1. Unit 3 The Fourth Amendment

2. The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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. (emphasis added)

3. Is there a Fourth Amendment issue? Note: There must be an illegal search and/or seizure for there to be a Fourth Amendment issue. Is it a Search? – government intrudes on person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. If yes, then is it reasonable? – If yes, there is no Fourth Amendment issue regarding the search. – If no, then there is a Fourth Amendment issue. Is it a Seizure? – government interferes with person’s possessory rights in property. If yes, then is it reasonable? – If yes, there is no Fourth Amendment issue regarding the seizure. – If no, then there is a Fourth Amendment issue.

4. Searches A search is a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected location (e.g. persons, houses, papers, and effects) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)277 U.S. 438 (1928) Police intercepted and recorded Olmstead’s private phone conversations from a device located in a public street. Issue: Did the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations, violate the recorded party's Fourth Amendment rights? Was wiretapping considered a search? Ruling: No. Wiretapping in this situation was not considered a search. – The Court said, "The amendment does not forbid what was done here. There was no searching. There was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the use of the sense of hearing and that only. There was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants."

5. Searches Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)389 U.S. 347 (1967) Katz used public pay phone booth to illegally gamble. FBI recorded the conversations by a device attached to the outside of the booth. Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? Ruling: – Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations. An illegal search had taken place because wiretapping is considered a search. A warrant is needed. – Physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.“

6. Searches The “Terry Stop” or the “Stop and Frisk” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)392 U.S. 1 (1968) Officers suspected two men of “casing a job, a stick- up” after observing their ritualistic behavior. Issue: Was the search of Terry and seizure of the weapons in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Ruling: No, the search and seizure was not illegal. The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Police may perform a quick frisk search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. – Reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

7. When is it not a search? 1.No government involvement 2.Abandoned property 3.Matters exposed to the public 4.Canine inspections United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)462 U.S. 696 (1983) Suspicions arose of Mr. Place in the Miami airport. Miami contacted La Guardia airport. DEA took his luggage to Kennedy to have a dog sniff the luggage. DEA retained the luggage, got a warrant, and found cocaine. Issue: Did the "sniff test" by the dog constitute a search? Was the ninety minute seizure of the traveler's luggage a valid investigative stop under Terry? Ruling: No. The Court said the sniff does not require opening the luggage; it does not expose things that are not contraband to public view. The sniff of a dog is intended to reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics. Yes, the Court said that the ninety minute seizure was unreasonable, for they had adequate time to obtain a warrant.

8. Seizures Seizures occur when the police deprive people of liberty or property. Must not be “unreasonable”! Seizure of persons can occur during: Stops (Like the Terry Stop) Justified by reasonable suspicion Specific, articulable facts lead officer to conclude criminal activity occurring Arrests Require probable cause Sufficient evidence to support conclusion that person committed a crime

9. Warrants Warrants are issued: – only upon probable cause, and – describing person or place to be searched and objects to be seized Constitutional Warrantless Searches 1.Search incident to arrest 2.“Stop & frisk” (reasonable suspicion) 3.Automobile searches 4.Consent search 5.Special needs 6.Exigent circumstances (see Kentucky v. King)

10. Exigent Circumstances Kentucky v. King, 179 L. Ed. 865 (2011) Police set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine. Police observed a controlled buy. Officers chased suspect to apartment and suspect closed door. Officers could hear movement inside as if evidence was being destroyed. Officers knocked, announced their presence, kicked in the door and entered. In plain view was marijuana and powder cocaine. Issue: Does the exigent circumstances exception apply when police, by announcing their presence, cause the occupants to destroy evidence? Ruling: Court said yes. Police do not create an exigency by simply knocking and announcing their presence. Police are justified in making a warrantless entry into a home “to prevent the immediate destruction of evidence.”

11. Exclusionary Rule Chief mechanism for protection against illegal searches and seizures Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)367 U.S. 643 (1961) Cleveland Police Department received a tip that Mapp and daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive. Police immediately went to her house and demanded entrance. Entered home without a warrant. This case placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. Excludes any evidence later developed through illegal search.  “Fruit of the poisonous tree”

12. Discussion Rochin v. CaliforniaRochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)