Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
U of C (8,000)
LWSO (200)
Lecture 14

LWSO 335 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Container Garden, Drug Injection, Staling


Department
Law and Society
Course Code
LWSO 335
Professor
Linda Mae Mc Kay- Panos
Lecture
14

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
1.
Government actor (Burdeau v. McDowell) AND
2.
Search or seizure
3.
i.
1)
a)
Lewis
b)
Hoffa
c)
On Lee
2)
TECHNOLOGY smith v. Maryland
Undercover
ii.
1)
a)
Dunn
b)
Dow (Scalia TECHNOLOGY)
c)
Ciraolo – unaided eye
d)
Riley – O’Connor concurring: ordinary people [Bond
also. See: Container searches]
RULE: Lawful vantage point + curtilage w/ unaided eye =
no search
Open Field – Oliver
iii.
1)
Greenwood
2)
Bond
3)
Place
Container
iv.
1)
RULE: merely enhancing the senses is OK (Dow
Chemical)
2)
a)
Knotts – public navigable roads good
b)
Karo – Inside the house is bad
Beepers – de minnimis intrusion inside or out of can
3)
Place – Dog is ok.
Enhancement devices
v.
1)
a)
i) Rakas – passengers in a car = no REP
ii) Rawlings = SEE FACTORS PAGE 11.
Possessory Interest = privacy
b)
i) Jeffers – Key + possessory interest = REP
Keys
c)
i) Olson
Overnight Guesting
d)
i) Minnesota v. Carter – no standing no REP.
Think commercial interest. Host is not
automatically lending you privacy/ possessory
interest of the home.
Business Guesting
e)
i) your drugs inside your friend’s bag which is
searched in your home = you have
standing. Fruits of unjustified search.
FRUITS EXAMPLE:
f)
i) Alderman TECHNOLOGY
Telephones in your house
RULE: Rakas – only aggrieved party can challenge the
search and only exists when the movants reasonable
expectation of privacy (Katz) is intruded upon.
Standing
1. Karo – outside of can = no seize: de
minnimis
1. Containers
2. Arizona v. Hicks – NOT A SIEZURE (but a
search) when police lift a STEREO
1. Place – Police pick up luggage with RS –
90 minutes unreasonable and not diligent.
1. Temp seizures of effects are
justified by RS as long as
NARROWLY TAILORED to gov’t
need. (page 13)
2. Van Leeuween
3. Dilligence
1. RULE: seizure of a chattel occurs whenever there is
a substantial and or meaningful interference with a
possessory interest (Jacobsen).
1. Seizure of Chattles/ Things
1. Govt acts intentionally (Brower v. County of Inyo)
1. ok ok you got me= submission
2. Submits of govt authority (Hodari; Place)
1. Mendenhall – does not take ticket/ id
2. Royer – takes ticket/ ID
3. Reasonable innocent person not free to leave OR
1. COERCIVE
2. Drayton – officer on bus asks nicely (no
coercion/ no seizure)
3. Bostick – officer on bus gives chance to refuse
so no seizure despite gun at head.
4. Delgado – not a seizure if you’re at work
anyway.
5. Kaupp – handcuffing and changing locations is
always a seizure.
4. Does not feel free to terminate (page 14-15)
5. Mena, Ybarra, Summers see Execution below
2. Seizure of Persons
3. Seizure
1. LETTERS/ TIPSTERS
1. aguilar/ spinelli prongs (veracity and
basis of knowledge)
1. Warrant under totality of
circumstances (Ybarra, pringle)
AND
2. Supression hearing assesses
substantial basis of fair probability
must find plain error.
2. Gates Policy – police warrants are easier
to get and not hypertechnical to avoid
having the police go nuts and hope for the
best at a suppression hearing.
1. Gates
1. HOUGHTON “Im an IV drug user
probable cause for the car doesn’t extend
to search the passengers purse.
2. CAR: Pringle – distributive property of
probable cause to all passengers in a small
car. Acting in concert.
3. Ybarra v. Illinois – NOT like Pringle. Random
dude in a bar is loosely associated with the bar.
1. Loji sales case
4. Judges cannot be investigators
1. TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
1. warrant a reasonable person to conclude a fair probability
(50%+) that individual in question has committed a crime
(for AW) or that specific evidence will be found at the
particular place (SW). (page 17)
4. Probable Cause
1. Did the police act reasonably enough while
executing?
2. Was the warrant application written in good
faith?
3. HILL V CA – if the police arrest the wrong
person that person can suppress because he
isn’t the party of interest.
1. Maryland v. Garrison (page 21 for rule statement
[apartment case 3 floor])
1. Good faith mistake is ok.
5. Particularity (warrants)
1. Mistake Maryland v. Garrison
2. Staleness – 10 days after it is issued
3. Timing – judge can say only show up during day and
if the cops show at night it is unreasonable.
1. Only negated if police think evidence is quickly
destroyed or suspect expects the police.
1. NOTE KERR FRISBE says arrests on
PC are good no matter where they take
place
2. Ker v. California - 15 seconds is long enough
to wait after knocking. No photographers
either – must be state actors (FRUITS – if non-
state actor finds something it is suppressed).
4. Knock and Announce – preserve property (no
kicking in door) of suspect and prevent violence
(police ambush). (Richards. Page 25)
1. YBARRA - Mere presence in a place
does not give rise to justification/
suspicion for frisk or seizure (FRUITS).
2. MICHIGAN V SUMMERS – summers
lived at the place search and was
intimately connected to it so its ok to
seize/ detain him. NOTE MERELY
TALKING TO PEOPLE IS NOT A
SIEZURE.
3. Muehler v Mena – handcuffed 2-3 hours
is ok to protect the officers.
1. Present at a Search but not subject
5. Force and Collateral Acts (Page 22/23)
1. lawful 4th am. Activity is under way
(COOLIGE V HORTON)
1. Robinette – can ask consent to
enlarge the scope
2. CAR Wilson – can order
people out of the car.
3. Kolbais – k-9 can enlarge
1. Can’t enlarge the scope unless:
2. the new items must be in PLAIN VIEW
while the police are within the scope of
the ORIGINAL search.
1. Hicks shoots through floor
cops lift stereo NO PLAIN
VIEW/ BAD SEARCH.
2. If you leave after executing an
arrest you can’t go back to
double check the pot plant you
saw.
1. ARIZONA V. HICKS
3. New items must be readily identifiable
and immediately apparent as evidence
[PC](COOLIGE V. HORTON)
1. Allows warrantless seizure of tims not
mentioned in the warrant when the spot
anything in plain view they have PC to believe
is evidence of a crime. (remember particularity
req). ELEMENTS:
6. Plain View Doctrine (Page 24)
1. muehler v. mena
1. It doesn’t matter why the police stop a
car. Ulterior motives are fine. Whren v. U.S.
7. Pretext
1. execution of warrant based on probable cause (GATES)
has to be reasonable (narrowly tailored to the justification
in the warrant and diligent under SHARPE) to satisfy the
4th am.
6. Execution (warrants)
Search – Katz = REP
1.
Is the 4th amendment implicated?
Criminal Procedure Outline:
Criminal(Procedure-outline
Thursday,* February* 25,*2016
1:29*PM

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

1. Government actor (Burdeau v. McDowell) AND
2. Search or seizure
3.
i.
1)
a) Lewis
b) Hoffa
c) On Lee
RULE: Misplaced Trust = no search
2) TECHNOLOGY smith v. Maryland
Undercover
ii.
1)
a) Dunn
b) Dow (Scalia TECHNOLOGY)
c) Ciraolo – unaided eye
d) Riley – O’Connor concurring: ordinary people [Bond
also. See: Container searches]
RULE: Lawful vantage point + curtilage w/ unaided eye =
no search
Open Field – Oliver
iii.
1) Greenwood
2) Bond
3) Place
Container
iv.
1) RULE: merely enhancing the senses is OK (Dow
Chemical)
2)
a) Knotts – public navigable roads good
b) Karo – Inside the house is bad
Beepers – de minnimis intrusion inside or out of can
3) Place – Dog is ok.
Enhancement devices
v.
1)
a)
i)
Rakas – passengers in a car = no REP
ii)
Rawlings = SEE FACTORS PAGE 11.
Possessory Interest = privacy
b)
i)
Jeffers – Key + possessory interest = REP
Keys
c)
i)
Olson
Overnight Guesting
d)
i)
Minnesota v. Carter – no standing no REP.
Think commercial interest. Host is not
automatically lending you privacy/ possessory
interest of the home.
Business Guesting
e)
i)
your drugs inside your friend’s bag which is
searched in your home = you have
standing. Fruits of unjustified search.
FRUITS EXAMPLE:
f)
i)
Alderman TECHNOLOGY
Telephones in your house
RULE: Rakas – only aggrieved party can challenge the
search and only exists when the movants reasonable
expectation of privacy (Katz) is intruded upon.
Standing
1.
Karo – outside of can = no seize: de
minnimis
1.
Containers
2.
Arizona v. Hicks – NOT A SIEZURE (but a
search) when police lift a STEREO
1.
Place – Police pick up luggage with RS –
90 minutes unreasonable and not diligent.
1.
Temp seizures of effects are
justified by RS as long as
NARROWLY TAILORED to gov’t
need. (page 13)
2.
Van Leeuween
3.
Dilligence
1.
RULE: seizure of a chattel occurs whenever there is
a substantial and or meaningful interference with a
possessory interest (Jacobsen).
1.
Seizure of Chattles/ Things
1.
Govt acts intentionally (Brower v. County of Inyo)
1. ok ok you got me= submission
2. Submits of govt authority (Hodari; Place)
1. Mendenhall – does not take ticket/ id
2. Royer – takes ticket/ ID
3. Reasonable innocent person not free to leave OR
1. COERCIVE
2. Drayton – officer on bus asks nicely (no
coercion/ no seizure)
3. Bostick – officer on bus gives chance to refuse
so no seizure despite gun at head.
4. Delgado – not a seizure if you’re at work
anyway.
5. Kaupp – handcuffing and changing locations is
always a seizure.
4. Does not feel free to terminate (page 14-15)
5. Mena, Ybarra, Summers see Execution below
2.
Seizure of Persons
3.
Seizure
1. LETTERS/ TIPSTERS
1. aguilar/ spinelli prongs (veracity and
basis of knowledge)
1. Warrant under totality of
circumstances (Ybarra, pringle)
AND
2. Supression hearing assesses
substantial basis of fair probability
must find plain error.
2. Gates Policy – police warrants are easier
to get and not hypertechnical to avoid
having the police go nuts and hope for the
best at a suppression hearing.
1. Gates
1. HOUGHTON “Im an IV drug user
probable cause for the car doesn’t extend
to search the passengers purse.
2. CAR: Pringle – distributive property of
probable cause to all passengers in a small
car. Acting in concert.
3. Ybarra v. Illinois – NOT like Pringle. Random
dude in a bar is loosely associated with the bar.
1. Loji sales case
4. Judges cannot be investigators
1. TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
1. warrant a reasonable person to conclude a fair probability
(50%+) that individual in question has committed a crime
(for AW) or that specific evidence will be found at the
particular place (SW). (page 17)
4. Probable Cause
1. Did the police act reasonably enough while
executing?
2. Was the warrant application written in good
faith?
3. HILL V CA – if the police arrest the wrong
person that person can suppress because he
isn’t the party of interest.
1. Maryland v. Garrison (page 21 for rule statement
[apartment case 3 floor])
1. Good faith mistake is ok.
5. Particularity (warrants)
1. Mistake Maryland v. Garrison
2. Staleness – 10 days after it is issued
3. Timing – judge can say only show up during day and
if the cops show at night it is unreasonable.
1. Only negated if police think evidence is quickly
destroyed or suspect expects the police.
1. NOTE KERR FRISBE says arrests on
PC are good no matter where they take
place
2. Ker v. California - 15 seconds is long enough
to wait after knocking. No photographers
either – must be state actors (FRUITS – if non-
state actor finds something it is suppressed).
4. Knock and Announce – preserve property (no
kicking in door) of suspect and prevent violence
(police ambush). (Richards. Page 25)
1. YBARRA - Mere presence in a place
does not give rise to justification/
suspicion for frisk or seizure (FRUITS).
2. MICHIGAN V SUMMERS – summers
lived at the place search and was
intimately connected to it so its ok to
seize/ detain him. NOTE MERELY
TALKING TO PEOPLE IS NOT A
SIEZURE.
3. Muehler v Mena – handcuffed 2-3 hours
is ok to protect the officers.
1. Present at a Search but not subject
5. Force and Collateral Acts (Page 22/23)
1. lawful 4th am. Activity is under way
(COOLIGE V HORTON)
1. Robinette – can ask consent to
enlarge the scope
2. CAR Wilson – can order
people out of the car.
3. Kolbais – k-9 can enlarge
1. Can’t enlarge the scope unless:
2. the new items must be in PLAIN VIEW
while the police are within the scope of
the ORIGINAL search.
1. Hicks shoots through floor
cops lift stereo NO PLAIN
VIEW/ BAD SEARCH.
2. If you leave after executing an
arrest you can’t go back to
double check the pot plant you
saw.
1. ARIZONA V. HICKS
3. New items must be readily identifiable
and immediately apparent as evidence
[PC](COOLIGE V. HORTON)
1. Allows warrantless seizure of tims not
mentioned in the warrant when the spot
anything in plain view they have PC to believe
is evidence of a crime. (remember particularity
req). ELEMENTS:
6. Plain View Doctrine (Page 24)
1. muehler v. mena
1. It doesn’t matter why the police stop a
car. Ulterior motives are fine. Whren v. U.S.
7. Pretext
1. execution of warrant based on probable cause (GATES)
has to be reasonable (narrowly tailored to the justification
in the warrant and diligent under SHARPE) to satisfy the
4th am.
6. Execution (warrants)
Search – Katz = REP
1. Is the 4th amendment implicated?
Criminal Procedure Outline:
Criminal(Procedure-outline
Thursday,* February* 25,*2016 1:29*PM
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version