have a valid search/seizure requires: 1) Probable cause; and either 2) A warrant; or 3) A warrant exception. Held to the objective standard.

Question 62

What is the second look standard seen in United States v. Edwards (1974; P328)?

Answer 62

The police may reexamine the suspect after he has been arrested and commit a second search post-arrest. As long as they are looking for information/ evidence they could have found the first time around then it is a valid search.

Question 63

Under Devenpeck v. Alford, does the arresting officer's state of mind when making an arrest matter?

Answer 63

No, the arresting officer's state of mind is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. If a reasonable officer in the same situation could have taken what the arresting officer knew at the time and came to the same conclusion then probable cause exists.

Question 64

Under Missouri v. McNeely, can the police do a blood test for alcohol content without a warrant?

Answer 64

No. Under the old rule the police could. But now a warrant is required except in emergency exigent circumstances.

Question 65

If the police can present probable cause and obtain a warrant to have the suspect undergo surgery, can they under Winston v. Lee (1983)?

Answer 65

No. This is one of the very few exceptions to the general rule. Even with a warrant, surgical intrusion is too much to be allowed. It goes too far infringing on the individuals privacy rights.

Question 66

Can the police search a residence post arrest with only an arrest warrant?

Answer 66

No. The police need an arrest warrant to do the arrest and then another search warrant for the search.

Question 67

What is a Chimel search found in Chimel v. California (1969)?

Answer 67

For police safety and the preservation of evidence, the police can search the immediate area accessible by the suspect when the arrest takes place. This area is objectively defined by the officer in real time at the time of arrest.

Question 68

What are the two types of searches post-arrest allowed under Maryland v. Buie (1990)?

Answer 68

1) Search Incident to Arrest - By arresting the individual, the police can do a search of that person to look for weapons. Then the police can also search the immediate area to look for anyone else who may be a threat in the immediate area. 2) Protective Sweep: With reasonable suspicion, police can sweep the rest of the residence in depth to check for other threats. But the police can only look where a human person might fit.

Question 69

What are the steps of post arrest searches?

Answer 69

1) Robinson Search - Once there is a lawful arrest, police can do a full search of the person for police safety. This search includes all areas of person including pockets and containers. 2) Chimel Search - Search immediate area. The police can search anywhere within reaching distance of the individual for police safety and to avoid the destruction of evidence. 3a) Buie - Search Incident to Arrest: By arresting the individual, the police can do a basic search of the immediate area to look for other individuals for police safety. 3b) Buie - Protective Sweep: With reasonable suspicion that other threats exist in other areas of the residence, the police can search in other locations where other humans may be or police safety and to preserve evidence. Sometimes: Plain view doctrine - Police must be in a police they are legally allowed to be and have probable cause to seize the items.

Question 70

If the police make an arrest outside of the suspects home, can they take him back inside and do a search? What if the suspect asks to go back inside to get something after the arrest?

Answer 70

If the police arrest the suspect outside of his home, they cannot enter the home to do a search after that without a valid search warrant. (Vale v. Louisiana) If the suspect wants to go back inside the home, the police may allow him and enter the home to ensure their protection as well as to ensure no evidence is destroyed. The officer is allowed to monitor the suspect anywhere he goes. (Washington v. Chrisman)

Question 71

Is there a 4th amendment "homicide exception" for securing the scene?

Answer 71

Police can enter the location when they receive a report of a homicide, but this exception expires after a reasonable amount of time. Even if a homicide has occurred, the police can stay for a reasonable amount of time to secure the scene and investigate, but then they must leave and the 4th amendment protection applies again.

Question 72

What are the 4 common exigent circumstances?

Answer 72

1) Hot-Pursuit: Police in pursuit of a felon can follow him into the home. 2) Imminent Destruction of Evidence: Danger in a felony case that the evidence will be destroyed if the police do not act quickly; 3) Current and convicted felon is escaping; 4) Risk of danger to police or others: Police may enter the home to assist with an immediate medical emergency.

Question 73

Do the police need to consider the severity of the offense to determine if exigent circumstances exist under Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984)?

Answer 73

Yes. The gravity of the offense will determine whether exigent circumstances exist. If the offense is not severe enough then the circumstances will not hold up.

Question 74

Can the police rely on exigent circumstances they created under Kentucky v. King (2011)?

Answer 74

Yes, with an exception. The police can rely on an exigent circumstance they created as long as the police do not gain entry into the premises through either an actual violation or a threatened violation of the 4th amendment.

Question 75

Does a third-party have an expectation of privacy in the following situations? 1) guest in another's home 2) Overnight guest 3) Using the location for business

Answer 75

1) No. The third party lacks 4th amendment standing in the home of another; 2) Yes. An overnight guest does have 4th amendment standing to object to the police presence because they are treating it as a home, even if only for a short time. 3) No, if the suspect is only using the location for business purposes, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the location.

Question 76

What is the expectation of privacy allowed for vehicles under Carroll v. United States (1925)?

Answer 76

Due to the mobility of vehicles, as long as the police have probable cause, a warrant is not required. But, the police can only search locations that a search warrant based on their probable cause would allow.

Question 77

Because the police based their decision in Carroll v. United States on the mobility of vehicles, what happens when the vehicle is not mobile as seen in Chambers v. Maroney (1970)?

Answer 77

SCOTUS holds that the cars lack of mobility does not matter. As long as the police have probable cause to search the vehicle, they do not need a warrant.

Question 78

Are exigent circumstances required to search a suspects car?

Answer 78

No. The police only need probable cause because the vehicles are highly regulated.

Question 79

If the suspect is in a mobile home, do the police need a warrant under the Carroll doctrine as seen in California v. Carney (1985)?

Answer 79

No. SCOTUS holds that the same vehicle can be more or less a home based on the context and facts. But because the police had probable cause to search, the mobile home is more a car than a home, then the search was valid.

Question 80

What is the outlier/ Exception to the rule regarding the search of vehicles as seen in Coolidge v. New Hampsire (1971)?

Answer 80

The search of a car on the curtilage of a home. SCOTUS states that when the car falls under the protection of the home, its protection increases. So a warrant is required.

Question 81

What is the Chadwick Doctrine found in United States v. Chadwick?

Answer 81

Affects or Containers are literally mentioned in the 4th amendment, so their protection is much higher than vehicles.

Question 82

If a container is within a vehicle, and the police have probable cause to search the vehicle, can they search the container under United States v. Ross (1985)?

Answer 82

Yes. If police have probable cause to search the vehicle, they can search any containers that they have probable cause to believe the item they are looking for is in the container.

Question 83

What if the probable cause exists for the container within the car, but not for the car itself? California v. Acevedo (1991)

Answer 83

SCOTUS holds that the probable cause for the bag can apply to the car once the bag goes into the car. So: 1) The bag outside the car - Chadwick doctrine applies and protects the bag from search without a warrant; 2) Bag within the car - No more chadwick protection because the Carroll Doctrine overrules it.

Question 84

What is the warrant exception created by the Carroll and Ross cases combined?

Answer 84

Vehicles have a lower expectation of privacy. So, as long as the police have probable cause for the vehicle, which would justify a warrant, then they can search the vehicle and any containers in the vehicle which may hold the item they have probable cause to believe is in the vehicle.

Question 85

If police have probable cause to search the vehicle, can they search passengers items as well as the drivers? Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)

Answer 85

Yes. If the item is in the car, and the police have probable cause for the vehicle, the police can search the item, no matter who owns the container/ item.

Question 86

What is the single purpose doctrine?

Answer 86

The container is such that the only thing that could possibly be inside it is the item that the police are looking for and have probable cause for. If this occurs, police can open it without a warrant because probable cause exists.

Question 87

What is the Controlled Delivery Doctrine? Illinois v. Andreas (1983)

Answer 87

Once the box is opened, by someone other than the government,, the expectation of privacy has expired. So the government can open it again without a warrant or probable cause because it is no longer 4th amendment protected. But, at some point the expectation of privacy will reattach.

Question 88

What are inventory searches and are they allowed?

Answer 88

Inventory searches are allowed to prevent accusations of theft and for the safety of the officers and other inmates. If the individual is going to be held overnight, the police can search him and inventory all items on his person to be held elsewhere. This procedure must follow written inventory rules and regulations.

Question 89

When can the police search a vehicle, when they arrest the individual in the vehicle, or near the vehicle? Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Answer 89

Under the Chimmel Doctrine, the police can search the person incident to arrest for police safety. But, they can only search the vehicle, without probable cause, after arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of his arrest. This is authorized under Chimmel and Gant. In addition, the police can search the rest of the vehicle when there is probable cause for the officer to believe that evidence of the crime that the defendant was arrested for would be found in the vehicle.