Michelle PalaroCJUS 2360Fall 2015

A Foundation for Understanding Constitutional Law

Chapter 7The Fourth Amendment

Introduction Limited government power is necessary

for the laws of the country to be enforced and the government’s business to be carried out

A balance is required for democracy Terms fundamental to understanding the

4th Amendmento Search - An examination of a person, place or

vehicle for contraband or evidence of a crime.o Seizure - A taking by law enforcement or

other government agent of contraband, evidence of a crime, or even a person into custody

The Importance of the 4th Amendment to Law Enforcement

The 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police is perhaps the most vital component of criminal procedure

It has given ample opportunities to the U.S. Supreme Court to set forth when any government agent may or may not act, as well as when they have an expectation, or duty, to do so

The Constitution does not provide an absolute right to be free from government intrusion, only “unreasonable interference”

Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25 (1949)

Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25 (1949), cont’d

Facts: The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a number of convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been inadmissible in a prosecution for violation of a federal law in a federal court

Issues: Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Holding: Yes Rationale: Any government agent (federal,

state or local) is regulated by the 4th Amendment by way of the 14th

Who is Governed by the 4th Amendment?

Private individuals or agencies are not regulated by the 4th Amendmento Store detectives are not controlled by the 4th

Amendment

Why?o They are not government agents, and the

Constitution was established to limit the power of government and its agents

United States v. Parker , 32 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 1994)

Facts: UPS opened a duffel bag insured for $4000, consistent with company policy, and found $4000 in cash, then alerted the DEA, which found drugs. UPS delivered the duffel under DEA operation and Parker was arrested at the address

Issues: Did UPS violate the 4th Amendment? Holding: No Rationale: UPS had no duty to secure a warrant

as it was not a state actor http://openjurist.org/32/f3d/395/united-states-v-p

arker

Who is Regulated by the 4th Amendment?

United States v. Cleveland (1994)o Held permissible a warrantless search by a private electric

company employee acting on a tip that a customer was bypassing the electric meter

United States v. Ross (1982)o An airline employee who inspected the defendant’s

luggage according to the FAA regulations was acting in a government capacity and was governed by the 4th Amendment

Sometimes a private party can be considered to be a government agento If a private party agrees to go in to get an item from a

house or a private security guard agrees to search someone for the police, this person can be considered an agent of the government

o The Fourth Amendment would then apply

The Clauses of the 4th Amendment

There are two clauses that are important to the 4th Amendment in regards to search and seizure:o Reasonableness Clause

• “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated”

o The Warrant Clause• “…and no warrants shall issue but upon probable

cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

Two Interpretations (by Supreme Court)

In the 1960’s the Court used the conventional 4th Amendment approacho It combines the two clauses togethero It holds that all searches not conducted with both a

warrant and probable cause are unreasonable, and, therefore, unlawful

Since the 1960’s the Court has broadened government’s power by adopting the reasonableness 4th Amendment approacho It sees the two clauses as separate, distinct, and

addressing two separate situations• This clause makes warrantless searches and seizures valid

and constitutional when they are sensible

Reasonableness Reasonable

o Sensible, rational, and justifiable Two approaches to determine reasonableness:

o Bright-line approach• Reasonableness is determined by a specific rule applying to

all caseso Case-by-case approach

• Reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of circumstances in each individual case. It is the most commonly used method in the U.S.

The Constitution doesn’t provide an absolute right to be free from government intrusion, only unreasonable interference

Probable Cause Exists when the facts and circumstances

within the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonable trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed

Totality of circumstances is the principle upon which a number of legal assessments are made, including probable cause

Probable Cause, cont’d Probable cause is stronger than reasonable

suspicion It can legally justify searches and arrests with or

without a warrant and requires the question:o Would a reasonable person believe that a crime was

committed, and that the individual committed the offense, or that the contraband or evidence is where it is believed to be?

It must be established before a lawful search or arrest can be made

Facts and evidence obtained after a search or arrest can not be used to establish probable cause

They can be used to strengthen the case if probable cause was established before the arrest, making the arrest legal

Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 (1964)

Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 (1964), cont’d

Facts: Aguilar (Defendant) was arrested on a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace. The affidavit provided by police officers in support of the warrant stated that they had received information from an unidentified informant that Aguilar possessed drugs at his residence

Issues: Was this enough for probable cause? Holding: Yes Rationale: Established a two prong test for

informants:o 1st prong - Tested the informants creditabilityo 2nd prong - Tested the informant’s basis of knowledge

and reliability of the information provided

Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 (1983)

Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 (1983), cont’d

Facts: The police received an anonymous letter outlining specific details about the Defendants being involved in drug trafficking, later corroborated by their actions

Issues: Is the letter enough for probable cause?

Holding: Yes Rationale: Abandoned the two prong test

and replaced it with the totality of the circumstanceso Made the establishment of probable cause by

use of informants easier for police

Search and Arrest Warrants Government agents that have probable

cause must go before a magistrate (judge) and swear under oath about who or what they are looking for and where they think it can be found

In determining whether probable cause for a warrant exists, the judge must consider the totality of the circumstanceso Whether a reasonable person would believe

what the officers claimo Not every judge will sign a warranto The officer may be told to come back with

additional informationo Judges today will grant telephone warrants

Knock and Announce Rule

Knock and Announce Ruleo The general rule is that officers must

first knock and announce their authority before breaking into a dwelling to execute a warrant

o The intent is to prevent the occupant from responding with force against unknown intruders

United States v. Banks , 540 U.S. 31 (2003)

Facts: Police went to Banks's apartment to execute a warrant to search for cocaine, they called out "police search warrant" and rapped on the front door hard enough to be heard by officers at the back door, waited for 15 to 20 seconds with no response, and then broke open the door

Issues: Is 15 to 20 seconds long enough for police to wait after knocking and announcing?

Holding: Yes Rationale: It is not unreasonable to think that

someone could get in a position to destroy the drugs within 15 to 20 seconds

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_473

The Law of Stop and Frisk Stop - A brief detention of a person

based on specific and articulable facts for the purpose of investigating suspicious activityo No Miranda warning is required

Articulable facts - Actions described in clear, distinct statements

Frisk - A reasonable, limited pat-down search for weapons for the protection of a government agent and others

Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), cont’d

Facts: Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them

Issues: Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Holding: No Rationale: The Court found that the officer acted

on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior"

Consequences of 4th Amendment Violations

An unlawful search or seizure can have two serious consequences:1. The evidence may be excluded from

court2. Internal sanctions as well as civil and

criminal liability may be incurred

The Exclusionary Rule Is judge-made case law promulgated by the

Supreme Court to prevent police or government misconduct

It prevents evidence seized in violation of a person’s constitutional rights from being admitted into courto An officer who has violated someone’s rights

may sued, oro Prosecuted criminally

The exclusionary rule is by far the most frequently used means to address constitutional infractions by the government in criminal cases

The Exclusionary Rule, cont’d

The exclusionary rule also helps:o Preserve judicial integrity by preventing

judicial agreement in denying a person’s 4th Amendment rights

o Deters police misconduct by making improperly obtained evidence inadmissible in court

o Protects citizen’s constitutional right to privacy

Rochin v. California (1952)o Searches that “shock the conscience” are a

violation of due process, and any evidence so obtained, will be inadmissible

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochin_v._California

Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914)

Weeks v. United States , 232 U.S. 383 (1914), cont;d

Facts: Weeks was arrested by a police officer at the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri where he was employed by an express company. Other officers entered the house of the defendant without a search warrant and took possession of papers and articles which were afterwards turned over to the U.S. marshal

Issues: Was the evidence admissible? Holding: No Rationale: Illegally obtained evidence is not

admissible in court and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment applies to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees

Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961), cont’d

Facts: Police officers received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Mapp, who refused to admit them without a search warrant. Three hours later, brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door but did not find the bombing suspect nor the gambling equipment. They did find pornographic material and she was found guilty for possession of pornographic material

Issues: Does the exclusionary rule apply to the states?

Holding: Yes Rationale: If the rule didn’t apply to the states, the

4th amendment protections would be meaningless

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule applies only in criminal trials in which a constitutional right has been violated

There are four exceptions to the exclusionary rule:1. Inevitable discovery doctrine2. Valid independent source3. Harmless error4. Good faith

Internal Sanctions, Civil Liability and Criminal Liability

Government misconduct could result in:o Departmental discipline against

the officero Civil lawsuitso Criminal charges