CRJ 302 Criminal Procedures Part I

1. CRJ 302 Criminal ProceduresPart I When and where the “Exclusionary Rule” Does Not (Usually) Apply

2. The Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply to Evidence Obtained in a Private Search • 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure • Evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule • Evidence obtained by private persons, even if the result of illegal conduct, is not subject to the exclusionary rule

3. The Exclusionary Rule Applies Only in Criminal Cases • Forbids the use of evidence tainted or soiled by improper or illegal police conduct in criminal cases • Such evidence however can be used in civil cases

4. Evidence Will Not Be Suppressed Where Only the Rights of One Other Than the Defendant Have Been Violated • Evidence is excluded under the exclusionary rule by the defendant making a motion to suppress that evidence • To succeed in this motion, the defendant must show his rights were violated, not the rights of some other person • Standing- means the defendant is the proper person to challenge the police conduct because it violated the defendant’s rights

5. Abandoned Property Will Not Be Suppressed • If by conduct or words the defendant shows that she has relinquished the expectation privacy in property, the object may be used as evidence

6. Throwaway as a Type of Abandonment • Persons fleeing the police with illegal drugs or other contraband on their person will often throw away what can be very incriminating evidence • If the throwaway is a voluntary abandonment of the object, courts will allow the object to be used as evidence against the person

7. Denial of Ownership as a Form of Abandonment • Persons who deny ownership of property to a law enforcement officer relinquish their right of privacy in the property and do not later have standing to challenge the use of evidence obtained from the property

8. Evidence Obtained from Garbage or Trash • Trash receptacles kept in a home or garage have 4th Amendment constitutional protection while located in such places • Evidence obtained from these places without valid consent or a search warrant would be suppressed and could not be used, even if it were proven that the trash was abandoned

9. Abandoned Motor Vehicles • Many states have statutes that define when a vehicle is legally abandoned • Wisconsin provides that if a vehicle is left unattended on a public highway or public property under such circumstances as to cause the vehicle to reasonably appear to have been abandoned for more than forty eight hours, the vehicle is deemed abandoned and constitutes a public nuisance

10. Expiration of Rental Agreements for Motels and Lockers as a Form of Abandonment • Many courts have held that the expiration of a motel room agreement or the expiration of the rental time for a storage locker was a form of abandonment • In those cases, courts held that defendants had no standing to challenge evidence obtained by police searches

11. Evidence Discovered in Open Fields Will Not Be Suppressed • Curtilage-is that area close to a home where a persons assert a right of privacy • The 4th Amendment extends to the home and to the Curtilage • Open fields include any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the Curtilage

12. Evidence Discovered in Open Fields Will Not Be Suppressed Cont.. • An open field need be neither open nor a field as those terms are used in common speech • An open field can consist of woods, swamps, meadows, or fields of farm crops

13. Evidence Discovered in Good Faith or Honest Mistake Will Not Be Suppressed • The Leon good faith rule permits the use of evidence where a search warrant contains a technical error that does not violate a fundamental constitutional right of a suspect • Not all states have adopted this good faith exception • Honest mistake-Court recognized the need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants

14. Other Areas Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply • Common Carriers (airlines, parcel services, etc) • Grand jury proceedings • Probation or parole revocation hearings • Searches by probation or parole officers • Military discharge proceedings

15. Evidence Is Admissible If Obtained During an Administrative Function Under the “Special Needs” of Government Child protective proceedings Civil tax proceedings Evidence obtained in foreign countries Important witness testimony against the defendants Sentencing proceedings after criminal conviction More,

16. Part II: Administrative Searches, Introduction • The US Supreme Court and hundreds of lower courts have upheld the thousands of administrative searches and functions that are conducted everyday by federal, state, and local employees. The majority of these employees are non-law enforcement. • They are not conducting searches but are conducting administrative functions related to the special needs of government

17. Exclusionary Rule is not Applicable when: • Security Screening at Airports, Courthouses, and other Public Buildings and Places • Fire, Health, and Housing Inspections • School Searches on Reasonable Suspicion • Drug Testing Without Probable Cause or a Search Warrant

18. Administrative Searches, continued • Work-Related Searches in Government Offices • Roadblocks or Vehicle Checkpoint Stops • Correctional Programs, Hearing, or Requirements that may cause a prison Inmate to Incriminate Himself • Other “Special Government Needs” Where Neither Probable Cause nor Search Warrants Are Needed

19. Security Screening at Airports, Courthouses, and Other Public Buildings and Places • There are over 1 billion screening of people in the US each year • Since 911 security screenings have extended to courthouses, public buildings, sporting events and rock concerts • Thousands of illegal weapons are confiscated as a result of the administrative screenings.

20. Security Screenings Cont • Most courts hold the screening fall under the “government special needs of security” • Other courts have held that the searches and finding of evidence is admissible because once and individual presents their person for screening they have consented and cannot withdraw during the screening process • Unless the search was for evidence and not safety reasons

21. Fire, Health, and Housing Inspections • There is much concern in large cities where buildings are old and decaying and efforts must be supported to prevent fires, and rid buildings of rodents and insects and to preserve the community in a healthful and safe condition

22. Fire, Health, and Housing Inspections Cont • Most people consent to fire inspections but if they refuse the police must get a search warrant based on public safety • The owner of the property cannot be punished because that is a 4th amendment right to refuse • The “warrant protection clause” is still in place in there situations and the search of private property must be justified by reasonable government interest

23. School Searches on Reasonable Suspicion • Sign warns against taking weapons inside school on Red Lake Indian Reservation where shootings occurred • In light of what happened at the Indian Reservation school in Red Lake Miss and before that, the court has found it is unreasonable to require a teacher to get a search warrant before searching a child. • It would unduly interfere with maintenance of swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools

24. School Searches on Reasonable Suspicion Cont.. • The general rule is students can be searched w/o a warrant based on reasonable suspicion • Example: A student tells a teacher another student has a gun • Students can also have their lockers searched randomly at any time. If as handgun is found it can be used as evidence

25. Drug Testing w/o Probable Cause or a Search Warrant • Private businesses can conduct drug testing of employees without fear of 4th amendment rights since it does not apply to searches by private parties • There was a case where the National Treasury had a policy for submitting to drug testing if employees were seeking a transfer or promotion. (Rules unconstitutional)

26. Drug Testing w/o Probable Cause or a Search Warrant Cont.. • The US Supreme Court identified 3 areas where government interests are sufficient to justify a drug test • Ensuring certain employees have unimpeachable integrity and judgment • Enhancing Public Safety (testing an airline pilot) • Protecting truly sensitive information • Suspicionless drug testing is required of federal, state, and local government employees. • This includes detectives, guards, police officers, firefighters, fire protection specialists, nurses, hazardous waste employees, commercial carriers, locomotive operators, etc..

27. Drug Testing on Reasonable Suspicion • Police officers have diminished expectation of privacy because of their employment. • They must always be mentally and physically alert while driving motor vehicles and must be able to exercise good judgment

28. Drug Testing on Reasonable Suspicion • To believe an officer may be using drugs or a phone tip that an officer recently consumed marijuana is enough to search • School boards may test student athletes w/o a warrant. The Supreme Court states they have a reduced expectation of privacy and that the intrusion to collect a urine sample was basically harmless • Any students participating in any extra-curricular activity can be required to drug test. The Supreme court has refused to hear any cases on this and has left it to the lower courts

29. The Work Related Searches in Government Offices (The Ortega Rule) • Private employers can make work related searches of an employees desk, files, and company owned computers. • This could be done if the employee is sick and another is filling in and fraud is suspected

30. Roadblocks or Vehicle Checkpoints • Roadblocks and checkpoints were used during the Oct 2002 sniper shootings in Washington DC. • Law enforcement and the military used the roadblocks in an attempt to apprehend the snipers who killed 10 people • The Supreme Ct has ruled that checkpoints can be used to check for drunk drivers, driver’s licenses, to detect illegal aliens, fleeing criminals, thwart terrorist activity and other public safety reasons

31. Correctional Programs, Hearing, or Requirements that may Cause a Prison Inmate to Incriminate Himself • Because of the seriousness of the problem sexual assault inmates must disclose to law enforcement, correctional officers, and probation officers and accept responsibility for crimes in which they have been sentenced

32. Other “Special Government Needs” Where Neither Probable Cause Nor Search Warrants Are Needed • The need to supervise persons on probation and parole closely • Illegal Aliens- Near the Mexican Border the Supreme Court has stated there is no need for particularized suspicion before making a routine stop because of the heavy traffic and the ability to justify a possible carrier of illegal aliens • Safety in Jails and Prisons- A persons in jails have a reduced right to privacy and are subject to random checks for weapons and contraband. Even body cavity searches are allowable.