Warrantless Government Drone Surveillance: A Challenge to ...
Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business....
-
Upload
asher-neal -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business....
![Page 1: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Search and Seizure
4th Amendment
![Page 2: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
WEEKS V US (1914)
Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search.
– Revealed evidence of US mail to transport lottery tickets.
Searched home twice.– Took papers not relevant to the case.
![Page 3: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
WEEKS DECISION
9-0 conviction overturned Fruit of the poisoned tree
![Page 4: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
OLMSTEAD V US (1928)
Volstead Act (1919) – Prohibited the manufacture and importing of
alcohol. Olmstead was smuggling alcohol over the
Canadian border into Seattle.– Local and state officials arrested him based on
info gathered by a wiretap on his home phone. – No warrant, tapped the outside lines
![Page 5: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
OLMSTEAD DECISION
5-4 upheld search Placing a phone tap on outside premises did
not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.– No physical trespass
![Page 6: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
OLMSTEAD REVERSAL
Katz v US (1967)– Charles Katz suspect in LA illegal gambling.– Public phone booth tap by FBI
Conversations recorded Convicted of transmitting wagering info by phone.
– 7-1 overturn of Olmstead People are protected
![Page 7: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
MAPP V OHIO (1962)
May 23, 1957 – Cleveland Bombing suspect and gambling equipment 3 officers to the home but are denied access.
– 3hours later they return with a paper and break down the door.
– Mapp asks to see warrant and puts it down her dress. Officers stuggle and take it back
Discovered pornographic materials
![Page 8: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
MAPP DECISION
6-3 Overturned States are bound by the 4th amendment
![Page 9: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
MASSACHUSETTS V SHEPPARD (1984)
Badly burned and beaten body found.– Boyfriend questioned– Blood stains found in car he borrowed.– Search warrant for his house.
Search warrant– Affidavit properly completed.– Used a warrant for drug searches.– Did not include a list of specific items
Judge said he would make necessary changes.– Used the warrant in “good faith”
Blood stained clothing found.
![Page 10: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
SHEPPARD DECISION
6-3 Upheld conviction Officer acted with reasonable belief he was
following proper procedures. Evidence gained with a defective warrant is
legal if officer acted in “good faith”.
![Page 11: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
US v LEON (1984)
Unreliable confidential informant– Alberto Leon and others selling cocaine and meth from a
home and other places. Surveillance
– 5-6 people regularly visited– Photos taken– Persons with criminal records and previous association with
drug dealing.– Trips from Miami, bags searched.
Search warrant based mostly on surveillance.
![Page 12: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
LEON DECISION
6-3 Allowed the admission of evidence
Exclusionary rule applied to police, not judges
![Page 13: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
NIX V WILLIAMS (1984)
10 year old girl disappeared– Robert Williams was seen leaving with a large
bundle on the day of the disappearance. Police were told not to conduct any interrogation.
– “The child’s parents should be entitled to a Christian burial.”
![Page 14: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
WILLIAMS DECISION
7-2 upheld conviction “Inevitable discovery” exception
![Page 15: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
MARYLAND V GARRISON (1987)
Police had a warrant to search the “3rd floor apartment”.– Drugs and cash found– Apartment divided into 2 distinct apartments.
![Page 16: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
GARRISON DECISION
6-3 upheld the conviction Honest mistakes are made
![Page 17: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Due Process
5th Amendment
![Page 18: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Due Process of Law
5th and 14th Amendment
The way the government acts and the laws under which it acts must be fair.
![Page 19: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Procedural Due Process
Government in all that it does must use fair procedures.
Rochin v California
![Page 20: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Substantive Due Process
Laws must be fair
Pierce v Society of Sisters
![Page 21: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Goss v Lopez (1975)
Student Rights 60’s and 70’s political unrest 1971 – Columbus Students attend rally – 10 day suspension
![Page 22: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Goss Decision
Oral and written notification of charges
Evidence
Hearing
![Page 23: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
ESCOBEDO V IL (1964)
Danny E – custody in Chicago at 2:30 am in connection with shooting a relative.
18 hour interrogation– No attorney– No self-incriminating statements
Police later arrested friend.– Claimed Escobedo fired the fatal shots.– Escobedo arrested, not formally charged but told he could
not leave.
![Page 24: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Continue Escobedo
– Repeatedly interrogated and denied right to see attorney who requested and was there.
– Handcuffed– Made some statements to his involvement.
![Page 25: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ESCOBEDO DECISION
5-4, confession inadmissible
![Page 26: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
MIRANDA V AZ (1964)
Kidnapping and sexual assault near Phoenix Ernesto Miranda, 23, Mexican national
– Arrested at his home.– Taken to police station– ID’d by the victim and taken to interrogation room.
Repeatedly asked for attorney – refused.– 2 hours a signed confession taken.– Disclaimer he had waived his rights.
![Page 27: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Miranda Continued
Denied representation at preliminary hearing.– 76 year old lawyer who had not practiced criminal
law in 16 years.– Urged him to plead guilty by reason of insanity
![Page 28: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
MIRANDA DECISION
6-3 – overturned
Burden of the state to protect the individual from self-incrimination.
Retried after retraction of his confession. Retrial based on an accussed successful
appeal does not constitute double jeopardy.
![Page 29: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
IN re GAULT (1967)
Obscene phone calls Accused was 15 year old Gerald Gault
– Reputation & serving probation for a prior offense.– Arrested and took him to juvenile.– Failed to notify parents.
Hearing – Not recorded– No witnesses or attorneys– Judge thought he was involved so he detained him.
![Page 30: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Continue In re Gault
Dispositional hearing – week later– No record, etc.– Not informed of the charges– Admitted he dialed but friend talked
Sentence– Reform school until 21– Over 18 would have received $50 fine and 2
months in jail.
![Page 31: Search and Seizure 4 th Amendment. WEEKS V US (1914) Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search. – Revealed evidence.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56649e245503460f94b12efd/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
GAULT DECISION
7-2 – Overturned Violation of the 14th Amendment of Due
Process Beyond a reasonable doubt Jury trial not needed in a juvenile case.