You remember the 4th Amendment, don’t you?  “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 describe the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

The “Continuum of cluelessness” §How certain are we of things we think we know? §Welcome to the continuum of cluelessness:

Let’s talk legal talk §This range of human certainty becomes an issue because of the 4th amendment term “probable cause.” If police are investigating you, what can they do to you? And, when can they do it? That is the question.

What the police legally can do and when they can do it depends on the context

The “Hunch” §Police “suspect” illegal activity but cannot quantify or articulate a specific individualized reason for suspicion §So…what can they do? §They can watch, but they cannot invade your “expectation of privacy” that is implied by the 4th amendment

Expectation of privacy §Where do you have an reasonable objective expectation of privacy (EOP)? l Your home is your castle of course l Your person, papers, personal effects §Where do you have a subjective EOP? l Depends on the context. Privacy From Whom? The 4th Amendment is intended to preclude GOVERNMENT interference with your expectation of privacy

Back to the hunt: what if police develop more than a hunch? §What if the police develop what we will call “reasonable suspicion”? §Key: must be based on articulable suspicion” of criminal activity afoot §What can they do then?

They can detain you based on reasonable suspicion §The detention must be reasonable, not intrusive, depending upon the situation l E.g., traffic stop §Police CANNOT: l search without consent, exceed the purpose of detention, exceed the reasonable time necessary §Remember, there is no PC yet…. §If weapons are likely…see Terry-search

Terry-search (pat-down frisks) §If there is (1) reasonable (“articulable”) suspicion of criminal activity afoot & §If the criminal activity (2) likely involves weapons & §If there are (3) officer safety concerns, …. §The officer may do an exterior, non- intrusive, pat-down frisk (grope) for weapons only. This is a Terry-search.

Violation of the rules…what do we do? What is the remedy? §Sue the police officer for violation of your 4th amendment rights? §Fire the police officer for infringement of the constitution? §No, we EXCLUDE the fruits of the evidence…the exclusionary rule §So, sometimes, the guilty go free

Back to the hunt: What if the facts give the officer Probable Cause? §Now, and only now, can the police ARREST you (this is a permanent seizure) l They don’t have to tell you WHY arrested l They may LIE to you l They DO NOT have to give you Miranda! §They may now, however, SEARCH your immediate surroundings “incident to an arrest.” But they still need a warrant for searches of other places.

These warrantless searches are OK because they are deemed reasonable §Consent §Plain View §“Hot pursuit” §Exigent circumstances §Motor Vehicle searches §Incident to lawful arrest §Airport and airline searches §U.S. border search §Terry-search (pat- down frisks) §“Community- caretaking” function

What can school authorities do…and when can they do it?

People v. Camacho (2000) §Neighbors call re: noise §11 p.m., pretty quiet §Officer walked along side of house and looked in window about 1 min. §See Camacho, with back to window, manipulating some plastic baggies & some filled with powder §Entered house and arrested Camacho

Cal. Supreme Court rules for... §Camacho? l Your home is your castle--more protection l Officers were on Camacho’s property with no legal reason l So they were in a place “where they had no legal right to be” §The State? l Open, large,window, no EOP--anybody could have seen it l Nothing impeded police from the yard l Officers weren’t looking for drugs, but for noise, so intrusion was minimal

The result in Camacho? §4-3 (Werdeger opinion, George dissent), for Camacho §George: “In view of the location and configuration of defendant’s residence, the open and easily accessible nature of the side yard, the large (eight-by-four-foot) uncovered window facing the side yard, and defendant’s failure to take even minimal measures  such as shielding the window with curtains, blinds, or even a makeshift cover  that would have been taken by a reasonable person concerned with protecting his or her privacy, I believe the trial court properly found that defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to activities that were plainly visible through the uncovered window.”.