Class Notes (835,894)
United States (324,283)
PSC 2302 (97)

PSC Chapter 12.docx

8 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
PSC 2302
James Curry

PSC Chapter 12 10/24/2013 6:32:00 AM Background  British use of “general warrants”  Writs of assistance  James Otis’ famous defense of privacy Fourth amendment  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violates, 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. Probable cause  It is a “practical, non-technical conception” that deals with factual and practical considerations, and the standard is “incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages”  Must be sworn before a judge Search warrants  Must describe the place to be searched o 123 elm street o storage building F  must describe the person or the thing to be seized o drugs o weapons o John Smith Exclusionary rule  Method of enforcing 4 thamendment  Established by Supreme Court in Weeks v. US (1914)  Incorporated in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and applied to the states th  Any materials seized in violation of the provisions of the 4 amendment may not be introduced as evidence in a trial  Designed to prevent wrongdoing by police Reasonable or unreasonable without a warrant  Police stop you on the street and pat down your clothing  Government agents place a listening device outside several telephone booths  Police attach a GPS device to a car and track it for 28 days  Police stop an automobile for a routine violations, order everyone out of the vehicle, and search it  Authorities observe a drug buy and then follow the person to an apartment but can’t see which door he enters. They go to the door, announce themselves, hear rapid movements and smell marijuana, they knock down the door Warrantless searches  Some searches without a warrant have been held to be reasonable  They are “exceptions” to the warrant requirement of the 4 th amendment Automobile exception  First noted in 1925  High likelihood of flight from authorities and the obvious mobility of the automobile  California v. Acevedo (1991) o If a search of an auto is based on probable cause, then the search may extend to all parts of the auto and all containers within it  California v. Carney, 1985 o A motor home is an automobile for 4 thamendment purposes  Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999 o Authorities may search messenger and belongings  Illinois v. Caballes, 2005 o A dog sniff during a legal traffic stop revealing marijuana in th the trunk does not violate the 4 amendment Expectation of privacy  Katz v. US (1967) . individuals have “a reasonable expectation of privacy” (in this case, inside a telephone booth) o Expectation of privacy is greatest at home o Expectation of privacy is limited in other settings o No expectation of privacy in a few places Border exception  Warrants are not required for searches at border crossings o Government has a string interest in protecting the nation’s borders  Warrants may be required for roving searches farther away from the border Police checkpoints (not at the border)  Supreme court has allowed checkpoints for sobriety. All motorists were stopped. 1990  Court struck down checkpoint set up just to see if people were using drugs; dogs sniffed car. 2000  Court upheld checkpoint set up by police to see if drivers had knowledge of a crime committed in that area earlier 2004 Hot pursuit exception  A fugitive may not run from police and escape a search merely by entering a private home or other dwelling Stop and frisk  Terry v. Ohio, 1968  Authorized a “pat-down: search of outer clothing of persons to search for weapons  Justified by need to protect the safety of the officer and others  Relies on a “reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing Search incident to arrest  A lawful arrest authorized a search of the person and the immediate area for 2 reasons: o 1. Weapons o 2. Evidence that might be destroyed  the Chimel case held that an arrest does not justify a broad search of an entire house. Extends only to areas under arrestee’s “immediate control”  traffic stops resulting in arrest authorize search of person and immediate area of car Arizona v. Gant (2009)  Police were waiting at his home when Gant drove into the driveway. Gant was arrested for driving with a suspe
More Less

Related notes for PSC 2302

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.