POLS 4720E Chapter Notes - Chapter 2: Weight-Bearing, Point Walter, Elena Kagan
29 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
!1
I. Illinois v. Gates (1983)
A. The Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous tip that Lance and
Susan Gates were selling drugs out of their home. After observing the Gates's drug
smuggling operation in action, police obtained a warrant and upon searching the
suspects' car and home uncovered large quantities of marijuana, other contraband, and
weapons.
B. Did the search of the Gates's home violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
C. 6-3 for Illinois
D. The Court found no constitutional violation and argued that the lower court misapplied
the test for probable cause which the Court had announced in Spinelli v. United States
(1969). Justice Rehnquist argued that an informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of
knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but that those issues are
intertwined and should not be rigidly applied. He argued that the "totality-of-the-
circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one to glean from Spinelli,
and that the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant abided by it in this case.
II. Wilson v. Arkansas (1994)
A. In 1992, Sharlene Wilson sold illicit narcotics to undercover agents of the Arkansas state
police. Police officers then applied for and obtained warrants to search Ms. Wilson's
home and to arrest her. When the police arrived, they found the main door to Ms.
Wilson's house open. The officers opened the unlocked screen door and walked in,
identified themselves as police officers, and said that they had a warrant. Ms. Wilson's
attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search, claiming it was
invalid on the grounds that the officers had failed to "knock and announce" before
entering.
B. Does the Fourth Amendment's reasonable search and seizure clause require police
officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a private residence?
C. Yes. A unanimous Court held that the common-law "knock-and announce" principle
forms a part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. "Given the longstanding
common-law endorsement of the practice of announcement, and the wealth of founding-
era commentaries, constitutional provisions, statutes, and cases espousing or supporting
the knock-and-announce principle,...the Amendment's Framers thought that whether
officers announced their presence and authority before entering a dwelling was among
the factors to be considered in assessing a search's reasonableness." Countervailing law
enforcement interests, such as officer safety, may, however, establish the reasonableness
of an unannounced entry.
III. Warden v. Hayden (1966)
A. Around 8 a.m. on March 17, 1962, an armed robber took $363 from the premises of the
Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, Maryland and fled on foot. Two cab drivers were
attracted by the yelling and followed the suspect onto Cocoa Lane. One of the cab drivers
radioed the company dispatcher a description of the suspect including clothes, which the
dispatcher passed on to the police. When the police arrived at the Hayden residence, Mrs.
Hayden allowed them to search the house without a warrant. The police found Bennie
Joe Hayden in an upstairs bedroom and no one else in the house. They also found a set of
!2
clothes matching the description given by the cab driver in the washing machine, as well
as a shotgun and a pistol in a flush tank. Ammunition for both weapons was discovered
in Hayden’s room. Hayden was charged with armed robbery and tried in front of a court
sitting without a jury. The clothing and the weapons were admitted into evidence at trial
without objection, and Hayden was convicted. Hayden sought habeas corpus relief in
district court, which was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the denial of habeas corpus and held that the search was valid but that the
clothing had “evidential value only” and was improperly admitted into evidence at trial.
B. Does the Fourth Amendment create a distinction between merely evidentiary materials,
which may not be seized during the course of a search, and the instrumentalities or fruits
of the crime, which may be seized?
C. No — 6-3 decision for Warden
IV. Kentucky v. King (2010)
A. Police officers in Lexington, Ky., entered an apartment building in pursuit of a suspect
who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. The officers lost sight of the suspect
and mistakenly assumed he entered an apartment from which they could detect the odor
of marijuana. After police knocked on the door and identified themselves, they heard
movements, which they believed indicated evidence was about to be destroyed. Police
forcibly entered the apartment and found Hollis King and others smoking marijuana.
They also found cash, drugs and paraphernalia. King entered a conditional guilty plea;
reserving his right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from
what he argued was an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction, holding that exigent circumstances supporting the warrantless search were
not of the police's making and that police did not engage in deliberate and intentional
conduct to evade the warrant requirement. In January 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court
reversed the lower court order, finding that the entry was improper. The court held that
the police were not in pursuit of a fleeing suspect when they entered the apartment, since
there was no evidence that the original suspect even knew he was being followed by
police.
B. Does the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in
emergency situations, apply when the emergency is created by lawful police actions?
C. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court order in a decision by Justice
Samuel Alito. "The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the
exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth
Amendment," Alito wrote for the majority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented,
contending that "the Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. "
V. Arizona v. Gant (2008)
A. Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for
driving with a suspended license. After the officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in
their squad car, they went on to search his vehicle, discovering a handgun and a plastic
bag of cocaine. At trial, Gant asked the judge to suppress the evidence found in his
vehicle because the search had been conducted without a warrant in violation of the
Document Summary
Illinois v. gates (1983: the bloomingdale, illinois police department received an anonymous tip that lance and. Susan gates were selling drugs out of their home. Justice rehnquist argued that an informant"s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but that those issues are intertwined and should not be rigidly applied. He argued that the "totality-of-the- circumstances" approach to probable cause was the correct one to glean from spinelli, and that the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant abided by it in this case. In 1992, sharlene wilson sold illicit narcotics to undercover agents of the arkansas state police. Police officers then applied for and obtained warrants to search ms. wilson"s home and to arrest her. When the police arrived, they found the main door to ms. The officers opened the unlocked screen door and walked in, identified themselves as police officers, and said that they had a warrant.
