1.  What is the exclusionary rule  Explain stop and frisk  What is the plain view doctrine  What did Miranda v Arizona require police to do  What happens at a booking 1

2. The rule of Law 2

3. 1) Exclusionary rule and the exceptions 2) Importance of Terry v. Ohio 3) Reasonable suspicion/Probable Cause 4) Elements of a search warrant 5) What can be seized with a warrant 6) Searches that can be made without a warrant 7) Miranda 8) Search and Seizure 3

4.  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 4

5. 1) As part of their investigations police must search for evidence and then seize it to be used in a trial 2) The fourth amendment protects suspects from unreasonable searches and seizures 3) To conduct this search a police officer must have a search warrant 5

6. 1) A search warrant is issued by a judge giving the officers permission to search a particular area looking for specific items 2) A police officer must offer sworn testimony to the judge that facts they are presenting are true 3) A search warrant requires three elements 6

7. 1) Reasonableness 1) The area to be searched must be reasonable, compared to the crime 2) Particularity 1) The warrant must state: where, when, and items to be seized 3) Probable cause 1) Based on fact the officer must have reasonable, reliable and objective information that the person to be searched has committed the offense 7

8. 1) A search warrant cannot be issued without probable cause 2) Probable cause is: Evidence, conditions, and circumstances that leads a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and the accused is the person who did it 3) Has to pass the “reasonable person” doctrine in that a reasonable person has to believe that a crime has taken place and that person is the one who did it 8

9.  A police officer must provide factual evidence in the form of a written affidavit that defines and identifies the suspicious activity  Sources  Police observation  Private citizens observation  Police informant  Co-conspirator  The victim 9

10. 1) A police officer can conduct an investigative stop and briefly detain and question a person for investigative purposes when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by facts. 2) Police do not need probable cause, only belief that a crime may be committed 3) This is a lower standard than probable cause and would not allow a search warrant 10

11. 1) Landmark supreme court case that established the polices ability to stop and frisk 2) The stop allows police to briefly detain a suspicious person 3) The frisk allows the officer to pat down the outer garments in order to check for weapons, 4) They are two separate actions and each require factual basis 11

12. 1) Most involve exigent circumstances 2) Judges find that officers need probable cause and exigent circumstances or they must have a warrant 3) Even in exigent circumstances police must use the reasonableness doctrine (prior behavior cannot be involved) 12

13. 5) Stop and Frisk: This is two actions that each require their own factual basis 6) Search incident to a lawful arrest: when making an arrest an officer can search the suspect and the area in their immediate control the search must be 1) conducted at the time of the arrest 2) only the suspect and the area they controlled 13

14. 7) Automobile searches: In supreme court case Carroll v United States (1925) it was determined that a car search is different than a personal or home Supreme court case Ross v United States (1982) determined that if probable cause exists that an automobile contains criminal evidence police can search the vehicle including the glove box and trunk 14

15. 7) Searching drivers and passengers Pennsylvania v Mimms the court ruled that drivers can be search Maryland v Wilson determined that the passenger can be searched as long as it was a lawful stop 15

16. 9) Pretext stop officers can stop a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and search the car (Whren v United States 1996) 10) Consent searches when a person gives the police consent to search an area they waive their 4 th amendment protections 16

17. 11) Bus Sweeps Florida v Bostick 1991 upheld the police entering a bus and asking for id and tickets then asking for permission to search luggage 12) Plain View if while conducting a lawful investigation an officer sees evidence in plain view they can seize the material and use it in court 17

18. 13) Curtilage officers can search an open field from legal air space by plane or helicopter, this evidence would be under the plain view doctrine 18

19. Electronic Surveillance The use of devices to listen to and record the conversations of suspects Katz v United States 1967 the FBI used a device to listen to conversations on public phone booths by listening through the walls, the supreme court ruled that they must have a warrant to do this 19

20.  Case starts out in a court of “original jurisdiction” this is where the case is heard for the first time  The defendant appeals their conviction to a court of appeals  If the appeal fails, the defendant then requests that their case be heard by the Supreme court of the state  A writ of certiorari is filed with the Federal Supreme court 20

21. 1) Evidence that is gained illegally cannot be used in court 2) Weeks v United States 1914 a) Weeks was accused of mail fraud, his home was searched without a warrant, he was convicted. The case went to the supreme court which overturned the lower courts decision based on the 4 th amendment b) This ruling established the Exclusionary rule 3) Mapp v Ohio 1961 a fake warrant was used to gain evidence, the case went to the supreme court and the court decided the exclusionary rule applies to states also 21

22. 4) Exceptions to the exclusionary rule a) Independent source exception: if an officer makes an arrest, then calls for a warrant to search the warrant is approved but has not arrived yet they can search 5) Good faith exception: if a warrant has a technical fault but is executed in good faith it still is good 6) Inevitable discovery rule: even though the information was obtained in violation of Miranda if it would have been discovered anyway it could still be used 22