What Is A Search? Flashcards
(11 cards)
What is the Katz test for a search?
the “two-prong test” for privacy: a person must exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy, and society must recognize that expectation as reasonable.
4th Amendment Rule on Searches and Seizures
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring warrants based on probable cause and specific descriptions of what is to be searched or seized.
The Fourth Amendment applies only to government actions within the United States and does not regulate private conduct or U.S. officials operating abroad.
What is the Jones test for a search?
Physical intrusion can independently satisfy the definition of a search without considering the privacy standards set forth in Katz.
The decision was rooted in a property-based understanding of the Fourth Amendment, focusing on the common-law trespassory test.
What are the rules governing searches of Open Fields?
Oliver v. United States: The Fourth Amendment does not protect “open fields” from warrantless searches. The protections of the amendment are limited to “persons, houses, papers, and effects” and do not extend to open lands, even if marked by “No Trespassing” signs or otherwise secluded.
United States v. Dunn: The Fourth Amendment’s protection extends to the “curtilage” of a home, defined as the area intimately associated with the home’s use. Determining curtilage involves analyzing factors like proximity to the home, enclosure, domestic use, and measures taken to ensure privacy. Areas outside the curtilage, such as open fields, are not protected. Factors considered: Proximity from the house, details of the “enclosure”, whether the searched area is used for intimate home activities.
What are the rules governing Aerial Searches?
California v. Ciraolo: Warrantless aerial surveillance from public airspace does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the observation did not infringe on a reasonable expectation of privacy. Used the Katz test to reach this conclusion.
Florida v. Riley: Aerial surveillance of Riley’s greenhouse from a helicopter at 400 feet did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy from that vantage point.
What is the Kyllo rule governing Thermal Imaging of Homes?
Kyllo v. United States: Using a thermal-imaging device to scan a home without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing that new technology should not erode traditional privacy rights.
Is a search of trash set out by the curb a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
No.
California v. Greenwood: Police may search garbage left for collection without a warrant because individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash exposed to the public.
United States v. Knotts
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that tracking a beeper on public roads does not constitute a “search” or “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment because people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements. However, the Court left open whether prolonged electronic tracking inside private spaces might require a warrant in future cases.
Smith v. Maryland
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that pen registers do not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. This case established the third-party doctrine, which has since been used to justify warrantless access to other types of records shared with businesses, such as banking and internet data.
Carpenter v. United States
Key Issue: Does the Government conduct a “search” under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records (CSLI) that provide a detailed chronicle of a user’s past movements without a warrant?
The Supreme Court held that accessing historical CSLI without a warrant is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.
What are the rules governing the Use of Dogs to Sniff for Contraband?
Illinois v. Caballes
Does the Fourth Amendment require reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog during a lawful traffic stop?
The Supreme Court ruled that using a drug-detection dog during a lawful traffic stop does not require reasonable suspicion and does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, so long as the traffic stop is lawful and the stop is not prolonged beyond the time needed to handle the traffic violation.
Florida v. Jardines
Is using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home a “search” under the Fourth Amendment?
The Supreme Court ruled that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision is based on property rights, emphasizing that curtilage is constitutionally protected as part of the home. Police officers have an implied license to approach a home but not to conduct searches using specialized equipment or trained dogs.
Florida v. Harris
Does a drug-detection dog’s alert during a traffic stop provide probable cause to search a vehicle?
Unanimous Opinion (9-0) delivered by Justice Kagan.
Held: A drug-detection dog’s alert can establish probable cause if the totality of the circumstances shows the dog is reliable.
