4th Amendment

Translate 4th Amendment into Your Own Words “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”

4th Amendment

Reasonable Suspicion A “reasonable” (thoughtful, sane, intelligent) person might think something is wrong based on watching a situation This is the starting point for a warrant…A police officer would need stronger evidence for a warrant

Probable Cause MUST have some hard evidence to show that a person is part of a crime Evidence that would get a warrant: Witness testimony Fingerprints Video tape of crime being committed DNA found at the scene Shoe prints found at the scene Hair and clothing fibers found at the scene

Police got a warrant to arrest Archie Hill Police got a warrant to arrest Archie Hill. Police went to Hill’s apartment and found there a man who fit the description,exactly, of Hill. The man claimed to be a Mr. Miller, not Hill.Nevertheless, they arrested the man as Hill and searched the apartment, finding a pistol, and a loaded ammunition clip. Police later find out that the man really was Miller, not Hill. They later arrested Hill and used the pistol found in his apartment to convict him of a robbery charge. Hill objected to the search of his apartment, since it was Miller, not Hill, that the police found there.

QUESTION: WAS THE SEARCH LEGAL?

THE DECISION HILL v. CALIFORNIA (1971) The search was legal. The police had probable cause and had acted upon that probability.

Search Warrant A legal document issued by a judge that specifically states: WHAT AND WHERE **If the police don’t follow the details of the warrant then the evidence they find might not be allowed in court. It could not be used to try to convict the criminal.

Police got a warrant to arrest Ted Chimel for the burglary of a coin shop. They went to his home, arrested him, and then, without a search warrant, proceeded to search the entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, the garage, and a small workshop. During the search, the police found some of the stolen coins. Chimel objected to the search. He agreed that the police had a right to arrest him, but argued that if they wanted to search his entire house, they should have gotten a search warrant.

WAS THE SEARCH LEGAL WITHOUT A WARRANT? QUESTION: WAS THE SEARCH LEGAL WITHOUT A WARRANT?

THE DECISION: CHIMEL v. CALIFORNIA (1969) A search without a warrant and incident to arrest must be limited to the suspect and the immediate area around him. The search was illegal – the police had time after the arrest to get a search warrant to search the entire house.

Search Warrant

Search Warrant is not needed… When the person gives permission to search When the police believe the evidence WILL be destroyed if they leave to get a warrant If the person is being arrested

Police brought Daniel Murphy to the police station for questioning after his wife had been found slain. The police suspected Murphy of killing his wife, and they wanted to scrape underneath his fingernails. Mrs.Murphy had been strangled, and the person who did it would probably have small pieces of skin under the fingernails. Although Murphy had come to the station voluntarily, he refused to allow the scraping of his nails. Police scraped his nails anyway. They found traces of skin, blood, and strands of the fabric from Mrs.Murphy’s nightgown. Murphy was arrested for murder.

WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL WITHOUT A WARRANT? QUESTION: WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL WITHOUT A WARRANT?

DECISION: CUPP v. MURPHY (1973) The Supreme Court ruled that such a search was legal, since this type of evidence will disappear quickly if it is not secured. Similar reasoning would uphold a test to determine the percentage of alcohol in a suspect’s bloodstream.

ARRESTS An arrest needs a warrant to be legal HOWEVER, an arrest can happen without a warrant if: A SERIOUS CRIME (Felony) takes place and there is no time to get a warrant because the crime is in progress. A judge will decide if there is probable cause to continue holding the person in jail If a MINOR INFRACTION (Misdemeanor) of criminal law takes place and is committed in front of the arresting officer

Arrest Warrant

FINGERPRINTING

PLAIN VIEW If evidence is out in the open…

TERRY STOP EXAMPLE: stand on corner in dangerous neighborhood and run away when police in sight – running in high crime area

Officer McFadden, a Cleveland, Ohio plainclothes detective, became suspicious of two men standing on a street corner in the downtown area at about 2:30 in the afternoon. One of the suspects walked up the street, peered into a store, walked on, started back, lolled in the same store, and then joined and talked to his companion. The other suspect repeated this behavior, and between then the two men went through this performance about a dozen times.

They also talked to a third man and then followed him up to the street about ten minutes after he left. The officer, thinking that the suspects were “casing” the store for stickup and might be armed, followed and confronted the three men as they were talking again. He identified himself and asked the suspects for their names. The men only mumbled something and the officer spun one of the suspects around and patted his breast pocket. He felt a pistol, which he removed. He arrested the suspect, who was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL WITHOUT A WARRANT? QUESTION: WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL WITHOUT A WARRANT?

DECISION: TERRY v. OHIO (1968) Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude that criminal activity may be, or about to be, taking place and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous, he is entitled, for the protection of himself and others in the area, to conduct a carefully limited frisk of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used against him.