Search And Seizure: A Case Study
I. ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE (FOURTH AMENDMENT)
A. PROTECTED FOURTH AMENDMENT INTERESTS
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches without a warrant
Protects people, not places
Protects tangible and intangible objects
To determine if there is a search, look to if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz test)
BASIC RULE: No searches without a warrant BUT the first question for analysis is “what is a search?”
If it is a protected interest then it is a search
KATZ: the protected interest was the reasonable expectation of privacy
If the search is involving a “protected interest” then it IS, constitutionally speaking, a search
If it is NOT a search it …show more content…
Ciraolo: Court held that officers made no intrusion upon a homeowner’s reasonable expectation of privacy (not a search) by flying an airplane at 1,000 feet over homeowner’s curtilage, using naked eye surveillance to spot marijuana growing in the air since it was a public vantage point like a public thoroughfare. (public could see it so police can see it without violating)
TAKEAWAY: What an ordinary person can do, the police can do and it is not a search.
NEW TECHNOLOGY
Kyllo v. US: Police use a thermal imaging device on a home to see if there is a greenhouse. Court holds that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the INTERIOR of the home that could not have otherwise been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search—at least where the technology in question is not in the general public use.
Where the government uses a devise that is not in a general public use, to explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant
Heat emissions are more like conversations (Katz) than aromas.
B. SEARCH …show more content…
Carney)
Probable cause must be specific to what the officers want to searchautomobile exception requires probable cause and the scope of the search is tied to the scope of the probable cause and the size of the evidence
CA v. Acevedo: Police my search an automobile and any containers within it when they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime is present anywhere it the car (so you think there is heroin in the car then you can search the car) BUT police may only search where such items may be hidden so probable cause about the container is required
EXAMPLE: so if you are searching for illegal aliens then cannot search in a briefcase BUT if looking for heroin then can look in briefcase or any place heroin could fit—but if you have probable cause that they stole a wide screen TV but you just have a hunch they have heroin you can only look in containers big enough to hold a TV so a small duffle bag cannot be searched even if it is in the trunk which could hold a TV so you can only search the
A. PROTECTED FOURTH AMENDMENT INTERESTS
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches without a warrant
Protects people, not places
Protects tangible and intangible objects
To determine if there is a search, look to if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz test)
BASIC RULE: No searches without a warrant BUT the first question for analysis is “what is a search?”
If it is a protected interest then it is a search
KATZ: the protected interest was the reasonable expectation of privacy
If the search is involving a “protected interest” then it IS, constitutionally speaking, a search
If it is NOT a search it …show more content…
Ciraolo: Court held that officers made no intrusion upon a homeowner’s reasonable expectation of privacy (not a search) by flying an airplane at 1,000 feet over homeowner’s curtilage, using naked eye surveillance to spot marijuana growing in the air since it was a public vantage point like a public thoroughfare. (public could see it so police can see it without violating)
TAKEAWAY: What an ordinary person can do, the police can do and it is not a search.
NEW TECHNOLOGY
Kyllo v. US: Police use a thermal imaging device on a home to see if there is a greenhouse. Court holds that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the INTERIOR of the home that could not have otherwise been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search—at least where the technology in question is not in the general public use.
Where the government uses a devise that is not in a general public use, to explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant
Heat emissions are more like conversations (Katz) than aromas.
B. SEARCH …show more content…
Carney)
Probable cause must be specific to what the officers want to searchautomobile exception requires probable cause and the scope of the search is tied to the scope of the probable cause and the size of the evidence
CA v. Acevedo: Police my search an automobile and any containers within it when they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime is present anywhere it the car (so you think there is heroin in the car then you can search the car) BUT police may only search where such items may be hidden so probable cause about the container is required
EXAMPLE: so if you are searching for illegal aliens then cannot search in a briefcase BUT if looking for heroin then can look in briefcase or any place heroin could fit—but if you have probable cause that they stole a wide screen TV but you just have a hunch they have heroin you can only look in containers big enough to hold a TV so a small duffle bag cannot be searched even if it is in the trunk which could hold a TV so you can only search the