Only $35.99/year

The Fourth Amendment: Searches - Reasonable Expecations of Privacy (Tech. advancements; Receipt of Items with Investigative Equipment; Third Party Doctrine; Dog sniffs).

Terms in this set (10)

1. Vehicle Monitoring -- A person traveling in an automobile on public roads has a diminished expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another, and thus it is NOTE A SEARCH for officers TO OBSERVE a suspect's movements on public roads. Knotts v. United States.

Rationale: (1) Anyone can observe a vehicle's destination and route on public roads; (2)

the expectation of privacy of homes do not apply to vehicles because of vehicle VIEWABILITY ON PUBLIC STREETS and vehicles SELDOM serve as a person's RESIDENSE; (3) persons in vehicles VOUNTARILY EXPOSE THEMSELVES to the public eye. See Knotts v. United States.

United States v. Knotts - Holding that a search did not occur when police planted a BEEPER on a drum containing CHLOROFORM (used for making drugs) when 3M alerted a narcotics officer that a former EE was purchasing it from another seller; and when that drum was then set aside to be sold to the former EE; and when the police then FOLLOWED the EE who gave it to another person; and when police then relied on a helicopter to locate the beeper's location, which was stopped at the second person's cabin, where police then lawfully executed a search warrant found drugs because: (1) the use of the beeper was with the consent of the seller; and (2) the drivers had no reasonable expectation of privacy on public roads because any person could observe their location from the public roads; and (3) the FACT THAT THE BEE{ER ENHANCED POLICE ABILITY TO LOCATE WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE because it still only told them of a their public location, where they had diminished expecation of privacy; and (4) the beeper was not used to intrude into areas of constitutional protection, such as the inside of the cabin
However, a SEARCH OCCURS when police USE that investigative EQUIPMENT INSIDE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA--such as a home. United States v. Karo.

Rationale: When the device is used in the home, it allows officers to obtain INFORMATION THEY COULD NOT OTHERWISE ACCESS without a WARRANT, and there is no difference between officers personally intruding upon that area and using a tracking device or other technology to do so. United States v. Karo.

a. United States v. Karo - Holding placement of a BEEPER INTO A CAN OF EITHER (used to remove cocaine from clothes) with government consent and with court order when gov informant informed DEA that codefendent ordered a large amount of it was not a search because persons have no reasonable expectations of privacy with respect to objects they purchase from others;; further holding that the uUSE OF THE BEEPER to learn that the drum was in a particular defendant's HOME WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL because learning the can was in the home was information visible only with access to the home, a constitutionally protected area;; BUT holding that even with the information that the ether was in the home, tehre was STILL SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SEARCH WARRANT because (1) the officers visually inspected and used the beeper to determin the transfer and location of the drum on public roads; (2) officers smelled the either personally in the locker; and (3) officers personally saw the window open on a cold day after following the either to the residence