4th A Holdings
Warrantless search incident to lawful arrest (SILA) is per se reasonable in all cases. It does not have to be justified on a case-by-case basis.
United States v. Robinson
Can a search and seizure be reasonable under the 4th A even if there is no probable cause?
Yes, but on a case by case basis. You have to balance the government's interest of investigating a possible crime and an individual's interest in maintaining privacy and search being unobtrusive.
"Reasonableness" of searches: balance which two interests?
-Stop (probable cause that a crime is afoot, and needs to investigate), and
-Frisk (protective, to make sure suspect has no weapons)
Individual's interests: limited intrusiveness of search
-Limited duration (must be brief)
-Limited scope (only search outer garments, for weapons)
This is the case where a pickup-truck driver didn't comply with a DEA officer's request to pull over. Once highway patrol finally did pull him over, the driver had to wait 20 minutes for the DEA officer to arrive. When the DEA officer arriver, he asked to search the vehicle for drugs. The driver refused, so the agent took the keys to open the truck and found sacks of marijuana. the officer asked to search the car for drugs. Driver refused, but suspected made the driver wait 20 minutes while a federal drug enforcement agent was on his way.
The Court ruled there was no clear-cut test for how long was "too long" to wait when stopped but not yet arrested. You must consider all of the circumstances. In this case, the 20 minute wait time was reasonable because the agent conducted his investigation efficiently.
US v. Sharpe
NO LONGER GOOD LAW, but this is the case where a new rule was created:
In a search incident to lawful arrest, the "grabbing distance" includes the entire passenger area of a car, including all containers (backpacks, purses, briefcases) and glove compartments.
BUT NOT THE TRUNK!!!
NY v. Belton
Rule is called The Belton Rule
NO LONGER GOOD LAW
Case where Court rejects the "plain feel" doctrine.
Officer conducted a legal Terry stop and frisk, and felt an object that couldn't have been a weapon. Yet, he kept manipulating it with his hands until he could confirm that it was drugs.
This seizure was unconstitutional, because the object was not immediately apparent.
-If the drugs had been in plain sight, they could have been seized.
-If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, then it can be seized.
-If the officer has to manipulate the object under your clothing to figure out what it could be, then that is an invasion of privacy under the 4th A.
Minnesota v. Dickerson
What are the exceptions to the search warrant requirement?
-SILA (search incident to a lawful arrest)
-Consent to search
-Plain view (drugs or weapons are sitting in plain sight)
-Exigencies - emergency situations, such as cops being in hot pursuit, an active shooter, risk of destruction of evidence
-Automobile exception
SILA (aka the Chimel rule)
Search incident to a lawful arrest
An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is NOT sufficient to justify doing a Terry stop.
Florida vs. JL
Police officers must "knock and announce" before entering a house.
Wilson v. Arkansas
Police may make a warrantless arrest when someone commits a misdemeanor offense.
Acker's example: City of Troy can arrest you for biking without a handlebar bell
This is the case where a very high-profile member of society was handcuffed, arrested, and fingerprinted following a very minor traffic offense, with her 2 kids in the car.
She sued the police for making a full custodial arrest and lost at the Supreme Court.
Atwater v. City of Lago
In the 4th A context, does consent for a search need to be given intelligently (meaning, you need to understand what risk you are putting yourself in)?
No, consent does not need to be "intelligent", only "voluntary".
Describe the "probable cause continuum", starting at "having no facts or evidence", going to "all the facts or evidence".
https://www.dpisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001079/Centricity/Domain/993/probablecauseN.PDF
-No facts or Evidence
-Hunch
-Reasonable Suspicion
-Probable Cause
-All the Facts or Evidence
Case where an officer sees the defendant and another man in an apartment alcove, and guys take off running when the officer slams the door to make his presence known.
The officer grabs the suspect, pats him down, feels what he thinks is a gun in his pocket - but they are actually burglary tools.
Court holds that there was probable cause here that a burglary was about to happen because the men took off running. Therefore, this a case of a lawful search incident to arrest.
Peters v. New York
This is the case that distinguished (but did not overrule Belton):
If an arrestee is secured in a squad car and cannot access the interior of his own car, then officers cannot rule the Belton rule to search a vehicle incident to lawful arrest - this is because the arrestee is not within grabbing distance of his car, so there is plenty of time for the officers to get a lawful search warrant for the vehicle.
Arizona v. Gant
Any traffic offense committed by a driver is a legitimate legal basis for a traffic stop. From there, an officer can search a person or a car if there is probable cause
Whren v. United States
Dr. Acker said that Terry v. Ohio ripped apart 2 clauses in the 4th A that had previously been read in union.
What are those two clauses, and what are the 2 different way to read them?
Clause 1) no unreasonable searches and seizures
Clause 2) no warrant shall issue upon probable clause
1st reading: Only lawful seizure is an arrest following securement of a warrant.
2nd reading: The clauses can be read independently. You don't need warrant to make a lawful seizure.
Bonus question: Which reading is consistent with current law?
Terry Stop
Terry Frisk
Terry Stop: Police can stop you at any time without making a full arrest if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to take place.
Terry Frisk: Police can only pat you down to make sure you don't have any WEAPONS on you. Weapons are the key here.
Case where the Court ruled that the use of a K-9 unit (dog sniffing) after an otherwise lawful traffic stop exceeded the time reasonably expected to resolve the matter, and therefore violated the 4th A.
Rodriguez v. United States
This is a case about CONSENT.
Police officers who questioned and searched passengers on a bus did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the passengers consented to the search and the passengers were free to exit the bus.
Police generally may NOT, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
Gvmt interests:
-risk of weapons & destruction of evidence =low
-phone can be seized and reviewed later
-phone can be turned off to prevent remote wiping
Indv interests:
-Privacy
- vast information is on a cell phone
-highly personal information
Riley v. California
Why did the Court reason that anonymous information about a dangerous person is unreliable and therefore not good enough to stop a named suspect?
No objective reasonable suspicion - information could be legitimate or not.
What is the Chimel rule?
It is a search incident to lawful arrest, where the area immediately surrounding the arrestee can also be searched.
Also known as the "grabbing distance rule".
Also also known as the "hop, skip, and a jump rule."
Case where an officer saw a man talking to "known drug addicts" on the street, and then followed him into a diner. The officer pulls the man out of the diner ("a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply") and says "You know what I'm after." The officer conducts an illegal Terry frisk (illegal because not looking for weapons) and finds heroin.
The Court rules that merely speaking with drug addicts on the street does not constitute probable cause for a warrantless search.
Furthermore, the officer's actions could NOT be justified as a self-protective search for weapons since he admitted that he had no reason to suspect the man of concealing a gun.
Sibron v. New York
An arresting officer may search only the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Any other search of the surrounding area requires a search warrant.
Chimel v. California