Home Search I
Ybarra v. Illinois
Another likely to be on the exam, when you have a search warrant for a particular person in a bar, the police may not search all other bar patrons unless there are "articulable facts" which jeopardize an officer or suspicions of a common enterprise.
Hudson v. Michigan
The exclusionary rule does not apply to minor knock and announce violations. The court weighed the social costs of applying the exclusionary rule in this instance.
Illinois v. Rodriguez
Joint owners or spouses must possess common authority over premises to allow search.
Fernandez v. California
The objecting spouse must be present. Removing the objecting spouse via a valid arrest is fine.
Mapp v. Ohio
Fundamental case where the court held you need a warrant to search a house. Applied the exclusionary rule through INCORPORATION DOCTRINE.
Chimel v. California
When making an arrest at a home, police are allowed to search within the immediate vicinity of the arrestee (includes drawers in the room). This is for safety's sake, primarily. Also, be careful to distinguish this from protective sweeps which are more general based on Maryland v. Buie.
California v. Greenwood
You can search someone's garbage (no reasonable expectation of privacy; abandoned).
Minnesota v. Carter
A brief guest in a home has no standing to contest a search.
Steagald v. United States
An arrest warrant for a person doesn't allow the police to search the homes of that individual's friends and co-workers (duh).
Reasons commonly cited for permitting a search (6). You will probably want to cite these repeatedly on the exam.
1) Good faith
2) Extension of prior case law
3) Officer safety
4) Common method or process
5) Confirming identity
6) Exigent circumstances
Vale v. Louisiana
The right to make an arrest outside of a home doesn't extend to making a search inside the home.
Illinois v. MacArthur
Must get a warrant if one spouse refuses search. An officer can detain the spouse or accompany to prevent destruction of possible contraband while warrant is being sought.
Seeing a crime or violence occurring in the home allows police entry without warrant (emergency aid doctrine).
Murray v. United States
Independent basis for a search warrant = valid. Was this the warehouse case?
Common reasons to deny a search (6).
1) Bad faith
2) Extending a search or stop beyond what is necessary.
3) Wording of the Fourth Amendment prohibits
4) Prior case law prohibits
5) Sanctity of home / person
6) Reasonable person would feel obligated to permit the search
Arizona v. Hicks
When properly inside a house, the police may confiscate and arrest for contraband within plain view, but MAY NOT manipulate objects to discover their criminal worth.
Segura v. United States
Police were permitted to stay and detain residents for 19 hours while awaiting a warrant. Detention permitted due to administrative delay.
Welsh v. Wisconsin
Hot pursuit permits a warrantless entry, but must be continuous pursuit and doesn't extend to misdemeanors or small felonies.
Mincey v. Arizona
Need a search warrant at a crime scene. You can explore the scene (again safety), but extended investigation requires warrant.
Reasons for the Exclusionary Rule (6)
2) Judicially created remedy
3) Realistic and necessary remedy
4) Encourages police professionalism
5) Economic and judicially efficient
6) Limits police corruption
Distinguish Richards v. Wisconsin and U.S. v. Banks
Both are knock and announce cases. Even with a warrant, the police must knock and announce before entering. Need more factual background on these.
Georgia v. Randolph
Spouses disagree about search. How is this distinguishable from Illinois v. MacArthur?
Kentucky v. King
Weird case where they found a confluence of:
1) Hot Pursuit
2) Potential Destruction of Evidence
3) Reasonable Suspicion of Other Crimes
Allowed the police to enter without a warrant.
Horton v. California
Evidence found from a search warrant doesn't allow the police to extend the search to find other objects (you found the guns, but you didn't mention the money so you have to stop now or vice versa).
Reasons against Exclusionary Rule (5)
1) Criminals go free
2) Disproportionate remedy compared to violation
3) Not a constitutional remedy
4) Tort remedy is available in a 1983 action
5) Police sanctions are available for aberrant officers