CL M4A1

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PART II

Constitutional Law

Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 (1983)

 Facts: The police received an anonymous letter outlining specific details about the Defendants being involved in drug trafficking, later corroborated by their actions.

 Issues: Is the letter enough for probable cause?

 Holding: Yes.

 Rationale: Totality of the circumstances.  Made the establishment of probable cause by use of informants easier for police.

 Whether a reasonable and prudent person would believe that PC exists

 “Probable cause is a fluid concept-turning on the assessment of probabilities in a particular factual context-not readily, or even usefully reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”

Search and Arrest Warrants

 Government agents that have probable cause must go before a magistrate (judge) and swear under oath about who and what they are looking for and where they think it can be found.

 In determining whether probable cause for a warrant exists, the judge must consider the totality of the circumstances.

 Whether a reasonable person would believe what the officers claim.

 Not every judge will sign a warrant.

 The officer may be told to come back with additional information.

 Judges today will grant telephone warrants.

Knock and Announce Rule

Knock and Announce Rule  The general rule is that officers must first knock and announce their authority before breaking into a dwelling to execute a warrant.

 The intent is to prevent the occupant from responding with force against unknown intruders.

United States v. Banks , 540 U.S. 31 (2003)

 Facts: Police went to Banks's apartment to execute a warrant to search for cocaine, they called out "police search warrant" and rapped on the front door hard enough to be heard by officers at the back door, waited for 15 to 20 seconds with no response, and then broke open the door.

 Issues: Is 15 to 20 seconds long enough for police to wait after knocking and announcing?

 Holding: Yes.

 Rationale: Analysis may rely on time it takes for destruction of evidence, not time to answer door. It is not unreasonable to think that someone could get in a position to destroy the drugs within 15 to 20 seconds. Reasonableness is under totality of circumstances standard.

 Some departments make this a policy matter.

 No-knock exceptions made: when knocking under the particular circumstances would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by allowing destruction of evidence

The Law of Stop and Frisk

 Stop- a brief detention of a person based on specific and articulable facts for the purpose of investigating suspicious activity.  No Miranda warning is required.

 Articulable facts- actions described in clear, distinct statements.

 Frisk- a reasonable, limited pat down search for weapons for the protection of a government agent and others.

 Controversy

Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

 Facts: Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them.

 Issues: Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

 Holding: No.

 Rationale: The Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior."

Consequences of 4th Amendment Violations

An unlawful search or seizure can have two serious consequences: 1. The evidence may be excluded from court.

2. Internal sanctions as well as civil and criminal liability may be incurred.

The Exclusionary Rule

 Is judge-made case law promulgated by the Supreme Court to prevent police or government misconduct. Ends do not justify the means.

 It prevents evidence seized in violation of a person’s constitutional rights from being admitted into court.  An officer who has violated someone’s rights may sued, or

 prosecuted criminally.

 The exclusionary rule is by far the most frequently used means to address constitutional infractions by the government in criminal cases.

The Exclusionary Rule

 The exclusionary rule also helps:  Preserve judicial integrity by preventing judicial agreement in denying a person’s 4th Amendment rights.

 Deters police misconduct by making improperly obtained evidence inadmissible in court .

 Protects citizen’s constitutional right to privacy.

 Rochin v. California (1952)  Searches that “shock the conscience” are a violation of due process, and any evidence so obtained, will be inadmissible. Excluded because of due process violation, not exclusionary rule, but standard cited.

Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914)

 Facts: Weeks was arrested by a police officer at the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri where he was employed by an express company. Other officers entered the house of the defendant without a search warrant and took possession of papers and articles which were afterwards turned over to the U.S. marshal.

 Issues: Was the evidence admissible?

 Holding: No.

 Rationale: Illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in court and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment applies to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees. Applicable to federal government.

Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

 Facts: Police officers received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Mapp, who refused to admit them without a search warrant. Three hours later, brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door but did not find the bombing suspect nor the gambling equipment. They did find pornographic material and she was found guilty for possession of pornographic material.

 Issues: Does the exclusionary rule apply to the states?

 Holding: Yes.

 Rationale: If the rule didn’t apply to the states, the 4th amendment protections would be meaningless.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule applies only in criminal trials in which a constitutional right has been violated.

There are four exceptions to the exclusionary rule: 1. Inevitable discovery doctrine

2. Valid independent source

3. Harmless error

4. Good faith

Internal Sanctions, Civil Liability and Criminal Liability

Government misconduct could result in: Departmental discipline against the officer.

Civil lawsuits.

Criminal charges.