Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (46)

A warrantless search is unreasonable unless it falls within one of the following established exceptions.
a. Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest (SITLA): A warrantless search of the arrestee and:
the area within his immediate control (wing span/lunging distance) is automatically permitted following a lawful arrest (THIS IS AUTOMATIC)

(1) SITLA is triggered by a lawful arrest.
(a) A subjective ulterior motive by the arresting officer is irrelevant. So long as:
The law authorized the arrest for the offense

(b) There is no authority to conduct a search incident to citation, even if the offense is one that permitted the officer to arrest the suspect.
(2) A search incident to a lawful arrest must be
Contemporaneous with the arrest and in rare cases may even preceed it slightly

(3) Although the rationale for the SITLA is protection of the arresting police officers and preservation of evidence,
There is no requirement to individually justify each SITLA

(4) SITLA is:
AUTOMATIC
(5) If a suspect is arrested in a home,
The scope of the SITLA is limited to the area within his lunging distance where he is arrested In the home and does not includee the authority to search the entire house

(a) However, if police have a reasonable basis to believe they may be at risk of ambush while in the home,
They may conduct a cursory protective sweep of other parts of the home to rule out the risk that a person may be lying in wait for them (MD v. Bowie) (terry sweeP


(b) This "Terry sweep" of the home is limited to ruling out the risk of ambush,
Therefore the scope is limited to places where a person may be hiding

(6) When an arrest is affected while the defendant is in a car or has immediately exited the car, a special rule applies to the scope of the SITLA [Arizona v. Gant]:
(a) Like any other arrest:
The police may automatically search the person of the arrestee
(b) If the arrestee has genuine access to the interior of the car after being placed under arrest:
The scope of the SITLA extends to the interior of the car and all containers in the interior

(c) If as the result of being placed under arrest the arrestee does not have genuine access to the interior of the car:
A search of the interior of the car is permitted only when police have reasonable belief that evidence related to the crime of arrest is in the car.
Police may search an automobile or any other self-propelled conveyance (motor home, boat, or airplane) without a warrant:
So long as they have probable cause
(a) This exception is justified by:
The inherent mobility of the conveyance and the reduced expectation of privacy resulting from pervasive government regulation.


(b) The warrant exception applies to:
All containers within the vehicle
(c) This means that if police have probable cause to search inside a closed container:
Once that container is placed in the vehicle or found in the vehicle it may be opened and searched without a warrant.


(2) Once police have probable cause to search the moving or temporarily stopped vehicle, they may:
Seize the vehicle, bring it the impound block and search it later, even if there is sufficient time to obtain a warrant between the seizure and the search.
it's not unreasonable for them to take your car to a secured location to do a search

(3) The permissible scope of the search is dictated by the probable cause, which prohibits police from automatically searching the entire vehicle.
(4) Immobile vehicles. If a vehicle is incapable of locomotion, or is parked in an area not proximate to public roads:
The automobile exception is innapplicable
(a) Accordingly, the police must:
Obtain a warrant to search such a vehicle or rely on some other exception, like consent

(b) However, this is a very narrow limitation— being parked in a parking lot in a place where automobiles normally stop temporarily does not trigger this limitation.
(5) Any automobile stop, for example to issue a citation, may lead to probable cause if there is contraband in the vehicle.
If probable cause arises after the initial stop, a warrantless search will then be justified.
Police are permitted to use checkpoints to conduct brief seizures and/or limited searches with no individualized suspicion or warrant in response to a public safety danger that cannot be addressed by complying with the normal individualized suspicion/warrant requirements.
(2) The primary purpose of a special needs search or seizure:
Must be to protect the public from an immediate danger

(a) If the primary purpose is:
general crime control or discovery of evidence, this exception in inapplicable.

(b) Common special needs checkpoint searches include sobriety checkpoints, search for recently escaped prison inmates, counter-terrorism checkpoints, and checkpoints to search for suspects of a recent crime.
(3) A special needs search or seizure must be:
(a) Based on a fixed formula that:
Deprives individual officers of the discretion to select the subjects

(b) Narrowly tailored in scope:
To address the specific threat
(4) Police may seize any contraband that comes into plain view while searching within the scope of the special needs inspection:
Even if the contraband is unrelated to the public safety concern

(5) Police officers may not:
Randomly stop vehicles out on the road to check the license and registration


(6) Customs officials may stop vehicles at permanent checkpoints located at or near the border with:
No suspicion or cause as an incident of national sovereignty

Because a special needs stop is a seizure, if it is unreasonable (not based on a valid special needs justification), any evidence it leads to will be tainted by the stop. However, if it is reasonable, any subsequent search or seizure will be unaffected by the stop, even if the evidence is unrelated to the special need.
Administrative searches are an exception to the normal probable cause and warrant requirement because:
they are conducted for non criminal purposes and are therefore justified on a lower standard of cause.

(1) Agency Inspections
(a) An administrative search is really best understood as an "agency compliance inspection" whereby compliance with administrative regulations or health and safety codes is verified.
(b) Because the primary purpose of these searches/inspections is not discovery of evidence of crime:
They are justified based on reasonable suspicion and not probable cause.

(c) Normally, agency inspectors will also be required to obtain an administrative warrant to search private homes or businesses, with some exceptions:
1) Airport Screenings. To protect airline passengers from weapons and explosives, warrantless administrative searches are permitted at airports. A passenger may avoid being searched by declining to board the plane.
2) Border Searches
a) Customs and immigration officers:
may conduct routine searches of people and property crossing the borders into the U.S. with no individualized suspicion or cause.


A border search may occur at any border crossing, to include international airport ports of entry, and fixed border inspection stations established several miles inside the United States on highways.
i) Vehicles at a border crossing:
may be stopped without cause for questioning
ii) Reasonable suspicion is required:
to fully search the vehicle when doing so requires some disassembly of the vehicle
iii) Where a suspect refuses to submit to an X-ray by customs agents at the border, and reasonable justification for detention initially exists, the detention may continue until a bowel movement occurs.
Standing and the Exclusionary Rule. Just because a search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment does not automatically mean the defendant will be entitled to the remedy of exclusion of the evidence. Exclusion requires that the violation:
was directed against the defendant's fourth amendment protection.

1. In order to claim the remedy of exclusion, three requirements must be satisfied:
a. The unreasonable search or seizure must trigger the remedy of exclusion;
b. The defendant claiming the remedy (seeking exclusion) must have standing;
c. The facts do not support applying an exception to the exclusionary rule
2. Standing. The defendant asserting the Fourth Amendment remedy of exclusion must:
personally be the victim of the unreasonable search or seizure.

a. In analyzing standing, the court must determine:
"whether the person who claims the protection of the amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place" (did the police violate THIS defendant's expectation of privacy)


b. In order to have standing, a defendant must show that:
that the unreasonable search or seizure intruded on his personal constitutional rights.


c. A defendant may not:
vicariously assert someone else's constitutional rights.


Offering unlawfully seized evidence against a defendant does not give the defendant standing to seek exclusion. Unless the government illegality intruded upon the defendant's Fourth Amendment protection (was an unreasonable search of his REP or seizure of his property), the defendant cannot prohibit the introduction of the evidence, even if the police obtained it by violating someone else's Fourth Amendment protections
e. Other Limitations to the Exclusionary Rule
(1) Impeachment. The exclusionary rule does not apply:
To the use of tainted or inadmissable evidence to impeach the defendant's testimony

A defendant can't hide behind the exclusionary rule to lie.


(2) Good Faith Exception: Because the exclusive objective of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, when police act in good faith reliance on a warrant that is subsequently ruled invalid, the evidence seized will not be subject to exclusion.

Warrants are usually issued by magistrates based on their conclusion the evidence presented is sufficient to establish probable cause. Motions to exclude that evidence are presented to the trial court, which then reviews the warrant application in order to determine whether the magistrate made a proper determination of probable cause. Sometimes the trial court determines the magistrate made a mistake in issuing the warrant because of a lack of probable cause. However, so long as a reasonable officer would have still relied on the warrant, exclusion will have no deterrent value on future police conduct and is therefore not appropriate.
(a) Limitations to the good-faith exception. Because the rationale of the good faith exception is to prohibit admission of evidence obtained as the result of "unreasonable" police conduct, the good faith exception is inapplicable where:
A reasonable officer would know not to rely on the warrant


(b) This "exception to the exception" will apply:
1) Where the police:
lie or mislead the magistrate to get the warrant (a lie by one officer is attributed to all officers in the chain)

2) Where the warrant is:
so facially defective that no reasonable officer would rely on it.

3) Where a reasonable officer would know that the magistrate is not neutral and detached.
(c) The Supreme Court has recently extended the good faith exception to an arrest in reliance on a warrant that should have been purged from the system by the police. Rule:
No exclusion of the evidence, even when there is police error so long as the error is isolated negligence attenuated from the point of arrest.