1. 4th Amendment
In October, investigators say Officer Weems pulled over a car at 2021 North Highland Avenue in Madison County. Weems claimed the car did not have headlights.
According to police, Weems conducted a pat down of the passenger and removed $200 from the man’s pocket.
Veteran Jackson police officer Robbie Weems has been indicted on charges of theft and official misconduct he stole money from a passenger during a traffic stop.
Disclaimer: This is not a lesson on how to hide contraband and get away with it! These laws are meant to PROTECT you from intrusions of privacy, not to ensure that you won’t get in trouble when searched.

2. Protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. 
Need Search Warrant (probable cause, oath, and description of place)
HOWEVER not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. 
Seems simple but search and seizure law is complex
4th Amendment

3. Terms to Know
UNREASONABLE: Arbitrary; not guided by or based on good sense PROBABLE CAUSE: police has the facts that support the belief that the person in question broke the law In other words… police can’t search a home, car, or person without some kind of justification (usually a reasonable belief that they will find evidence of a crime there OR stop a crime in progress) Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)

4. How to determine an “Unreasonable Search?”
FIRST STEP – DEFENSE ATTORNEY! Court looks at facts and circumstances of each case
*IF unreasonable search determined, any evidence found in search cannot be used at the trial
- CALLED EXCLUSIONARY RULE
*not a “get out of trial” card
Evidence seized cannot be used at trial

5. First Question – Was there a search warrant
First Question – Was there a search warrant? Def: a piece of paper from a judge that gives an officer permission to search a person or place
Judge  convinced that there is a REAL NEED to search
Officer has
PROBABLE CAUSE
- Officer must present
UNDER OATH
- NEUTRAL magistrate (no connection or overzealous to the case) State v. Freemont
- Officer must
SPECIFY what they are LOOKING FOR and WHERE they want to look
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

6. Search Warrant Basics
#1. Limited Time Period (avg 10 days) #2. Some States – only executed during the DAY #3. SPECIFIC - Does NOT necessarily authorize a general search of EVERYTHING in a specified place

7. Police like search warrants for drugs and/or small stolen items because they allow them to search EVERYWHERE because these thing could be hidden anywhere.
So if they happen to find a stash of kiddie porn in a desk drawer it would be completely legal evidence to use in court

8. Scenario – not a search of everywhere
If the police have the warrant to search a house for stolen 20” TVs or other larger items, it would be UNREASONABLE for them to look in desk drawers, envelopes, or other small places where a TV could not possibly be hidden

9. What if they find something else (ex: drugs) while searching for the TVs? .
If cop opens a closet and find drugs in there, it was a reasonable place to search (a TV will fit in the closet).
The drugs can be used against the suspect
However, if cop opens a drawer where a TV could not fit, and finds drugs, it is inadmissible.

10. Search Warrant exceptions

11. #1 Lawful arrest - most common exception
Fred is arrested for being drunk and disorderly. When he is taken to the police station, he is searched and narcotics are found in his pocket. He may be arrested for possession.
#1 Lawful arrest
- most common exception
Allows police to search a LAWFULLY arrested person and the area IMMEDIATELY around that person for hidden weapons or for evidence that might be destroyed
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If arrested in house, officers allowed to search places where someone might jump out or where the arrestee might have a weapon.
HIS/HER ENTIRE HOUSE may NOT be searched unless police have a search warrant as well as arrest warrant

12. #2 CONSENT When person VOLUNTARILY agrees to a search
WITHOUT Probable Cause AND Search Warrant
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
**Remember back to the Intro Scenarios:
A person may legally allow the police to conduct a search of another person’s property (parent/child)

13. #3 Plain View
If object connected to crime is in PLAIN VIEW and can be seen by an officer from a place he/she HAS A RIGHT to be, it CAN BE SEIZED without a warrant
Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
Purse – NOT PLAIN VIEW
Cop to search a bag, probable cause is needed
- Can ask you – if you say yes – they can
- if you say no – they can’t unless they arrest me (#1)

14. Go back to TVs Scenario Cops can’t open drawer and charge you with drug possession
HOWEVER if drawer was already open and there are drugs in it, then they are in "Plain View".
They will just go call the judge and have him fax or an update to the warrant. (few minutes, to a few days)
The officer did not have to open the drawer and search it, so those items are admissible in court

15. #4 Stop and Frisk
If officer thinks a person is behaving suspiciously and is likely armed, he/she can be searched
 pat down out clothes – cannot manipulate objects to feel what they are)
 if cop feels an object that is NOT a weapon but is immediately apparent to the cops as drugs, he can seize the drugs
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Why allowed?
*safety of officers and bystanders (who might be injured by a person carrying a concealed weapon)
*Don’t need to give reason to suspect, only to a supervisor and/or judge later on (that he/she had a reason that he/she thought a crime had happened or about to happen)

16. Anyone heard of the Terry Stop? Real Case 1968
What is it? Def: a brief seizure of a person for the purpose of investigation - as part of this question-asking, officers are allowed to do a LIMITED frisk for their OWN SAFETY (to make sure the person to whom they are talking doesn’t have a weapon) Supreme Court Challenge  Court said Terry Stop is brief and less intrusive than an arrest and full search – lower standard justified

17. Reasons to stop someone:
- Loitering and appears not to fit the time and place (looking for something) - Matches a “WANTED” poster - Acts strangely, or emotional, fearful, angry, intoxicated - Running away - Present at a crime scene
Depends on - # of officers present, # of suspects and size

18. Reasons to stop someone:
AND - Present in a high-crime area (HOWEVER must be with something else)
*Sam Wardlow Case
Wardlow – 44 yr old black man
- Standing on sidewalk in Chicago’s West Side (a high crime area)
- He sees police officers
- EVEN THOUGH HE WASN’T DOING ANYTHING WRONG…
he started running away
Police saw him running – chased him down  Caught him – patted him down – found a handgun
The fact that he was running in a high crime area gave them “reasonable suspicion” that he may have been doing something illegal ~ Illinois v. Wardlow

19. #5 Emergency Situations when a crime is being committed (need probable cause)
In certain emergencies  searching a building after a telephoned bomb threat, entering a house after smelling smoke or hearing screams, and other situations where police doesn’t have time to get a warrant
Hot Pursuit of a suspect – can enter a building that the suspect entered and can also seize evidence

20. Officer Smith is walking past Mrs
Officer Smith is walking past Mrs. Jones’ store when she rushes out screaming “Help, police!” She tells officer that she has been robbed by someone who had a gun, a red sweatshirt, and glasses. The person took the credit card machine with him along with a paper bag of the money from the cash register. The officer looks up and sees a man with the same description running and carrying a paper bag. The officer MAY arrest the man and use any objects on him as evidence against him.
BUT if the officer does NOT see anyone and takes Mrs. Jones to the police station where she identifies the robber from a lineup, an arrest warrant is necessary before the officer goes to his house and arrests him . A search warrant is also necessary to search the suspects house for the stolen money and credit card machine.

21. #6 Border/Airport Searches
Customs agents are authorized to search without warrants and without probable cause
Baggage (including carry-on)
Person (metal detectors)
Purse and/or Wallet
Vehicles
Similar belongings entering country
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

22. #7 Public Place
Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to search a trash can that a homeowner sets out for collection in a publicly accessible area next to his house, according to a federal appeals court ruling.
Also applies to conversations with wiretapped informants
U.S. v. Redmon, No , 7th Cir., March 10, 1998.
White (1971)
No reasonable expectation of privacy for things that you make no definite attempt to keep private

23. Review: Legal or Illegal Search? Why?
Police see James standing at a bus stop on a downtown street, in an area where there is extensive drug dealing. The officers ask James if they can look in his bag and he says yes. They open the bag and find drugs
Review: Legal or Illegal Search? Why?
Legal Search - CONSENT

24. Review: Legal or Illegal Search? Why?
After Tyler checks out of a hotel, the cops ask the manager to turn over the contents of the trash can, where they find notes planning a murder
Review: Legal or Illegal Search? Why?
Legal Search – PUBLIC PLACE

25. Review: Legal or Illegal Search? Why?
Ray is seen shoplifting at the mall. Police chase him home and arrest him down the street from his house. They search the house without a warrant and find a lot of stolen car stereos
Review: Legal or Illegal Search? Why?
Illegal Search – NO SEARCH WARRANT

26. #8 YOUTH Consensual Encounter
An officer can stop and take to youth in 3 situations
Consensual Encounter
If a officer sees a youth in public place, he does not need a warrant to talk to the youth. The youth does not need to answer if he does not want to. HOWEVER, not talking with an officer could help the officer form “reasonable suspicion”
#8 YOUTH

27. #8 YOUTH Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable Suspicion
If the officer has reasonable suspicion that a youth is committing a crime, is about to commit a crime, or is likely to commit a crime, the officer can detain the person and ask them a few questions
#8 YOUTH

28. Welfare Checks
Officers can ask questions to make sure that the youth is o.k. (past curfew, skipping school, look sick)
#8 YOUTH

29. #9 VEHICLE SEARCHES
Consent searches – if citizens voluntarily agrees to a search, they waive their Fourth Amendment rights (the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure).  Anything found in the vehicle from this search can be used as evidence against a defendant.
Plain view rule – if there is something illegal or contraband in plain view from the outside of the vehicle, the police officer is entitled to conduct a search.
Incident to arrest – if a driver is arrested for driving under the influence, authorities are permitted to perform a vehicle search.
Exigent circumstances – if the police officer feels that he/she or bystanders are at risk, or evidence is in danger of being destroyed, it is lawful to conduct a search.
Probable cause – if the police officer has reason to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed, a warrant-less search is permissible.

30. Search and Seizures, Due Process, and Public Schools
Homework - TONIGHT
Search and Seizures, Due Process, and Public Schools

31. 4th Amendment- “unreasonable” searches and seizures
Privacy and making sure public schools don’t get overzealous in investigating violations
5th Amendment – “Due Process”
School officials who plan to discipline a student must provide the alleged wrongdoer with 2 rights:
Schools CANNOT hold or punish without specific Information about the charges and the evidence behind it
A chance to tell his/her story
(not elaborate – P. Office)

32. Situations where 4th and 5th would likely apply:
Drug Testing students in extracurricular activities
Drug-sniffing dogs on campus
Locker searches and metal detectors
Backpacks, wallet, personal computer searches
Searching student’s car in parking lot
Pocket Searches

33. BALANCE Between school safety and discipline versus student rights
Criminal Standard
Law enforcement – “probable cause” that a crime had been committed
= presenting evidence to judge – obtain warrant – search private property
School Standard
“reasonable suspicion” – no warrant necessary
Why different standard? AGE and VULNERABILITY of student population and need of school officials to look out for their health and safety
PROTECT SCHOOL AND EDUCATIONAL PROCESS
Is it against school policy ?

34. Students’ Rights
If contraband items are in plain view – can be seized without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant

35. Students’ Rights
(2) Lockers -expectancy of privacy – none -Why? Schools own lockers (policy) *control lockers DO NOT NEED REASONABLE INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION TO SEARCH LOCKERS The search may begin when: a drug dog indicates that there may be some contraband such as drugs in the locker, when a student reports concern of what another student may have in his locker, or when the administration calls for a random search.

36. Students’ Rights NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION to search personal items
(3) Purses and Book Bags
NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION to search personal items
New Jersey v. T.L.O.

37. New Jersey v. T.L.O.
In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey, found T.L.O. and another girl smoking in a restroom—a place that was by school rule a nonsmoking area.
The two girls were taken to the principal's office where T.L.O.'s companion admitted that she had been smoking in the restroom.
T.L.O. denied smoking there. She denied that she smoked at all.
An assistant vice-principal demanded to see T.L.O.'s purse.
Searching through it he found a pack of cigarettes. He also found rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills, and two letters that indicated that T.L.O. was involved in marijuana dealing at the high school.
T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she confessed that she had sold marijuana at the school.

38. New Jersey v. T.L.O. Supreme Court:
A juvenile court sentenced her to a year's probation.
The State Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that T.L.O.'s 4th Amendment rights had been violated.
The State of New Jersey asked that the Supreme Court hear its appeal
Supreme Court:
The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse.

39. Students’ Rights Pat-downs – minimally intrusive
(4) Body Searches, Pat-downs, Pocket Searches
Courts have ruled:
Pat-downs – minimally intrusive
Strip Searches – highly intrusive (require probable cause) *see homework case
Pocket Searches –
*are lawful if school officials have reasonable suspicion or reasonable cause to believe that the student has contraband

40. Students’ Rights
(4) Body Searches, Pat-downs, Pocket Searches Let’s take a look: What Do You think homework
By an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld a ruling that the school and its officials violated the U.S. constitutional right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

43. Students’ Rights
(5) Canine Searches Non-intrusive since there is no expectation of privacy in the air around objects -only explore what is within “plain smell”

44. Students’ Rights Vernonia School District v. Acton
(6) Student Drug Testing
Vernonia School District v. Acton
In the mid-1980s, officials in the school district in Vernonia, noticed a rise in drug use among the students
*Disciplinary problems arose in frequency and severity.
*Student athletes were "the leaders of the drug culture" prevalent among Vernonia's students
* School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of
sports-related injury.
All student athletes would be required to submit to the program as a condition of participating in athletics.
*All athletes were tested at the beginning of the season
*10% of the athletes were selected randomly every week to provide a urine sample.
The samples were collected in a manner that preserved the students' modesty.
 If a student's sample tested positive, the student was given the option of either
undergoing counseling and submitting to six weekly drug tests or
sitting out the remainder of that season as well as the following season.
James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing

45. Students’ Rights BUT REMEDIATION and HEALTH
(6) Student Drug Testing con’t
Vernonia School District v. Acton
Supreme Court – agreed
Student athletes – leaders of drug culture
Since voluntary – themselves under rule
Test’s purpose – NOT PUNISH
BUT REMEDIATION and HEALTH
Board of Education v. Earls
Have right to impose random drug testing as a condition for students to participate in virtually any extracurricular activity

46. Students’ Rights
(7) Car Searches T.L.O. applied to Student vehicles searches by school officials parked on school property

47. Any Questions?

48. 5th Amendment – what do people think of? Reward Challenge

49. What does it all mean?
Issues of privacy, search and seizures, and due process rights can be highly charged and emotional
COLLISION between
Need to keep students safe and give them due process
and
the desire to let them learn and grow will continue