The Issue: Does the 4th Amendment bar from evidence the testimony of government agents who used monitoring and recording devices to record conversation between White and Harvey Jackson, a government informant? Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversation monitored by the government? The Rule of Law: No reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with other people, and you assume the risk that the people that you talk to are government informants, and they may be recorded, taped, or monitored. If the conduct and revelations of an agent operating without electronic equipment do not invade the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy, neither does a recording of the same conversation. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court overruled the United States Court of Appeals, stating that no warrant was required to electronically monitor conversations between a suspect and a government agent. The Issue: Does Smith have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy when dialing telephone calls? Does the installation and use of a pen register constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: The government cannot perform an illegal search or seizure, regardless if the search is physical or not. The Conclusion: The use of a pen register, without a warrant, does not constitute a violation of Smith's Fourth Amendment protections. The Issue: Does the use of a thermal imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? The Rule of Law: A Fourth Amendment search does not occur, even with the explicitly protected location of a home is concerned, unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search, and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable. The Conclusion: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore 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. The Issue: Is there sufficient information to establish probable cause? The Rule of Law: If the affidavit rests on hearsay, and informants report, what is necessary is the informant must declare either that he has himself seen or perceived the facts asserted, or that his information is hearsay, but there is good reason for believing it. The Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision affirming Spinelli's conviction based on a lack of credible information contained in the informant's hearsay. To give acceptance or denial of entry based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the purpose of entry into an area.
Consent must be voluntary!
The state must show that, based on the totality of the circumstances, consent was voluntary. (A person is not required to know about their ability to waive their right to consent (Scheneckloth v. Bustamonte)).
The factors considered in deciding whether the consent is voluntary (The factors are subjective, objective, and are not exhaustive).
Characteristics of accused includes age, education, physical and mental condition.
Details of police-citizen interaction.
The presence of coercive police procedures include weapons, number of officers, threats, voluntariness of custodial status, the extent and level of suspect's cooperation with police, the suspect's awareness of their right to refuse, the suspect's believe that no evidence will be found, and the police's deception and promises.
10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson
15th EditionSusan A. MacManus, Thomas R. Dye
13th EditionJames M. Rubenstein
7th EditionN. Gregory Mankiw