Close

Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields 2021 - Campbell Law - Part 1

By Miller Moreau
Professor Fields - 2021

Download the PDF version of this outline

Part 2 >>

I. The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure
  1. Brown v. Mississippi (1936): Convictions, which rest solely upon confessions shown to have been extorted by brutality and violence, violate the 14th Amendment
    1. State is free to regulate the procedure of courts unless it violates due process
      1. 5th amendment doesn’t apply to states, court applies the 14th amendment (States can make it more restrictive but not less)

b. What is a search?

  1. Before Katz, Boyd v. US (1886): a “search” required a physical intrusion (a trespass) by government agents into a constitutionally protected area in order to find something/obtain information
  2. Olmstead v. US (1928) (officers used wiretaps to intercept the conversations of Olmstead and others conducted by phone from their homes and offices): court ruled was not a search because conversations are intangible, they are not “persons, house, papers, or effects, so they are unprotected”
    1. Was not a physical intrusion or trespass
    2. Searches and seizures had to involve a physical intrusion or trespass to fall under the 4th amendment

c. Protected Areas and Interests: The Katz Test

  1. Katz v. United States (transmitting wagering info from a telephone booth and agents attached a recording device violates 4th amendment) Katz Test Reasonable Expectation of Privacy:
    1. Individual must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
    2. That expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
      1. Case-by-case analysis when it is a new government activity; bright line rule if the court has already decided it (per se)
      2. Did not overrule Olmstead or Boyd
  2. United States v. White (whether statements made to an informant, which were then recorded by outside parties, amounted to a search under the 4th Amendment): No, police conduct didn’t amount to a search—no expectation of privacy in your personal conversations
  3. Application of Katz
    1. The Third-Party Doctrine Smith v. Maryland (whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment) Do you have an expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial on your phone?
      1. No, a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to 3rd parties
        1. Subjective: everyone knows phone companies are using them and users know they share this information with the phone company
        2. Objective: 3rd Party Doctrine
    2. Third-Party Doctrine: a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to a third party (or made public)
    3. Garbage California v. Greenwood (whether the search of Defendant’s garbage constituted a search under the 4th Amendment): Court applies 3rd Party Doctrine, no reasonable expectation of privacy in your garbage

d. Threshold Questions

  1. Who is conducting the action: Police? Or private actor?
  2. What is the government action and is the action a “search”?
    1. “Search” in the 4th Amendment context is a term if art
    2. If it’s not considered a “search” for 4th Amendment reasons, the analysis stops and constitutional rights are not afforded
    3. Key is whether the police action is considered a “search” under the 4th Amendment
  3. If the action is a search under the 4th Amendment, is the search reasonable?
    1. Based on probable cause/supported by warrant
    2. Or under one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement

e. Katz and New Technology

  1. Florida v. Riley (whether surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter 400 feet above the greenhouse constitutes a ‘search’ under the 4th Amendment) Riley Test: Could a member of the public legally have been there?
    1. No expectation of privacy in the public airways at this altitude—not a search
    2. He had a subjective expectation of privacy but not an objective expectation of privacy
  2. Kyllo v. US (whether the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitute a “search”: Yes, it’s a search)
    1. Kyllo Rule: When police
      1. Use a device;
      2. That is not in general public;
      3. To explore details of a private home;
      4. That would be previously unknown without physical intrusion;
      5. It’s a search
        **Final exam always tries to lead you to Kyllo but it won’t apply because it won’t be a home (extremely limited to its facts)
        1. Did not overrule Riley
        2. Home most protected → curtilage → open field not protected
  3. US v. Jones (GPS tracking device installed on the undercarriage of a Jeep used by Jones, suspected of trafficking narcotics, while he was parked in a public lot—tracked car’s movements for 28 days)
      1. Holding: it is a search – government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information (trespass)
        1. Scalia doesn’t apply Katz, he cares more about the putting of the tracker on the car and calls that a trespass
          1. Under Greenwood→not a search because 3rd Party Doctrine (exposing movements on public streets)
          2. Kyllo doesn’t apply because not a home
          3. Riley→not a search because members of the public could be there
        2. Significance: now two ways to get to a search – physical intrusion or Katz standard
        3. Mosaic Theory of 4th Amendment: a little is not a search, but when you start piecing it together – it becomes a search
      2. Knotts (beeper in chloroform for 1-2 days): no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements – here, 28 days
    2. Florida v. Jardines (received tip growing marijuana in home, took a drug dog to porch)
      1. Curtilage of house enjoys protection as part of the home itself
        1. No reasonable expectation of privacy in smells emanating from house
      2. Police can walk on porch but no drug dog, police dog waives license
      3. This is a search—based on trespass

f. The Future of Katz, 3rd Party Doctrine, and Trespass

  1. Carpenter v. US (2018) (FBI identified cell phone numbers, obtained cell phone records under Stored Communications Act, got CSI for Carpenter’s phone, cataloging his movements over the next 127 days): This was a search under the 4th Amendment
    1. How do we get to reasonable expectation of privacy?
      1. Knotts: no reasonable expectation of privacy in your movements
      2. Jones: search because physical trespass of vehicle (he never mentions that the 28 days being surveillance was concurrence)
      3. Court says one day and Jones 28 days (distinguishes Knotts) → at some point becomes a search
    2. Technically Carpenter is limited to its facts (but not really) probably reasonable expectation over movements for long period of time
    3. Exception to 3rd party doctrine—balance for when privacy interest outweighs the transfer to 3rd parties
Client Reviews
★★★★★
I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together... J.R.
★★★★★
Bill Powers and his firm were a true blessing. If anyone is contacting an attorney, it's more than likely not from a positive life experience. If there was a rating for "bedside manner" for lawyers he'd get a 10/10 for that as well. The entire staff were helpful... K.C.
★★★★★
Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.
★★★★★
Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.
Contact Us