Stop and Frisk
Illinois v. Caballes
If it doesn't prolong the stop, a dog sniff during a regular traffic stop is ok.
Katz v. United States
Established reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine. Two prongs:
1) Subjective expectation of privacy
2) Society finds this expectation reasonable
Smith v. Maryland
Pen register search was fine. Metadata is fine.
Fleeing from the police equals reasonable suspicion.
California v. Hodari (also, important to note that arrest requires either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority).
What is FRCP 41?
Search warrant rule.
Florida v. Jardines
Can't bring a police canine onto someone's front porch for investigatory purposes based on an anonymous tip.
United States v. Jones
Can't have a GPS on a car for 30 days prior to getting a search warrant.
United States v. Miller
Bank records can be subject to warrantless search. Records are in the commerce stream and therefore there is less privacy expectation.
Can the police order everyone out of a car? What case?
Yes.
"Sneak and peek" case.
Berger v. New York
Florida v. Harris
Evidence of a police dog's satisfactory performance in the past must be assessed based on a totality of the circumstances. Defendant can contest the adequacy of the certification of such a dog.
Kyllo v. United States
Thermal heat imager of a private home is not ok without a warrant.
People v. Collins
3rd Party monitoring of a phone conversation held impermissible where they were simply a pass-through to the police.
Four Factors of Attenuation
1) Proximity
2) Good Faith
3) Validity of Arrest Warrant
4) Flagrancy of Police Conduct
Officer executing a search warrant must deliver it to the place to be searched.
Groh v. Ramirez
Utah v. Strieff
One of Carter's favorites. Court allows an arrest warrant to supercede an invalid stop by the police. Police asked man question, conducted a lien check, and discovered arrest warrant. This was representative of the doctrine of attenuated circumstances.
Riley v. California
Search of a smart phone at a car stop is improper. Phone data cannot be used as a weapon.
Carpenter v. United States basics
Cell tower data used on a prolonged basis to locate criminal suspects.
1) Intrusions of privacy; trespass law; property concepts
2) Arbitrary power; police surveillance; careful adjudication in face of advancing technology; Try "not to embarrass the future"
3) Prosecution tries to argue Miller / Smith v. Maryland / Knotts cases.
4) Defense argues Jones; Riley; Katz.
5) Consider surveillance concerns; use for commercial purposes; assumption of risk; third-party doctrine
6) Dissent focuses on subpoena power of data collection. Argues should not require strict scrutiny.
Michigan v. Long
Similar to Terry v. Ohio. However, can frisk even if under control. Carter asks does the 2nd Amendment trump Long since people are killed by those who legitimately own guns.
Searches should be during daytime unless states otherwise on warrant.
CHALLENGE!!!
Name the quasi-criminal proceedings (6) and whether or not the exclusionary rule applies to them.
2) At Sentencing - does not apply
3) Parole Hearings - does not apply
4) Forefeiture - applies
5) Civil Deportation - does not apply
6) When Evidence is Obtained by Private Party - does not apply
United States v. Warshak
Need search warrant for 3rd party email providers. Extends regular mail protections to email.
True or False. The government can request your DNA from third-party DNA registries.
True
From Florida v. J.L., what are the arguments for a tip-based frisk?
1) Anonymous tip must be corroborated in some way
2) Reliability of informant
3) Officer in affidavit must emphasize the track record of the informant
4) When tip can be tracked, seen as more valid
5) "Anonymous tip must bear indicia of reliability"
6) Known informant can be verified
Shadwick v. City of Tampa
Holds that municipal clerks can sign search warrants as long as they are trained in probable cause determination.