Standing
A was shoplifting and put the stolen item into B’s bag, the two were stopped and the bag was searched, revealing the stolen item. Can A challenge the search?
No, although the search went beyond the bounds of what is permitted under the 4th Amendment, A cannot challenge the search because she does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy to the contents of B's bag.
A is talking on the phone in a phone booth with big windows. While A has the door pulled shut behind her, she is not covering her mouth when she talks on the phone. An officer is sitting 50 feet away, reading A's lips and writing down what she is saying. Do the officer's actions ammount to a search?
No, the officer's actions do not ammount to a search. A is publically disclosing the movements of her lips by not making any effort to conceal them.
An officer is lawfully in A's home searching for a homemade bomb pursuant to a warrant. While searching, the officer notices a small glass pipe that is consistent with pipes used to smoke crack cocaine. The officer bends over closer to the pipe for further inspection and finds what is immediately apparent to her as crack cocaine residue in the bottom of the pipe. The officer picks up the pipe and bags it as evidence. Is the seizure of the pipe valid?
Yes because it was immediately apparent to the officer that the pipe was contraband.
Officers have a search warrant for A's house to look for a stolen painting. Rather than knocking and announcing thier presence, the officers kick the door in and begin searching. They find the painting and seize it. Can the painting be admitted into evidence against A?
No, the officers violated the knock and announce rule without reasonable suspicion that ther evidence would be destroyed or that the scene was dangerous. As a result the evidence should be excluded.
A is arrested and indicted on three charges of attempted murder. After the indictment, an officer meets with A in the jail. A's lawyer is not present for this meeting. The officer asks A more questions about the night in question. A answers the questions. Are A's answers to the questions admissible at trial?
No, by meeting with A without her attorney present, the officer violated her 6th Amendment rights.
Does a passenger in an Uber have a legitimate expectation of privacy to the interior of the car?
A is illegally raising polar bears in her backyard so that they do not go extinct as a result of the melting ice caps. To do this, A built an industrial grade freezer unit that is connected to the back of her house. The Local Police, believing that A is committing a crime, use a drone fitted with a high-powered thermal imaging camera that can see through the walls of the refrigerator and read the body temperature of the polar bears inside. The Local Police Department is part of a tester program for these kinds of drones, which are only available to departments in the program and the United States Military. Has the Local Police Department conducted a search against A?
Yes, under Kyllo, the actions of the Local Police would be a search. The freezer is connected to the house, so it would be considered part of the home. The drone that is being used is not available to the public. And the Local Police are using the drone to obtain information from within the home.
Officers have probable cause to believe to arrest A for distribution of classified documents. The officers do not have a warrant, but go to A's house anyway. The officers knock on the door and wait, A answers the door and speaks to the officers from within her home. The officers ask A to step outside of the house, but A refuses so one of the officers grabs her and pulls her out of the doorway. The officers arrest A and take her back to the police station. Is the arrest valid?
No. The officers need a warrant to arrest A while she is inside of her own home. When the officers grabbed her, they seized her in her own home without a warrant, which is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Officers have arrested A for kidnapping a baby. While interrogating her, one officer grabs her and screams in her face "JUST TELL US WHERE THE BABY IS!" A breaks down and tells the officer that the baby is in a car parked in front her house. Before that officer can relay the information to the rest of the police department, another officer happens to look into her car and finds the baby. Can the fact that the baby was found in the A's car be used against her at trial?
Yes, although the officer violated A's 5th Amendment right when he physically coerced her statement, the baby's location was discovered by an independent source, meaning it is not fruit from the poisonous tree.
A is arrested for murder and read her Miranda rights. She is taken to the police station where she unambiguously invokes her right to an attorney. The officers stop questioning her, but leave her in the interrogation room until her attorney arrives. After three hours of waiting, an officer enters the interrogation room and tells A that she can get this over with quicker if she just confesses. He tells her that they have forensic evidence that links her to the crime. A sighs and confesses to the murder. The officer then has her give a written confession. Is this confession admissible at trial?
No, the officer was the one who reinitiated the questioning, not A.
A is a mere passenger in the car with B when the car is stopped by an officer without Reasonable Suspicion. The trunk of the car is searched, revealing drugs. What can A challenge?
A can only challenge the initial stop, since he is seized along with B. A cannot challenge the search of the car's trunk because A does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the trunk of B's car.
A is suspected of committing a bank robbery. An officer observing A's house watches her exit her home with a large bag with a big black dollar sign on it. The officer watches as A tosses the bag into a large hole that she has dug in her back yard, then fills the hole in. After A leaves, the officer walks into her backyard and digs up the bag, finding that it is filled to the brim with gold coins. Has the officer conducted a search against A?
Yes, the moment that the officer entered into A's backyard and began digging, he went beyond the implied license. He Constitutionally Trespassed onto A's curtilage because one would not expect a normal citizen to begin digging in her back yard.
A owns an Airbnb that she regularly rents out to guests. A is also part of a large scale drug trafficking operation. She uses the basement of the Airbnb to store Methanphetamine between traffickers. Officers have probable cause to believe that there are drugs in the Airbnb property but do not have a warrant. They knock on the door and ask the current guests staying at the Airbnb if they can search the premises, and the guests give their consent. The officers find the drugs in the basement. Have the officers violated the 4th Amendment?
No. The search was valid because the guests had apparent authority to give consent to the search.
Officers have a valid search warrant for A's storage unit to look for drugs. Before they can execute the warrant, another group of officers break into the storage unit and find the drugs. The officers seize the drugs and take them back to the police station. Are the drugs admissible against A at trial?
Yes, the drugs are admissible because of the inevitable discovery doctrine because the officers already had a valid search warrant.
An officer arrests A for possession of cocaine. While walking A to the car, the officer begins reciting A's Miranda rights to her. Before the officer can finish, A cuts him off saying that she understands her rights and will answer any questions the officer has. A then confesses to a separate murder. Is A's confession admissible against her at trial?
No, Miranda Rights must be read in full.
A is a mere passenger in the car with B when the car is stopped by an officer without Reasonable Suspicion. The trunk of the car is searched, and a backpack belonging to A is found. The officer has a reasonable suspicion that the backpack contains evidence pertaining to a murder. The officer seizes the backpack and searches it, revealing a bloody shirt. What can A challenge?
A can challenge the initial stop, but he cannot challenge the search of the trunk. A can, however, challenge the seizure and subsequent search of the backpack found in the trunk because the backpack belongs to A, meaning that he has a legitimate expectation of privacy to the backpack.
A is planning an assassination of the Attorney General with B, who happens to be a Confidential Informant working for the FBI. At a meeting where they are discussing the date and time of the assassination, B is wearing a wire - which A does not realize. Everything that is said in the conversation is conveyed to an FBI agent in real time. Has the FBI agent conducted a search against A?
No, A is freely giving all of the information in the conversation to B, a third party. Under the Third Party Doctrine, the FBI agent has not conducted a search, A assumed the risk when she involved another person in her crimes.
A is walking around in a shopping mall when she is stopped by an officer for being a public nuisance. The officer has a reasonable suspicion that A has a weapon on her person but does not believe her to be a threat. The officer frisks A and finds what feels like a gun. The officer reaches into A's pocket and finds a gun, removes it from her person. Has the officer violated the 4th Amendment?
Yes, the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that A was armed and dangerous.
Based on a single anonymous tip that drug activities were occurring at a specified residence, officers placed the residence under surveillance for a week. They observed visitors who left a few minutes after arriving at the house. One visitor, A, left the home and approached a nearby store. In the store’s parking lot, the officer detained A, identified himself, and asked A what she was doing at the residence. A did not respond, and the officer asked to see A's identification. After A provided the officer their license, the officer relayed the information to dispatch, and it turned out that there was an outstanding warrant for A's arrest. The officer arrested A and subsequently conducted a search of her person and in the pocket the officer discovered illegal drugs. The officer seized the drugs. Can the drugs be used against A at trial?
Yes, because the warrant dissipated the initial taint.
A was suspected of being part of a larger shoplifting ring by an officer. The officer asked if A would she would follow him to the back room. She went to backrom voluntarily and then officer told her "if you didn't answer my questions, I will make sure that your children are taken away permanently." A then confessed everything she knew about the shoplifting ring. Are A's statement's admissible?
No because the statements were coerced by the threat made by the officer.
A meets with B at B's house to discuss the sale of a car. A has only known B for the three weeks that they have been negotiating the sale of the car. The discussion only takes 30 minutes. After the discussion, in celebration of the successful sale, A offers to give B a kilo of cocaine. A puts the cocaine on the coffee table when an officer enters the house and seizes the cocaine. Can A challenge the seizure of the cocaine?
A is not an overnight guest in B's home. A also does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in B's home because he was in the home for business, was only in B's home for half an hour and has only known B for three weeks.
A is pulled for reckless driving by an officer with a K-9 Unit with them. The officer brings the dog up to the car and has the dog sniff around the car. The dog is a newer drug sniffing dog and while sniffing for the presence of drugs it accidentally touches the car. Has a search occurred?
Yes, although drug sniffing dogs usually do not ammount to a search, because the dog physically touched the car while attempting to obtain information, the dog committed a Constitutional Trespass against A.
Officers smell marijuana at A's house while properly complying with their implied license. They do not have a warrant for her house. The officers then hear someone inside say, “I see a cop outside, flush everything.” The cops then knock down the door and enter A's home. Have the officers violated the 4th Amendment?
No, an exigent circumstance existed which allows the cops to enter A's home without a warrant.
An officer pulled over A's car, a Jaguar, because he believes that everyone who drives Jaguars are cokeheads. The officer then ordered A out of the car and began searching the passenger compartment. Visibly frustrated that he did not find anything incriminating, the officer then arrests A without probable cause and drives her back to the police station. While driving to the police station, A is overwhelmed and tells the officer that there is a small amount of cocaine in the trunk of her car. The officer drives back to A's car and searches the trunk. Is the cocaine admissible against A at trial?
No, the initial stop, search of the vehicle, arrest, and subsequent search of the trunk were all in violation of the 4th Amendment. There are no circumstances that dissipate the taint.
Suppose cops bring in X for questioning about a murder and rape, but they are really after Suspect Y. They believe X has information about the crime, so they make physical threats of harm against X in order to get him to reveal information about Suspect Y’s involvement. X tells the cops where the murder weapon is, and confesses to Y’s involvement. The cops do not prosecute X, but use the testimony against Y. Does X have a Fifth Amendment claim against the cops?
No because he is not being compelled to use the testimony against himself. Here, he is not being prosecuted at all.