Searches and the Bill of Rights

General concerns regarding crime scene searches and seizure of evidence Was the search itself legal? Was the search itself legal? Was the specific piece of evidence seized within the confines of a legal search? Was the specific piece of evidence seized within the confines of a legal search?

Bill of Rights Protections Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” “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.”

Bill of Rights Protections Fifth Amendment “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Bill of Rights Protections Sixth Amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witness against him …. [and] to have the assistance of council for his defense.”

Bill of Rights Protections Fourteenth Amendment “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Pertinent Supreme Court Rulings 1914 – Weeks v. United States – Ruled that federal courts must exclude any evidence that was illegally obtained even though it be relevant and material to the case [The Exclusionary Rule.] 1914 – Weeks v. United States – Ruled that federal courts must exclude any evidence that was illegally obtained even though it be relevant and material to the case [The Exclusionary Rule.] 1925 – Carroll v. United States – Ruled that evidence derived from inadmissable evidence may also be deemed inadmissable [Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine] – Carroll v. United States – Ruled that evidence derived from inadmissable evidence may also be deemed inadmissable [Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine] – Mapp v. Ohio – Ruled that the exclusionary principle applied equally to state courts – Mapp v. Ohio – Ruled that the exclusionary principle applied equally to state courts.

Pertinent Supreme Court Rulings 1990 – Minnesota v. Olson – Protection against warrantless search extended to persons staying overnight with friends – Minnesota v. Olson – Protection against warrantless search extended to persons staying overnight with friends. Similar rulings applied protection to hotel rooms, even the cardboard boxes of the homeless. Similar rulings applied protection to hotel rooms, even the cardboard boxes of the homeless.

Pertinent Supreme Court Rulings 1984 – United States v. Leon – Permits use of evidence obtained while using a search warrant whose original reasoning for issuance was invalid if issued by a neutral magistrate. [Good faith rule.] 1984 – United States v. Leon – Permits use of evidence obtained while using a search warrant whose original reasoning for issuance was invalid if issued by a neutral magistrate. [Good faith rule.] 1984 – Nix v. Williams – Evidence which was illegally obtained is admissible if it can be shown that it would have discovered by legal means anyway. [Inevitable discovery rule.] 1984 – Nix v. Williams – Evidence which was illegally obtained is admissible if it can be shown that it would have discovered by legal means anyway. [Inevitable discovery rule.] 1987 – Arizona v. Hicks – Moving an object not related to a search in order to record serial numbers because of suspicion the object may be involved in another crime is an illegal ‘search.’ 1987 – Arizona v. Hicks – Moving an object not related to a search in order to record serial numbers because of suspicion the object may be involved in another crime is an illegal ‘search.’

Warrantless Searches Several exceptions exist where warrantless searches are authorized: Consent searches Consent searches Emergency searches Emergency searches Searches incident to arrest Searches incident to arrest Stop-and-frisk searches Stop-and-frisk searches Plain-view searches Plain-view searches Automobile searches Automobile searches Open-field searches Open-field searches

Consent Searches Police can search without a warrant when a suspect gives them permission. Police can search without a warrant when a suspect gives them permission. Original detention of suspect must be lawful. Original detention of suspect must be lawful. Suspect does not have to be told they have the right to withhold consent or be given the Miranda warning. Suspect does not have to be told they have the right to withhold consent or be given the Miranda warning. Person giving consent must have legal authority to do so. Person giving consent must have legal authority to do so. Suspect can revoke consent at any time and can place limits on consent relative to a specific area or container. Suspect can revoke consent at any time and can place limits on consent relative to a specific area or container. It is best practice to get the consent in writing although that is not required. It is best practice to get the consent in writing although that is not required.

Emergency Searches A search may be made without a warrant if there is (1) a danger to life, (2) a threat of the suspect escaping, or (3) a threat of the removal or destruction of evidence. A search may be made without a warrant if there is (1) a danger to life, (2) a threat of the suspect escaping, or (3) a threat of the removal or destruction of evidence. Investigating officer(s) must be able to demonstrate that such dire circumstances existed or any evidence will be ruled illegal. Investigating officer(s) must be able to demonstrate that such dire circumstances existed or any evidence will be ruled illegal.

Pertinent Supreme Court Rulings on warrantless searches 1969 – Chimel v. California – An arresting officer may search the arrestee’s person to discover and remove weapons and to seize evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction, and may search the area “within the immediate control” (basically arms length) of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. However, the officer may not go beyond “immediate control” without a search warrant – Chimel v. California – An arresting officer may search the arrestee’s person to discover and remove weapons and to seize evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction, and may search the area “within the immediate control” (basically arms length) of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. However, the officer may not go beyond “immediate control” without a search warrant – Mincey v. Arizona – Officers can enter a crime scene to look for victims and render them aid. However, the scope of the search is restricted to areas where a victim might be found. They can look for perpetrator(s) within a reasonable area. Officers may seize any evidence in ‘plain view’ while doing the above – Mincey v. Arizona – Officers can enter a crime scene to look for victims and render them aid. However, the scope of the search is restricted to areas where a victim might be found. They can look for perpetrator(s) within a reasonable area. Officers may seize any evidence in ‘plain view’ while doing the above.

Warrantless searches 1978 – Michigan v. Tyler – Searching a fire scene immediately after extinguishing is permitted to determine cause of fire without a warrant. Additional searches will require a warrant – Michigan v. Tyler – Searching a fire scene immediately after extinguishing is permitted to determine cause of fire without a warrant. Additional searches will require a warrant – Maryland v. Buie – Ruled that a during an arrest a “protective” warrantless sweep of a home is permitted to locate additional suspects – Maryland v. Buie – Ruled that a during an arrest a “protective” warrantless sweep of a home is permitted to locate additional suspects.

Stop-and-Frisk Searches 1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Ruled that an officer has the right to stop a person who is behaving in a suspicious manner and ask for identification. If the behavior warrants, the officer may also frisk the person – Terry v. Ohio – Ruled that an officer has the right to stop a person who is behaving in a suspicious manner and ask for identification. If the behavior warrants, the officer may also frisk the person.

Pertinent Supreme Court Rulings on warrantless searches 1968 – Harris v. United States – Established the “plain-view doctrine” that “objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have the view are subject to seizure and may be used as evidence.” 1968 – Harris v. United States – Established the “plain-view doctrine” that “objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have the view are subject to seizure and may be used as evidence.” 1971 – Coolidge v. New Hampshire – Elaborated on “plain-view doctrine”: Officer must be lawfully at the location, item must be found inadvertently, item must be contraband or potentially useful as evidence of a crime – Coolidge v. New Hampshire – Elaborated on “plain-view doctrine”: Officer must be lawfully at the location, item must be found inadvertently, item must be contraband or potentially useful as evidence of a crime.

Pertinent Supreme Court Rulings on warrantless searches 1982 – United States v. Irizarry – Officers cannot move an object to get a better view of hidden evidence without a warrant – United States v. Irizarry – Officers cannot move an object to get a better view of hidden evidence without a warrant – Arizona v. Hicks – Moving an object in order to record serial numbers because of suspicion of another crime is an illegal “search.” 1987 – Arizona v. Hicks – Moving an object in order to record serial numbers because of suspicion of another crime is an illegal “search.” 1990 – Horton v. California – Ruled that “inadvertent” discovery is no longer necessary element to “plain-view” seizure – Horton v. California – Ruled that “inadvertent” discovery is no longer necessary element to “plain-view” seizure.

Automobile Searches 1925 – Carroll v. United States – Because the mobility of an automobile makes it likely that the driver could escape, the court ruled that officers have the right to search a stopped vehicle for evidence of a crime if they have probable cause – Carroll v. United States – Because the mobility of an automobile makes it likely that the driver could escape, the court ruled that officers have the right to search a stopped vehicle for evidence of a crime if they have probable cause – Chambers v. Maroney – Officer may search a moving or about to move vehicle provided there is probable cause to believe it contains legally seizeable items. Further, evidence discovered in an inventory search after and arrest is admissable – Chambers v. Maroney – Officer may search a moving or about to move vehicle provided there is probable cause to believe it contains legally seizeable items. Further, evidence discovered in an inventory search after and arrest is admissable – United States v. Chadwick – Held that a locked footlocker in a car could not be searched without a warrant – United States v. Chadwick – Held that a locked footlocker in a car could not be searched without a warrant – New York v. Belton – When a suspect is arrested in a vehicle, the immediate area is defined as the passenger compartment, including closed but not locked containers – New York v. Belton – When a suspect is arrested in a vehicle, the immediate area is defined as the passenger compartment, including closed but not locked containers – United States v. Ross – Officer may open a car trunk after a lawful arrest and containers found therein, even in the absence of circumstances of pressing need – United States v. Ross – Officer may open a car trunk after a lawful arrest and containers found therein, even in the absence of circumstances of pressing need.

Automobile Searches 1991 – California v. Acevedo – If an officer believes a container in a car contains contraband, the officer may open the container and seize the evidence if it is contraband – California v. Acevedo – If an officer believes a container in a car contains contraband, the officer may open the container and seize the evidence if it is contraband – Pennsylvania v. Labron – No need for a search warrant to search a mobile car even if there is time to get one – Pennsylvania v. Labron – No need for a search warrant to search a mobile car even if there is time to get one – Wyoming v. Houghton – Officer with probable cause to search a car may inspect passenger’s belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search – Wyoming v. Houghton – Officer with probable cause to search a car may inspect passenger’s belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search N.H. v. Sterndale – The N.H. Supreme court ruled that the N.H. Constitution gave greater protections to a person’s rights of privacy and rejected any automobile exception to requirement for a warrant. They rejected the ‘mobile car’ argument saying that the officer could simply hold the car while another officer got a warrant N.H. v. Sterndale – The N.H. Supreme court ruled that the N.H. Constitution gave greater protections to a person’s rights of privacy and rejected any automobile exception to requirement for a warrant. They rejected the ‘mobile car’ argument saying that the officer could simply hold the car while another officer got a warrant.

Open Field Searches 1984 – Oliver v. United States – Ruled that fields and pastures outside the yard of a person’s house and outbuildings are not protected – Oliver v. United States – Ruled that fields and pastures outside the yard of a person’s house and outbuildings are not protected.