RS totality of circumstances Barron-Cabrera (10C) – RS for Ryder truck on rarely-travelled road & 9/11 of second to see driver & passenger when driving in opposite direction Defer to court re: credibility of cops & Ds Trullo (1C) – Cops saw suspicious car in “Combat Zone”; Stopped & ordered driver out when car took guy 2 blocks, then let him out to walk back Barely RS b/c high area, cops’ expertise, & suspicious actions Bownes: Where must driver let passenger out to avoid RS? Rodriguez (9C) – Ford Ranchero, typical description of activities + car known to have seat to conceal illegals NO RS b/c cops’ descriptions all sound the same & fits 100s/1000s of law-abiding citizens Hensley – Terry applies to investigating completed felonies, too One cop/dptmt can make stop if another asks for help Profiles: Courts find use of profiles irrelevant b/c it depends on totality of circumstances anyway Determination is always case-by-case, so irrelevant whether facts happen to match profile Berry (5C) – Ok to use drug courier profiles b/c just admin tools Presence of each characteristic has no significance re: RS Match doesn’t automatically establish RS Sokolow (US) – DEA stopped D based on profile RS b/c is on overall degree of suspicion, not whether each fact is innocent/guilty Stricter rule would hamper cops Marshall: Reflexive profile use catching innocent citizens Beck (8C) – Cop stopped CA car in AR b/c CA = drug source (considered 6 states drug sources) No RS – there are millions of law-abiding citizens that fit this Wardlow (US) – Mere flight = sufficient for RS in high crime areas Mere presence = insufficient, but can be one factor Consistent w/ Royer b/c unprovoked flight ≠ merely going about own business or refusing to cooperate Terry accepts stopping innocent people sometimes Stevens: Lots of legit reasons for running – per se rule doesn’t make any sense Race: Ok to use for descriptions – this is just a question of whether anomalous presence of one race is sufficient for RS Race alone/primarily ≠ RS Must just be one factor Manzo-Jurado (9C) – No RS to see 6 unfamiliar Hispanics at high school football game not mingling No rational inference of immigration status from football game attendance trial
Souter: Dog sniffs = fallible & impermissibly enhance human perception Ginsburg: Dog changes lawful traffic stop to adversarial exercise Embarrassing on public road & slippery slope to allow here – imagine impact on public’s sense of security & privacy Drug Testing: Jacobsen – No search to field-test white powder w/o warrant b/c only discloses whether coke or not Seizure b/c destroyed powder, but permissible b/c tiny amount destroyed & clearly contraband Skinner – Urine testing = search b/c (1) could uncover innocent secret info like illnesses, pregnancy, etc. & (2) intrusive to obtain TECH-ENHANCED: (64) Rule: Tech-enhanced obtaining info that’s otherwise unobtainable from lawful area are presumptively unreasonable unless tech is generally available to public Overflight: Overflight: Riley – Cops hovered 400’ over D’s prop to see info hidden from ground view Plurality: No search b/c not legally prohibited, no injury to prop, not observing intimate activities in O’Connor: Proper reasonableness test = whether tech enhancement is commonly available to public, not whether possible for public to obtain THIS IS THE TEST! Brennan: O’Connor’s test = proper, but burden on gov to show surveillance here so frequent that privacy expectation unreasonable b/c obviously infrequent Blackmun: O’Connor’s test = proper, but burden on gov to show frequent public access Overflight + Photos: Dow – Mere enhancement of human vision via fancy camera doesn’t implicate 4A, & no privacy interest in area between buildings Powell: “Search” b/c magnification gave into not otherwise obtainable Thermal Imaging: (64) Kyllo – Thermal imaging of home = search b/c (1) home is presumptively protected, (2) can’t limit thermal imaging to exclude intimate details, & (3) thermal imager isn’t generally available to public Irrelevant that could find out info other ways b/c that doesn’t make this method legal Stevens: This is mere observation of home’s exterior find this info out otherwise, like by melting snow or smells
If PC to believe evidence of crime in car, ok to search everywhere that may hold object of search, including containers therein Need warrant to search containers unrelated to car, even w/ PC If PC to search container that’s in car, can only search that container Search incident to arrest change things around Exigent Circumstances: Warrantless search/seizure ok if PC to believe immediate action reasonably necessary to prevent flight, safeguard person, or protect against loss of evidence Intrusion can’t exceed scope of emergency After arrest outside dwelling, need reasonable believe that: (1) 3Ps inside & (2) 3Ps know of arrest & might destroy evidence Presumptively unreasonable if underlying offense = minor (Welsh) Hot Pursuit: Unrealistic to expect cops to stop in middle of chase for warrant Doesn’t apply if suspect unaware of pursuit Warden – Cops chased robbery suspect to entered to search for him & weapons; Found incriminating clothes in washer Justified by hot pursuit & clothes seizure ok as plain view Welsh – Cops heard car driven erratically into ditch & driver left scene; Went to addy listed on registration & arrested D in home for DWI No hot pursuit b/c D not away of pursuit Santana – D retreated into after cops tried to arrest in doorway Ok to follow b/c hot pursuit Safety: Req’s significant risk of harm to cops/public Stuart – Fight at party Entry = permissible b/c reasonable under circumstances (ongoing violence) No inquiry into subjective motivations unless alleged programmatic purpose Destruction of Evidence: Vale – Cops arrested D on sidewalk outside home after found guy leaving w/ drugs; Went inside & searched before mom & sis returned from store Warrant req’d b/c not in immediate process of destruction Cheh disagrees b/c family members would destroy if came home before warrant Socey (DDC) – No 4A violation to search known drug house after arrest outside b/c reasonable to think look-out system & drugs are easily destroyed MacDonald (2C) – Cops did undercover buy w/ pre-recorded bill, found guys inside w/ cocked gun & lots of drugs; Cops returned, trial
knock-&-announce, burst in when heard shuffling & on radio that guys trying to escape through window Exigent circumstances even before knock & scurrying b/c urgent need under Dorman (listing 6 exigency factors) Could’ve disposed of drugs or pre-recorded bill Just b/c drugs easy to dispose of doesn’t eliminate exigency exception Kearse: No factual showing of risk of evid destruction & no indication occupants knew of surveillance This becomes blanket permission to enter w/o warrant for all drug cases Richards – Knock-&-announce req = excused if imminent risk of evid destruction, but prove on case-by-case basis Important factors = D’s knowledge of cops’ presence & imminence of risk to evid Mincey – D killed cop during drug bust; Homicide came in 10 min & searched entire house for 4 days No exigency here No murder scene exception b/c what about rape, armed robbery, etc. Welsh – Cops arrested D in home after hearing he was DWI; Justified b/c didn’t want to lose evidence (BAC) Warrantless entry = presumptively unreasonable if extremely minor underlying offense like DWI (noncrim, no imprisonment) Manufactured Exigency: MacDonald (2C) – Cops burst into drug house when heard scurrying Cops don’t create exigency by acting lawfully Exigency determination = objective & based on totality of circumstances Don’t depend on suspects’ response to lawful conduct Timberlake (DCC) – Similar facts to MacDonald, but no prior basis for knocking Invalid entry b/c no indication cops intended any more than warrantless search of apartment Cops aren’t allowed to create exigent circumstances Admin Searches: Generally ok w/o warrant & individualized suspicion if primary purpose ≠ law enforcement Totality of circumstances determines primary purpose Weigh gov’s interest v. degree of intrusion Premises: Camara – Health inspector inspected homes w/o warrant or individualized PC 4A applies b/c invasion of privacy, but individualized PC is impossible
Edmond – Drug transport checkpoints = unconstitutional b/c checkpoints for primarily law enforcement purposes = ok only if exigent circumstances Green (5C) – Suspicionless checkpoints at open military installations = ok b/c unique & similar to borders Davis (DCC) – Ok to use checkpoint in response to community complaints of drug dealers’ traffic violations b/c primary purpose = remedying traffic problems Lidster – Cops set up checkpoint on highway 1 weeks after hit-&-run in same spot to ask for assistance; Caught D driving drunk Ok b/c not ordinary law enforcement, strong public interest, minimal interference w/ 4A liberty Inventory: Generally must be done pursuant to a departmental policy, to minimize discretion 3 state interests for inventory: (1) Protection from false prop claims, (2) Protection of owner’s prop rights, (3) Protection of all from dangerous items Must meet at least one of these interests to be permissible Cady – Ok to search cop’s car after towing to look for service revolver b/c “community caretaker” function Opperman – Ok to search impounded car b/c protects valuables Extensive search through car ok pursuant to local police regulations Strong state interests v. minor privacy interests at stake Powell: Warrant unnecessary for departmental regulations b/c no discretion, arbitrariness, facts to evaluate Marshall: Special needs can’t justify warrantless, suspicion-less inventory searches Lafayette – Ok to search arrestee’s bag & no need to use intrusive alternative Maybe invalid if arrestee not going to be incarcerated Bertine – Ok to inventory closed containers w/in car & no need to use least intrusive means Police discretion is ok as long as limited by uniform standards & based on more than suspicion of crim activity – Can’t open locked suitcase if no policy re: opening closed containers b/c too much discretion, though can allow some discretion re: opening containers Brennan: Can’t allow individual cops any discretion to determine whether to open container Borders: Ramsey – Ok to open envelopes sent from US to Thailand as part of heroin-by-mail investigation Border searches have been “reasonable” since pre-4A, & never an add’l PC req
Baldwin (7C) – Ok to promise to bring D’s cooperation to prosecutor’s attention promise of leniency = forbidden, but can honestly promise consideration This is a truism & D is a career criminal 5A & MIRANDA: Individual right against compelled self-incrimination in crim case Only applies if in jeopardy of prosecution :., can be forced to testify w/ immunity, at least before grand jury D need not accept immunity – offer is sufficient to eliminate risk of prosecution Doesn’t apply to previously written docs, though could include statements made before previous tribunals apply to the act of turning over diary, but lose protection if immunity for that act Miranda – “Custodial interrogation” = always inherently coercive & unreliable, so no case-by-case totality of circumstances test Must warn Ds re: (1) Right to silence (2) Anything said can & will be used against (3) to presence of atty, either retained or appointed (4) If indigent, atty will be appointed D can affirmatively waive rights once warned of them Must be voluntary & knowing Burden on gov to prove waiver If D says want to talk to atty, Qs must stop immediately & must provide atty w/in reasonable time If D says no more Qs, no more Qs Can’t use exercise of rights against D Dissent: Majority sweeping generalizations w/o underlying data How can you trust waivers, but not other statements? Interrogation always has pressures, and this isn’t so bad it’s coercive Confessions will wither away & disappear Ends up helping police b/c pre-confession warnings in favor of voluntariness Biggest effect has been to improve police training Ds overwhelmingly rights Waiver issues end up turning this almost into the case-by-case totality of circumstances test that court wanted to avoid Invocation of Rights: Rule: Must be clear & unambiguous (Davis) Banks (7C) – No invocation by “Get that out of my face I don’t got nothing to say” in response to waiver form Cannot be anticipatorily invoked (McNeil) Substantial break in chain of custody/questioning breaks chain of invocation Limits:
Physical fruits = admissible (Patane) Tucker – Cops gave defective warning to D, who said he was w/ friend when crime committed Defective warning excludes D’s confession, but not friend’s testimony b/c Miranda not a Const ruling Elstad – Same as Tucker, but admitted D’s 2nd confession instead of a friend’s testimony Brennan: D already thinks 1st statement sealed his fate – this must be inadmissible fruit! Seibert – Law allowed use of subsequent confessions that parallel earlier Miranda-defective ones Plurality: Midstream warnings after Miranda-defective confession render subsequent confessions inadmissible Distinguishes Elstad Breyer: Plurality is right, but should focus on fruit of initial confession & good faith Kennedy: Apply Elstad good faith test unless deliberate 2-step strategy intended to undermine Miranda If deliberate 2-step approach, post-warning statements related to substance of pre-warning statements = inadmissible unless curative measures THIS IS THE RULE!!!! Terry (8C) – Post-warning confession = admissible where D started to talk pre-warning, but cop interrupted to warn b/c no indication cops deliberately undermining Miranda Patane – Cop tried to Mirandize, but only said right to remain silent before D said he knew his rights; Interrogation continued & D confessed Plurality: Physical fruits of Miranda-defective statement = admissible b/c doesn’t implicate same 5A concerns Miranda violation = failure to warn & admission of derivative confession If no confession admitted, physical evidence is in the clear Kennedy: If resultant statements not admitted at trial, irrelevant whether cop violated Miranda Therefore, admission of non-testimonial physical fruits is ok Souter & Breyer: This encourages interrogators to ignore Miranda THIS IS THE RULE!!!! Emergency:
D voluntarily comes to station & isn’t arrested (Beheler) Including parolees (Mathiason) Call probationer to probation office (Murphy) Smaller likelihood of “custody” at workplace (Bassignani, compared to Griffin) Beckwith – Discussing tax returns at table after D invites IRS in ≠ custody Stansbury – Cop’s subjective & undisclosed perception of whether “suspect” = irrelevant unless somehow manifested to D, in which case just one factor Berkemer – Terry stop ≠ custody b/c brief, limited, no req to respond, quick release unless PC Yarborough – On habeas, age = irrelevant to custodial status, which is objective test NOT TRUE – AGE FIGURES INTO THE EQUATION!!! Mathis – Custody to interrogate inmate Not considered per se rule that in jail in custody Garcia (11C) – Custody of inmates turns on whether reasonable person would believe prison officials further diminished inmate’s freedom of movement Mathiason – No custody when D voluntarily came to station, told not under arrest, allowed to leave station Brennan: D was parolee, so this wasn’t voluntary Beheler – Same, but not parolee Murphy – No custody to call probationer to probation office to question re: rape & murder b/c no actual arrest & D as “suspect” irrelevant Marshall: Reasonable person in D’s position would’ve believed req’d to answer questions honestly as condition of probation Griffin (8C) – Custody when FBI questioned D at home, sent parents to other room, didn’t tell D was voluntary or Mirandize, escorted D when left area, arrested D at end of interrogation Bassignani (9C) – No custody w/ similar but at workplace Defining Interrogation: Test: Whether cops should know statements/questions are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response (Innis) Emphasis on whether statement was result of police strategy intended to get statements Booking exception for routine Qs like name, DOB, etc. (Muniz Rehnquist)
D could have waived, but didn’t Dissent: D knew of rights & spoke anyway, implicitly waiving; Cops didn’t question D Moulton – Cops CI to ask D about one thing in pre-arranged meeting between CI & D, but CI asked about more stuff Deliberate elicitation b/c gov knowing exploited circumstances & should’ve known D made incrim statements Ok to continue investigating – just can’t use the statements for the charged crimes, like Massiah Burger: Hold cops to good standard Shouldn’t hold them responsible for rogue informant