THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Document Sample
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Powered By Docstoc
					THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

          SEARCH
            AND
          SEIZURE
  THE 4TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
           CONSTITUTION
      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.
Are the following searches

   REASONSABLE?
Edward Coolidge was arrested in connection with
the Murder of a 14-year-old girl. The Attorney
General of the state of New Hampshire, authorized
by state law to issue search warrants as a justice of
the peace, issued a search warrant for Coolidge’s
car. It was believed that the car was used by
Coolidge on the night of the murder. The same
Attorney General took personal charge of the case
and he later served as chief prosecutor at
Coolidge’s trial. Coolidge argued that the search
warrant was illegal because it was issued by
someone involved in the actual investigation of the
case, not by a neutral and fair judge.
      QUESTION:
WAS THE WARRANT LEGAL?
             THE DECISION
COOLDIGE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE (1971)
     The warrant was illegal. The issuing
judge must be impartial and detached….
Not a part of the investigation and
prosecution
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. The 4th Amendment doesn’t
require certainty – only probability. The
police acted in good faith.
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.
     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.
Having some information that Antonio Rochin
was selling narcotics, police went to his house.
Finding the outside door open, they entered and
then forced open the door to Rochin’s room on
the second floor. Inside they found Rochin sitting
partly dressed on the side of the bed. On a night
stand beside the bed, the police saw two capsules
and asked “Whose stuff is this?” Rochin grabbed
the capsules and swallowed them. Police jumped
on Rochin and tried to get the capsules out of his
mouth.
When that failed, he was handcuffed, taken
to a hospital, and at the direction of the
police, had his stomach pumped. Among the
substances brought up out of Rochin’s
stomach were two capsules which proved to
contain morphine. Rochin was convicted of
drug possession. He objected on the ground
that police had no right to forcibly pump his
stomach and to do so was unreasonable
search.
     QUESTION:
     WAS THIS AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH?
              THE DECISION:
         ROCHIN v. CALIFORNIA
                   (1952)
     The search was illegal. The methods
used offended the court’s sense of justice.
A truck driver by the name of Paul
Breithaupt was involved in an automobile
accident in which three people were killed.
Police at the scene found Breithaupt
unconscious, his eyes glassy and bloodshot,
and a nearly-empty liquor bottle in his
truck.
Breithaupt was brought to a hospital where,
while unconscious, a blood sample was
taken from his body. The blood contained a
high enough percentage of alcohol to
indicate that Breithaupt was intoxicated. He
was convicted of manslaughter. He objected
to the use of the blood test as evidence
against him. He claimed that it was gotten
as a result of an unreasonable search.
      QUESTION:
WAS THIS SEARCH, UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
   UNREASONABLE?
         THE DECISION:
     BREITHAUPT v. ABRAM
               (1957)
    The search was reasonable. The
methods used did not involve Rochin-
type coercion or brutality.
Police arrested Armando Schmerber at a
hospital while he was receiving treatment
for injuries received in a accident
involving a car that he had apparently been
driving. At the direction of a police officer,
a blood sample was then taken from
Schmerber against his wishes.
The blood test revealed enough alcohol in
his blood to make him legally intoxicated
and he was later convicted of driving
under the influence of an intoxicating
liquor. He objected to the use of the blood
test as evidence against him. He claimed it
was gotten as a result of an unreasonable
search.
       QUESTION:
WAS A SEARCH, UNDER THESE
     CIRCUMSTANCES,
     UNREASONABLE?
          THE DECISION:
   SCHMERBER v. CALIFORNIA
               (1966)
    The search was reasonable. There
was no undue coercion or brutality.
In an attempt to get evidence of adultery by
his wife so he could get a divorce, Abraham
Sackler illegally forced his way into the
apartment his wife was living in, separate
from him. With the evidence he obtained,
he applied for a divorce. His wife objected
on the grounds that Sackler entered her
apartment illegally and therefore, the search
was unreasonable.
  QUESTION:
WAS THIS SEARCH
 UNREASONBLE?
              DECISION:
        SACKLER v. SACKLER
                 (1964)
     The search was reasonable. The 4th
Amendment applies only to governmental
searches and seizures, not searches and
seizures by private persons.
Mexican police, alerted by U.S.
agents to Henry Brulay’s smuggling
activities, searched Brulay’s car and
house in Tijuana, Mexico and found
evidence which led to his conviction.
Brulay objected to the search because
the Mexican police did not have a
warrant and, therefore, the search
was unreasonable.
  QUESTION:
WAS THE SEARCH
UNREASONABLE?
            DECISION:
          BRULAY v. U.S.
               (1967)
     The search was reasonable. The
4th Amendment does not apply to
officials of foreign governments.
Police looked through three open
garbage cans a few feet from the back
porch of Robert Edwards’ house. They
found evidence of narcotics and
Edwards was arrested, tried, and
convicted. Edwards objected to the
search of his garbage cans an
unreasonable search.
     QUESTION:
WAS A SEARCH, UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
   UNREASONBLE?
                  DECISION:
           PEOPLE V. EDWARDS
                    (1969)
      The search was unreasonable – garbage
cans on a defendant’s property and garbage
does not become public property until it had
been picked up by sanitation workers. The
police could not see the marijuana in the
garbage can without rummaging through the
garbage first. The police committed a trespass.
Based on information they had received
form an informant, the police arrested
James Draper on drug charges. He objected
on the grounds that because the
information gotten by the police was from
an informant, it was hearsay and therefore
not good enough information to establish
probable cause. Therefore, he argued, the
search following the arrest was
unreasonable.
     QUESTION:
   WAS THIS SEARCH,
FOLLOWING THE ARREST,
    REASONABLE?
             DECISION:
           DRAPER v. U.S.
                (1959)
    Information obtained from a
proven, reliable informant is good
enough to establish probable cause in
order to obtain a search warrant.
Following the killing of a police officer,
the police arrested John Smith. They
learned that Smith had been recently shot
and that the bullet was still in his body.
They also knew that, before he died, the
police officer had shot the man who killed
him. The police asked for a search warrant
which would allow a police doctor to
operate on Smith to remove the bullet.
Smith objected on the grounds that the
search would be unreasonable.
      QUESTION:
 WAS A SEARCH OF THIS
NATURE UNREASONBALE,
   CONSIDERING THE
   CIRCUMSTANCES?
               DECISION:
           PEOPLE v. SMITH
                  (1974)
      The search warrant request was
denied. The operation would be an
invasion of privacy. The operation was
potentially dangerous and not necessary
for the patient’s continued good health.
Willie Robinson, Jr. was arrested for
driving his car after his driver’s license
had been revoked. Following the
arrest, Robinson was completely
searched and a package containing
heroin was found in an inside coat
pocket. Robinson was also charged
with possession of drugs.
      QUESTION:
   WAS THE SEARCH OF
ROBINSON LEGAL WITHOUT
      A WARRANT?
                   DECISION:
               U.S. v. ROBINSON
                      (1973)
The Supreme Court ruled, in this case, that once
a police officer legally arrests a person, the
officer may search that person fully, and the fact
that the arrest was for a traffic offense only made
no difference. However, the Court has indicated
that individual states are free to set up stricter
requirements regarding searches based on an
arrest for a traffic offense.
     New York State, in the decision
People v. Kelly (1974), ruled that the
police cannot conduct a full search of a
person arrested for a traffic violation.
However, a full search of a suspect
may be made as incident to an arrest of
any other nature.
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.
     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.
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.
     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.
THE FOLLOWING DO NOT
HAVE CASE NAMES YET
PROVIDE A GLIMPSE AT
MORE LEGAL RULINGS
DEALING WITH SEARCH AND
SEIZURE
Harriet Burr had spent the last few weeks
in Europe and her plane had just landed at
JFK Airport in New York. While going
through Customs, her luggage was
searched and nothing was found. Then the
Customs Inspector examined her ski poles.
They came apart and packages of heroin
were found inside them. She was arrested
for possession of drugs.
     QUESTION:
WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL
 WITHOUT A WARRANT?
      The “right” to enter the United States is not
a right but a privilege. As such, the government
has a right to conduct a search at Customs for
whatever reason it wants. There need not be any
reason for a search at all. Only when a Customs
search is so outrageous as to offend common
standards of decency (e.g. – a strip search
followed by a probe of every orifice of the body)
will be considered illegal. Almost all Customs
searches have been ruled legal.
Officer Michael Brand was on patrol one
afternoon when he spotted an escaped
convict coming out of a telephone booth.
Officer Brand chased the escaped convict,
tackled him,and placed him under arrest.
After arresting and handcuffing him,
Officer Brand searched his clothes and
found a gun in the convict’s jacket.
     QUESTION:
WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL
 WITHOUT A WARRANT?
     A police officer has a legal right
to search a person after legally
arresting him. This is known as a
“search incident to arrest”. As long as
the arrest is legal, the search of the
person arrested and the area
immediately around him which
follows, is legal without a warrant.
Adam Smith was at home when two police
officers rang his doorbell and identified
themselves. They said the wanted to speak
to him. Smith let them in and asked what
they wanted. They said they had
information that stolen jewelry and furs
were hidden in the apartment. They asked
permission to search the apartment.
Smith said, “Okay, go ahead, look all
you want.” They conducted their
search and found some furs and
jewelry. Smith said they belonged to
his wife. The police nevertheless
arrested Smith for possession of stolen
merchandise.
     QUESTION:
WAS THIS SEARCH LEGAL
 WITHOUT A WARRANT?
      No search warrant is needed if the
person consents to have himself or his
property searched. The consent must be freely
given and the person who gives consent must
be legally able to give consent.(A husband or
wife can give consent for their spouse, but
children cannot give consent for their parents.
A landlord cannot give consent for a search of
a tenant’s apartment.
The police chased a man, who had
just held up a bank with a gun, into an
apartment building and up to the third
floor. The robber entered an
apartment and shut the door. The
police forced their way into the
apartment and arrested the robber.
         QUESTION:
WAS THIS SEARCH (the entrance
  into the apartment) LEGAL
  WITHOUT A WARRANT?
     A close pursuit search such as
this one is legal, since the officer
was chasing the suspect, knew for a
fact that he was in the apartment
and knew that he had a gun. It
would be unreasonable to expect
police in this situation to stop and
take the time to get a search
warrant.
A police officer on patrol passes by a
parked car. As he passes by, he looks
into the car through the closed
window and sees a shotgun on the
back seat. At this point, the owner of
the car returns and is asked if he has a
license for the gun. When he says that
he doesn’t, he is arrested.
        QUESTION:
  WAS THE SEARCH (looking
into the car) LEGAL WITHOUT
         A WARRANT?
   The search is legal.
Looking at objects plain and
open view is not a search.

				
DOCUMENT INFO