Chapter 1: The Criminal Process: Failures, Choices, and Legitimacy

I.
Failures
A. Investigation Failures

Brown v. Mississippi (1936): Ds were indicted for murder and were found guilty after a trial solely on the basis of their confessions. During the
trial, Ds testified that the confessions were untrue & procured after physical torture.

While the Fifth Amendment still doesnt apply against the states (it wasnt incorporated under 1964), the due process clause does.
The use of the confessions = violation of due process
B. Trial Failures

Powell v. Alabama (1932): 9 black youthsignorant, illiterate were accused of raping 2 white women.

Trials denied due process because Ds were not given reasonable time/opportunity to secure counsel.
Chapter 2:
II. 4th Amright of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc. against unreasonable searches and seizure no warrants shall be issued but upon
probable cause.

Reasonableness clause + warrant clause

Amendment is silent as to the remedies of violating it

A. Exclusionary Rule

Weeks v. United States (1914): Police entered the home of D & seized papers, which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets thru
mail w/o warrant

Any evidence gathered by the fed govt in violation of the 4th Am could not be used as evidence. It was excluded.

Wolf v. Colorado (1949): COSC upheld a number of convictions in which evidence was admitted that would have been inadmissible in a prosecution
for violation of a fed law in a fed ct.

Court held that the 14th Am did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations and that illegally obtained evidence did not
have to be excluded from trials in all cases.

While the exclusion of evidence may have been an effective way to deter unreasonable searches, other methods could be equally effective and
would not fall below the minimal standards assured by the Due Process Clause.

Civil remedies, such as "the internal discipline of the police, under the eyes of an alert public opinion," were sufficient.
Incorporating the Exclusionary Rule

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): D ran a boarding house & cops came in looking for a bomber. Lacking any real warrant (there was some doubt whether
there ever was one), they broke in, and found nude sketches and lascivious books. D appealed on the basis of freedom of expression.

The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the
Constitution is, by the 4th Am inadmissible in a state court."

It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government.

The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
Chapter 3: Passing the threshold of the 4th Amendment
I.
What is a search?
Some factors to determine whether or not a search has occurred
1. The nature of the place (intimate spaces, home)
2. The steps taken to enhance privacy (height of fence)
3. The degree of physical intrusion
4. The nature of the activity observed
5. The availability of the equipment to the general public

Katz v. United States (1967): Acting on a suspicion that D was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, fed
agents attached an listening device to the outside of a public phone booth used by D.

The Amendment protects people, not places. (Not exactly a property rule, not exactly a privacy rule either.)

4th is not a general right to privacy; there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy. What a person knowingly exposes to the public,
even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. Public phone booth.
A. The Katz Doctrine in Application

United States v. White (1971): informant wore a concealed radio transmitter and agents listened and heard D make self-incriminating remarks
regarding his involvement in multiple narcotics transactions.

The 4th Amendment does not protect those who trust someone who turns out to be a police informant Third party disclosure rule

Smith v. Maryland (1979): V was robbed & began receiving suspicious phone calls at her home & she saw a car rolling by her house outside. Cops
traced the car to D, so they had a pen register installed on Ds phone line w/o a warrant to see if D was making the calls to V. One such call to V was
then made on Ds line, so D was arrested

D had no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not legitimate.

No physical invasion of Ds property or a constitutionally protected area because pen register was installed at the phone company

Pen register different than listening device used in Katz because the register does not acquire the contents of the communications, just the
numbers
B. Dog Sniffsdogs only find contraband and one does not have a legitimate interest of privacy w/possessing contraband. Unique and non-intrusive.

United States v. Place (1983): fed drug authorities at LGA subjected a passengers luggage to a sniff test by a dog trained to ID drugs by smell. Dog
sniff = constituted a 4th Amendment search?

K9 sniff does not require opening luggagedoesnt expose noncontraband items that otherwise would be hidden from public view.

The information obtained is limited ensuring that the owner is not subjected to the embarrassment/inconvenience in more intrusive methods.

Illinois v. Caballes (2005): cops used well trained drug detecting dog to sniff the outside of the trunk of a car which was lawfully stopped for a traffic
ticket.

Doesnt compromise any legitimate interest in privacydoesnt expose non-contraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from
public view.
C
Open Fieldsopen field may include any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage of a home.

Hester v. United States (1924): police entry of an open field does implicate the 4th amendment

Oliver v. United States (1984): Officers w/o a warrant or probable cause trespassed on Ds rural property ignoring No trespassing signs and
discovered fields of weed.

Open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities the 4th amendment intended to shelter from govt interference/surveillance.

Open fields do not = a person, house, paper, or effect.

D. What is a curtilage? Four factors from United States v. Dunn (1987)
1. The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to them: 50 feet away from home.
2. Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home

3.
4.

The nature of the uses to which the area is put

The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.

Florida v. Riley (1989): Chopper 400 feet off the ground sees a greenhouse of pot. 2-prong testwas there an ACTUAL EXPECTION OF
PRIVACY? Was that expectation OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE? Actual: Used opaque windows and had do not enter signs. Reasonable: No,
anybody in the public could fly that high up.

California v. Greenwood (1988): REP in trash left for collection? Nopetrash given to 3rd parties.
E. Katz and the New Technology
United States v. Karo (1984): Cops put a beeper inside a container of chemicals, with the consent of the owner, & gave it to someone who didnt know and
monitored it beyond what visual surveillance could have gotten them. No violation: the owner consented, and the buyers possessory interest in the
contents of the container were not in any way damaged. It wasnt a search, and it wasnt a seizure.

Court remands to determine whether the arrest warrant would have been supported by the constitutionally gathered information alone.
Kyllo v. United States (2001): D was growing pot, and the cops used a thermal imager to prove it. They got a warrant on the electric bill, the informant,
and the thermal image. Obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise
have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search.

Important limitation: while the technology is not in public use. As here, this isnt something any member of the public would have access to.

So you want
United States v. Jones (2012): D was arrested for drug possession after cops attached a tracker to Ds Jeep (registered to his wife) w/o a warrant & used
it to follow him for a month. The installation of a GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle, w/o a warrant, constituted an unlawful4th am provided
some protection for trespass onto personal property.
Chapter 4: The Substance of the 4th Amendment
A. Probable Causeto arrest exists where the facts/circumstances w/in the officers knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy info are
sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that
Factors

Physical clues

Previous criminal record

Presence in a high crime area

Flightrunning away from a scene of the crime

Spinelli v. United States (1969): Was there PC for a warrant when the affidavit contained an informants tip that did not provide information to support
its reliability nor did it provide the underlying circumstances which led to the conclusion in the tip? The tip was not a sufficient basis for a finding of
PC. Aguilar: Hearsay information from a CI can establish PC:

Application must set forth some underlying circumstances necessary to enable the magis to independently to judge the validity of the informants
conclusion

Must support that the CI is credible or that the info is reliable

Illinois v. Gates (1983): Is an anonymous tip via a letter that does not include info about where the tipster acquired the info nor about his credibility still
a sufficient basis for determining that there is PC to search Ds house? Yes, but only because the Aguilar-Spinelli test is out (in theory).

Totality of the Circumstances Analysis: Given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis for
knowledge of persons supplying hearsay info, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
B. Arrest Warrants
Payton v. NY (1980): May a police officer enter a private residence without a warrant and with force if necessary in order to make a routine felony arrest,
even if allowed by state law? NO. Absent EC, a WE into a home to search for weapons/contraband is UNCONS even when a felony has been
committed & there is PC to believe that incrim EV will be found there. Watson only allows WE in public places.

Gerstein timeliness req.jurisdiction must provide PC determination w/in 48 hours after a WA absent a bona fide emergency or extraordinary
circumstance.
Exception to the Payton Rule: Minnesota v. Olson (1990): Cops find out 1 day later that an accomplice to gas robbery/murder hiding in an apt w/2
women. Cops enter w/o warrant and arrest. Exigency? No. Cops knew he was there w/no suggestion of danger to the women.
Arrests in a 3rd persons residence: Steagald v. United States (1981): Cops have a valid arrest warrant for D, but hes not in his own home. Arrest warrant
will allow officers to forcibly enter Ds own home but NOT someone elses home.

Police forcibly enter the 3rd partys home w/o a W & find contraband = evidence is suppressed
C. Search Warrants
Exigent Circumstances
Johnson v. US (1948): 4th requires that the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence be drawn by a neutral and detached
magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the crime fighting.
Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (1979): Adult Bookstoresearch warrant violated the 4th Amendment because it did not particularly describe the things to be
seized and left it entirely to the discretion of the officials conducting the search to decide what items were likely obscene and to implement the seizure
AND NO detachedness, judge followed them!

Maryland v. Garrison: A reasonable mistake about the place to be searched will not invalidate a warrant. Need to allow some latitude in
executing warrants

Ybarra v. Ill. (1979): police got valid warrant to search tavern & Greg but searched additional patrons there. The mere fact that youre somewhere
that a search warrant is being executed is NOT by itself probable cause to search you.
Knock & Announcedoes a cop have to do this when they have a valid search or arrest warrant? Maybe use reasonableness standard. K&A protection
of life/limb, property, and privacy.
Dont need to knock: (Wilson v. Arkansas)

Under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence

Where officers are apprehending an escaped prisoner

Where officers have reason to believe that evidence would be likely destroyed if advance notice is given

HOT PURSUIT
Richards v. Wisconsin (1997): In those circumstances when police have good reason to suspect that announcing their presence & intentions may be
dangerous, futile, or result in the destruction of evidence, a "no-knock" entry is justified.
Warden v. Hayden (1967): Is a comprehensive search of a residence without a warrant a violation of the 4th Amdt. if an armed robbery had just occurred
and police received a tip that the alleged robber had just entered the house in question? No, the exigencies of the situation made the warrantless
search for the robber and weapons imperative.
Kentucky v. King (2011): Cops were chasing suspect & mistakenly assumed he went into apt found people smoking. Hearing noises is not enough for
PCif cops create exigent circumstance by violated 4th or threatening to do so= not valid.
Searches Incident To An Arrest
Immediate Area

D.

Chimel v. California (1969): Did a search of Ds entire house including closed desk drawers following his valid arrest amount to an unreasonable
search under 4th? The search was unreasonable because it far exceeded Ds person and immediate area.

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested for weapons & evidence & the area within his
immediate control the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items
Of Person
US v. Robinson (1973): Was a search of a crumpled up cigarette pack in Ds pocket following Ds lawful arrest justifiable as a search incident to arrest?
Yes, in the case of lawful custodial arrest, a full search of the person is not only an exception to the W req, but it is also a reasonable search
under it. JUST= COPS CHECKING FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS
Of Vehicle
NY v. Belton (1981): SpeedingMay a cop search the passenger compartment of a vehicle/containers inside it w/o a W as incident to a valid arrest of
its occupants? Yes, when cop has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of a vehicle, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that
arrest, search the passenger compartment of that vehicle. After Gant, limited to facts
Arizona v. Gant (2009): May a police officer properly search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and its contents as a warrantless search incident
to arrest if the arrestees are secured and cannot possibly reach any of the contents of the vehicle? No, the police are authorized to search a vehicle
incident to a recent occupants arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the
time of the search.

Exception: When it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle, a search incident to
arrest of the vehicle is justified. Not just mere traffic violations!
Whren v. US (1996): Cops pull over driver who had crack in his lap. Would a reasonable cop have stopped them for the unlawful behavior as
connected to the traffic stop? As long as cops have reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they can stop any vehicle.
Vehicle Searches Based on PC
Chambers v. Maroney (1970): Is a Wless seizure of a vehicle unreasonable under the 4th if cops had PC to believe that the fruits & instrumentalities of
crime would be found inside? No...it was a search incident to arrest, cars can self proclaimed exigenciescan be moved & lesser expectation of
privacy than a home.
CA v. Carney (1985): Is a Wless search of a fully mobile motor home reasonable under the vehicle exception to the 4 th W req if cops have PC to believe
that the F&I of crime will be found inside? Yes, motor homes are like cars = exigency. BUT it matters if its not mobilelook at location, mobility
(tires missing?) & license plate & connected to utilities.

CA v. Acevedo (1991): Does 4th req cops to get a W to open a paper bag in a moveable car bc they lack PC to search the entire car? No, cops can
search a car/containers w/in it where they have PC to believe contraband/evidence is contained. If theres PC to believe the car contains
contraband, cops may search entire car + any closed containers therein.
Container Searches
US v. Chadwick (1977): Is a Wless search of a footlocker that the cops have PC to believe contains the F&I of crime valid under the 4 th if it has been seized
by cops & under their exclusive control? Not validfootlocker can only be searched under exigent circumstances. Expectation of privacy, its
mobility doesnt = vehicle exception bc luggage holds personal effects not incident to arrest bc search was remote in time/place from arrest.
Inventory Searches
South Dakota v. Opperman (1976): Was a std inventory search of the contents of a car that was impounded for mult parking violations unreasonable
under 4th if cop found weed in the glove box? No, cops were engaged in a caretaking search of a lawfully impounded carprotection of Ds prop
while in cop custody, pro against claims of lost/stolen prop & pro of cop from potential danger.
Plain View (And Touch) Doctrines
Horton v. CA (1990): Is the Wless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view prohibited by the 4 th if the discovery was not inadvertent? Inadvertence is a
characteristic of PVS but its not a necessary conditionincriminating character must be immediately apparent & Cop must be where they are
constitutionally permitted be and MUST have a lawful right of access to the object itself.
AZ v. Hicks (1987): Bullet shot from floor above & find expensive stereo Can cops conduct a search greater than a cursory examination of an item found
in PV during a lawful search of the premises in order to find out more information about the item? NEED PC to SEARCH the ITEM moving an item to
read the serial # = a search
Consent
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973): Must an individual be advised of his right to refuse consent to a search requested by cops in order to be
reasonable under the 4th? No, the prosecution must only show that the consent was in fact voluntarily given & not the result of duress or
coercion, express or implied.

OH v. Robinette: 4th does not require that a person who was lawfully seized be advised that he is free to go before consent to search will be
recognized as voluntary.
3rd Party Consent
GA v. Randolph (2006): Can cops conduct a search consented to by 3rd party if another cotenant is present & objects to the search? No, one
cotenants consent does not prevail over the wishes of another. Refusal has no effect on exigent circumstances!

US v. Matlock: Consent from a present cotenant beats the rejection of an absent cotenant.
Ill v. Rodriguez (1990): Does a cops mistaken but objectively reasonable belief that a person has common authority to consent to search = search
unreasonable if the person does not live there but had a key? No, 4th guarantees individual that no search will be unreasonable but not that the
judgment of govt officials will always be correct.
Reasonableness Clause: Diminishing Roles of Warrants & PC
Stop & Friskreasonable suspicion = ltd search for the safety of cop/others. Not a search or seizure!
If its a TERRY STOPcant bring person to station. Stop must be brief, but can handcuff/fingerprint someone on the scene.
Terry v. OH (1968): Is it always unreasonable for a cop to seize a person & subject him to a ltd search for weapons unless there is PC for an arrest?
No, where a cop observes unusual conduct that leads him to reasonably believe in light of his experience that suspects might be
armed/dangerous, he is entitled to conduct a ltd search of the outer clothing for the his protection & others. SEARCH FOR WEAPONS ONLY!
Terry Seizures vs. De Facto Arrests
Dunaway v. NY (1979): De facto ArrestDid cops violate 4th s prohibition against unreasonable seizures when they requested that D accompany
them to the station in a police car for interrogation & would have used force if necessary to restrain him but he was not under a technical arrest?
Yes, D was seizedhe was kept at station w/o being told he could go. Seizures are only reasonable when based on PC!

Florida v. Royer: Drug courier profile, seized plane ticket weed found during search must be suppressed bc D was never told he could leave.
He believed he was being detained.
Seizures of Personswould a reasonable person under the circumstances feel free to terminate the encounter
US v. Mendenhall (1980): Was plane passenger seized under 4th when 2 DEA agents confronted her upon deplaning & asked her for her ticket/ID
then asked if she would accompany them to an office for further questioning? No objective reason for D to believe she was not free to end the
conversationTOTALITY of THE CIRCUMSTANCES shows she voluntarily went.

US v. Drayton (2002): Cops requested bus riders to consent to a search. D consented & they found coke. Coke suppressedper se rule: due to
cramped confines on a bus, the act of questioning would deprive a person of his/her freedom of movement and = a seizure under 4th.
CA v. Hodari D. (1991): Was a fleeing suspect seized when a police officer was right behind him chasing him but had not yet had physical contact
with the suspect? No, an arrest requires either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority.
Reasonable Suspicion: Showing Need for Stop/Frisk
AL v. White (1990): Did a cop have RS sufficient to justify a Terry stop when the cop received an anonymous tip that D would be carrying coke & not
all of the info in the tip checked out? Yesthe anonymous tip alone did not provide RS. Anonymous tip + Official corroboration = RS (but not
always)
FL v. JL (2000): Did cops have reasonable suspicion to believe that D would be carrying a gun when they received an anonymous tip that a young,
black male in a plaid shirt at a certain bus stop was carrying a gun? An anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind contemplated
in White does not justify a stop/frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm.
Ill. v. Wardlow (2000): May a cop perform a Terry stop when he sees an individual flee from the scene when the police drive by a high-crime area?
Yeshigh crime area + flight = RS. Flight is not going about ones business.
Extending the Terry Doctrine
Maryland v. Buie (1990): Is a protective sweep of a house to ensure that there are no persons hidden that could harm cops while effecting an arrest
reasonable under 4th? Yes when searching cop possesses a reasonable belief based on specific/articulable facts that the area to be swept
harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. NEED RS and may only be a cursory inspection.
Brief Seizure of Property
US v. Place (1983): Is a 90 min detention of a travelers luggage (for dog sniff) an unreasonable seizure under 4 th if it was part of a Terry stop? Yes,
brief seizure of personal prop during Terry would be so minimally intrusive that it would be justified under RScant prolong the stop for
longer than is reasonably necessary to effectuate the investigation.
Mich v. Long (1983): May a cop search the passenger compartment of a car for weapons if he reasonably believes that the driver is potentially
dangerous? Yes, balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of cops to conduct an area search to uncover weapons as long as they
possess RS.

Terry is not limited to persons only.

Search limited to areas in which weapon might be hidden when cops have RSpatdown of the car. Cant search locked glove compartment!
Special Needs
NY v. Berger (1987): cops asked junkyard owner for permits/records of cars there. D didnt have either. Cops entered w/o PC & arrested him for
stolen prop. Good searchdone for admin purposesall that matters is that admin search had a non-penal purpose. If you work in a field
thats highly regulated lessened expectation of privacy.
NJ v. TLO (1985): Was it unreasonable for a schools VP to search the contents of a students purse 2x bc he reasonably believed that she was
smoking in the lavatory against school rules? No. 4th protections do not extend to students @ schoolno warrant req bc it would unduly
interfere w/the maintenance of swift/informal disciplinary procedures needed at schools.

Search is justified when at its inception there is reasonable grounds that the search will turn up evidence that the student is violating the
law/rules of school. Searches are to be reasonable in light of the context, age/gender of the student.
Checkpoints
Mich Dept of State Police v. Sitz (1990): Is a highway checkpoint consistent w/4ths prohibition on unreasonable seizures? Yesgovt interest:
drunk driving is a serious problem. Private interest: intrusion is slight as theyre only detained briefly.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000): Is a drug-detection checkpoint on a road violative of the 4th? Yes since the purpose of the checkpoint was
general crime control it violates 4th absent individualized suspicion. Purpose of the checkpoint must relate to important interests of
policing the borders or ensuring roadway safety.
Ill. v. Lidster (2004): Is a highway checkpoint for info gathering about a crime that had occurred a week earlier unreasonable under 4 th? No, info
stops dont require individualized suspicion bc cops can always approach someone & ask them qs.
Chapter 5: Remedies for 4th Amendment Violations
A. Standingfocus on the extent of a particular Ds rights under 4th: DID THE VIOLATION HAPPEN TO THEM?
Alderman v. US (1969): Suppression of the product of a 4th violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights are aggrieved solely by the
introduction of the damaging evidence. 4th rights are PERSONAL rights and cannot be asserted vicariously.
US v. Payner (1980): IRS agents deliberately told to ignore the 4th prohibition against unreasonable seizures/search the briefcase of a banker in order to
charge the bankers customers. Bankers customers still did not have standing to bring a 4th claim for suppression despite the bad faith of the IRS
agents in violating the bankers 4th rights.
Rakas v. Ill. (1978): May passengers in a car that was the subject of an uncons search assert the EX Rule to exclude the evidence obtained from that
search against them? Ex Rule for 4th violations does not extend to violations of 4th rights of 3rd parties4th are personal rights.

IF THE STOP ITSELF WAS ILLEGAL, EVERYONE IN THE CAR HAS A SUPPRESSION CLAIM

IF THE STOP WAS LEGAL, BUT THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL, THEN PASSENGERS DONT HAVE A SUPRRESSION CLAIM (NEED POSSESSORY
INTEREST)
o
Must show legit expectation of privacy was violated by search. Ownership is but one factor to consider Rawlings v. KY

PENN V. MIMMS: Cops can order everyone out of a car & if they have reasonable suspicion, they can do a Terry pat down of the occupants.
Minn. v. Olson: In general, an overnight guest has a legit expectation of privacy in his hosts home despite not having a legal interest in the premises. Dont
need to actually spend the night, need requisite intent to do so.

Minn. v. Carter (1998): Does a temp houseguest who is not staying overnight have a legit expectation of privacy such that he can object to an
allegedly unreasonable search of the house? Olson doesnt apply: One who is merely present w/consent of the house owner may not object.
Expectations of privacy are diminished when premises are just used for commercial transactions (drug sales).
B.

The Exclusionary Ruleevidence obtained in violation of 4th is suppressed at trial meant to deter cops/encourage good police work.
Mapp v. OH (1961): (see above) + Fruits Doctrine: if initial conduct violated 4th, then all fruits of the search/seizure will be excluded from evidence unless
sufficiently purged of the taint.
Independent Sourceapplies . . . to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from
activities untainted by the initial illegality.
Murray v. US (1988): Must evidence obtained thru legal search be suppressed if an illegal search was conducted prior to the legal one, but
knowledge gained from the illegal search was NOT used to obtain the warrant? Probably nothas to be determined
Nix v. Williams (1984): Should the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine apply to allow admission of evidence that would have been discovered if search
teams continued as they would have if D had not led the police to the victims body? Yes.

Inevitable Discovery Doctrine: If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or
inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the evidence should be admitted into evidence

Excluding such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in, which is contrary to the interests of
society
Attenuation or Dissipation of Taint Doctrine
Wong Sun v. US (1963): Did release from custody and a 2-week period sufficiently attenuate the taint of the unlawful police conduct in order for the later,
voluntary statements to be admissible? Yes.

Attenuation Doctrine: (Purging the Taint) Whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence sought to be admitted has
come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint
US v. Leon (1984): Should the 4th ExR be modified so as to not bar the admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search
warrant that is subsequently held to be defective? NoER is meant to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges.
When exception wont apply:

Magistrate or judge was misled by info in the affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false but for reckless disregard for
the truth

Magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role (Lo-ji Sales)

Where a warrant is so facially deficient that no reasonable officers could reasonably presume it to be valid

Fails to particularize things

Exclusionary Rule Narrowed
Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984): Did officers reasonably rely on a search warrant issued by a judge that was defective because it included a
authorization to search for materials for which the officers had no PC and it didnt incorporate the supporting affidavit? YES

Officers are not required to disbelieve a judge who had advised an officer and assured him that it authorized the search

Judicial mistake = no suppression

Hudson v. Michigan (2006): Does a violation of the Wilson knock-and-announce rule when police were conducting a legal, warranted search of Ds house
subject the evidence found pursuant to the search to the Exclusionary Rule? Nothe illegal manner of entry was not the but-for cause of obtaining
the evidence, as the police would still have obtained the evidence but-for the illegal manner of entry.

Exclusionary rule inapplicableinterests violated have nothing to do w/the seizure of evidence.

Knock and Announce = no protection for seizure of evidence.

Herring v. US (2009): Should the exclusionary rule apply to evidence found during a search incident to arrest if the arrest is subsequently invalidated due
to a revoked warrant on which the officers reasonably relied in arresting D? NO.

The conduct at issue here was not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion, as it was merely negligent and not reckless or deliberate.
Conduct must be deliberate to trigger exclusionary rule.
Police Interrogation Without Torture
Lisenba v. CA (1941): upheld death penalty where D was held for 24 hours, slapped & deprived of sleep/food, after which a confession was given. Your
confession doesnt have to necessarily come form wholesome placeafter the initial Miranda reading, they dont have to continue.
Totality of Voluntariness
Spano v. NY (1959): (Italian Immigrant) Was a confession voluntarily obtained if D repeatedly asked to speak with his attorney but wasnt allowed and D
refused to speak until his friend/new cop convinced him to talk? No.

Balancing of interests: States interest in prompt and efficient law enforcement with interest in preventing the rights of individuals from
being abridged through unconstitutional methods of law enforcement. Police must obey the law while enforcing it

Totality of the situation: D was overborne by official pressure, fatigue, and sympathy, foreign status, etc.

Confessions will be invalidated if it was obtained through either physical coercion or through an inherently coercive situation. Such
confessions violate the Due Process Clauses of the 5th/14th and are not tolerated by SC.
Miranda v. AZ: Must a suspect be informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination & assistance of counsel & give a voluntary and intelligent
waiver of those rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a confession? Yes.

Prophylactic: Procedural measures put into place to protect suspects rights

Rights are a prerequisite to the admissibility of statements.

So violation of Miranda does NOT necessarily mean that 5th rights were violated

Statements taken in violation of Miranda cannot be used in the States case-in-chief (but everything might be suppressed if due to
physical coercion)

But derivative evidence can be used (United States v. Patane)

Statement can be used for impeachment (Harris v. New York)

New York v. Quarles: Was a cop justified in questioning a D immediately upon detention about the whereabouts of a gun that the cop believed was
missing without advising D of his Miranda rights in the name of public safety? Yes, the need for answers in a situation posing a threat to the
public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the 5ths privilege against self-incrimination.

Public Safety exception: There is a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda rights be given before questioning

Does NOT depend on the officers subjective state of mind

Exception is sui generis general danger to public safety = exigent circumstances here

Classic Q: Where is the victim?

Black-Letter Law: No Miranda warnings are necessary as a condition of admissibility for voluntary statements made during custodial
interrogation in circumstances where a reasonable police officer might believe the question necessary to protect the safety of the public
(including the suspect and the officer).
Oregon v. Elstad: Does an initial failure to administer Miranda warnings before questioning a suspect taint a subsequent voluntary, warned
confession that was given after Miranda warnings were given and waived? No, the fact that his first statement was not Mirandized does NOT
knock out his second mirandized statement. You can cure a Miranda violation by mirandizing and repeating questioning.
Missouri v. Seibert: Cops start questioning pre-Miranda. Tape it. Then mirandize you and then get the entire story. Court: where theres an
intentional disregard of the constitutional principle of Miranda inadmissible. Mistake of Miranda must be in good faith.
Dickerson v. United States: Was Miranda a cons decision such that a statute enacted by Congress essentially overruling it is invalid? Yes.

Miranda is a constitutional rule: Congress may not legislatively supersede decisions interpreting & applying the Constitution. Began
being applied to the states and continued that way. Court granted cert. to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcements
agencies and courts to follow. Stare decisis weighs in favor of leaving Miranda alone.