1. 1 Searches Chapter 2

2. 2 Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between  individual liberties and  The rights of society. It forbids what type of searches and seizures?  UNREASONABLE

3. 3 Legal Searches  A search warrant has been issued.  Consent is given.  An officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person may be armed.  Search is incidental to a lawful arrest.  An emergency exists. A search is justified and considered legal if any of the following conditions are met:

4. 4 Case Law or Precedent  Aguilar v. Texas — adopted the two-prong test of reliability and believability  Spinelli v. United States — affidavit for a warrant must establish probable cause to adequately assess the informant’s reliability  Illinois v. Gates — looked at the totality of the circumstances

5. 5 Key Cases or Doctrines  Exclusionary Rule: Mapp v. Ohio (1963)  Consent: Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)  Exigent circumstances: New York v. Quarles (1984)  Garbage: California v. Greenwood (1988)  Good Faith: U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)  Inevitable discovery: Nix v. Williams (1984)  Plain Feel: Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)  Plain Smell: U.S. v. Lueck (1982)  Plain-View: U.S. v. Henry (1958)  Public Safety: New York v. Quarles (1984)  Stop and Frisk: Terry v. Ohio (1968)  Vehicles: Carroll v. U.S. (1925)  Roadblocks: Brown v. Texas (1979)  K-9’s: Illinois v. Caballes (2005)

6. 6 More Doctrines  The elephant-in-a-matchbox doctrine requires that searchers consider the probable size and shape of evidence they seek.  For example, large items cannot be concealed in a tiny area.  The functional equivalent doctrine establishes that routine border searches are constitutional at places other than actual borders where travelers frequently enter or leave the country, including international airports.

7. 7 Searches following an arrest  Chimel v. California—search incidental to an arrest must be made simultaneously and be confined to the suspect’s “immediate control”  Maryland v. Buie—expanded the area police could immediately search to include immediately adjoining areas or a “protective sweep”  Carroll v. United States—automobiles may be searched without a warrant if probable cause is present and the car would be gone before a search warrant could be obtained

8. 8 “No-knock” Warrants The knock-and-announce rule is intended:  to protect citizens’ right to privacy  to reduce risk of possible violence to police and residence occupants  to prevent needless destruction of private property. Why would the police be allowed to use these?

9. 9 How long should police wait? How soon may police enter?  3–5 seconds? 5–10 seconds?  Court ruled generally they should wait 30 seconds before entering Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) But...

10. 10 More on “No-Knock” Entries  In U.S. v. Banks (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the forced entry into a suspected drug dealer’s apartment 15 to 20 seconds after police knocked and announced themselves  Later, in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) they did not uphold a 3–5 second delay

11. 11 Search Patterns Lane-search pattern: partitions the area into lanes, using stakes and string Grid pattern: lane pattern is modified and the area is crisscrossed Circle or spiral search: begins at the center of an area with ever-widening circles Zone/sector search: area is divided up into equal squares on a map and numbered