CHAPTER 11

1. CHAPTER 11 Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

2. Warrant Exceptions • The U.S. Supreme Court has crafted a number of judicially [judge made] recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement • Courts balance a citizen’s right to privacy against the state's legitimate goal to prevent crime and enforce the law

3. Consent • The government requests permission from the citizen to search, seize or to talk during an interrogation • Consent must be voluntary

4. Factors to determine if Consent voluntary 1. Level of person’s intelligence 2. Age, language skills 3. Length of police encounter 4. Character of police encounter 5. Previous experience with criminal justice system

5. Search Incident to an Arrest • Once a suspect is arrested, his person and area within his immediate control is subject to lawful search without a warrant

6. Chimel v. California (1969) • Issue: Whether the warrantless search of the suspect’s entire house can be justified as incident to his arrest? • Holding: No. The search of the whole house as a result of Chimel’s arrest violated the 4th Am.’s reasonableness clause

7. Automobile Searches • Autos enjoy a lesser expectation of privacy than in one’s home • Autos are subject to licensing and inspection requirements to travel on public roadways

8. Search Incident to an Arrest in an Automobile • A search of the area within the immediate control of the arrestee is lawful • Includes: The passenger compartment and any closed containers such as luggage, purses, briefcases, consoles, gloveboxes and similar items designed to hold and conceal items

9. Dog Sniffs • Dog sniffs for contraband are non-intrusive on a person’s privacy interests • They are not searches under the Fourth Amendment • Can provide the basis for probable cause to search

10. Common Enterprise • Everyone in a car is legally responsible for all contraband discovered inside a vehicle

11. Maryland v. Pringle (2003) • Issue: Did the police officer have probable cause to arrest when drugs and money were found in a passenger compartment and none of the four occupants claimed ownership? • Holding: Yes. The small confines of an automobile means everyone is responsible for the contraband within

12. Protective Sweep • If officers have specific and articulable facts that armed persons are on the premises, they may search without a warrant areas where those armed people may be hiding

13. Maryland v. Buie (1990) • Issue: Was the warrantless protective sweep of Buie’s home justified? • Holding: Yes. When the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene is present, officers may sweep

14. Plain View/Open Fields • Police may seize contraband in plain view or in an open field because of a nonexistent expectation of privacy when objects are out in the open

15. Requirements for Plain View 1. The officer has legal authority to be on the premises 2. The officer must have a legal basis to seize the evidence 3. The seized evidence has a nexus/connection to a crime or is obvious contraband

16. Curtilage • The area immediately surrounding a dwelling • People retain privacy rights in items contained within the curtilage, but not beyond

17. Defining Curtilage 1. The proximity of the home to the area claimed to be curtilage 2. Is the area claimed to be curtilage within an enclosure surrounding the home? 3. The nature of the uses to which the curtilage is put, and 4. The steps taken to conceal the area as a private area

18. Plain Feel • If during a Terry patdown an officer feels obvious contraband, she may seize it without a warrant

19. Plain Feel Requirements 1. The touch must be lawful 2. Through the process of touching, the officer must have probable cause to believe the object felt is obvious contraband

20. Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) • Issue: Whether the officer was acting within the lawful bounds ofTerry at the time he acquired probable cause to believe that the lump in respondent's jacket was crack cocaine? • Holding: No. The patdown was transformed into an illegal search

21. Exigent Circumstances 1. The time required to secure a warrant 2. Whether evidence will be destroyed 3. Officer or public safety 4. The suspect's likelihood of flight

22. Hot Pursuit • The police need not stop a chase in "hot pursuit" because the suspect enters a building, dwelling or other structure

23. Hot Pursuit Requirements 1. The initial power to arrest must be lawful 2. Probable cause person chased is a criminal 3. Hot pursuit only applies to serious felonies 4. Belief that suspect will escape 5. After arrest, the scope of the ensuing search is incident to that arrest

24. Good Faith Exception • If officers execute a legally defective warrant in good faith (no evil intent) the federal government and some states will still admit the illegally-seized evidence at the defendant’s trial

25. Commonwealth v. Edmunds (1991) • Issue: Whether Pennsylvania should adopt the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule? • Holding: No. It would frustrate the guarantees of a right to privacy embodied in the Pennsylvania Constitution

26. Special Needs Searches • Drug Testing in Schools • Drug Testing of Government Employees • DNA Collection • Airports/Subways • There is a diminished expectation of privacy to travel in public • Border Searches

27. Racial Profiling • As long as a traffic stop is legitimate e.g., for a broken tail light, or speeding violation, the officer’s subjective/personal motives for making the stop do not matter

28. Drug Courier Profiling • A compilation of characteristics indicative of carrying illegal drugs from one geographic location to another • May be used to justify a Terry stop, but is not probable cause to arrest or seize