i. Searches Incident to an Arrest
- Search of a Person: US v. Robinson (believed driver was driving w/o permit, stopped car, pat down of suspect revealed cigarette package with heroine)
- Issue: whether the ‘search incident to an arrest’ exception to the warrant requirement allows for a full search of the person, as opposed to only a “safety” search
- Holding: yes, search incident to an arrest allows the officer to search the entire person of the arrestee – not limited to where a gun or knife could be
- An arrest based on probable cause alone is a reasonable search under the 4th am. A search of the person incident to the arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement. This allows for a full search of the person
- Search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee
- Rationale: officer safety and need to find/preserve evidence
- Area within the control of the arrestee
- Not limited to weapons or evidence
- Search of a Home: Chimel v. California (police had warrant authorizing arrest for burglary of a coin shop, they searched home after he said no w/o a warrant)
- Issue: whether law enforcement may search the entire home when arresting an individual in his/her home
- Holding: no, while police may conduct a warrantless search incident to an arrest while in the home, the search is limited to:
- The arrestee’s person; and
- The area within the arrestee’s immediate control, meaning the area from within which she might gain possession of a weapon or destructible device
- Search of a Vehicle: Arizona v. Gant (arrested for driving with a suspended license, put in back of patrol car, searched his car and discovered cocaine in pocket of a jacket in the backseat)
- Issue: whether the scope of a search incident to an arrest in a vehicle extends to the entire passenger compartment after arrestee is placed in car
- Holding: no, police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is:
- Within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, OR
- It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
- Belton: you can search anywhere in the car (limitless) – this is basically the same rule as Belton because the first prong is ineffectual
- Rule: when lawful arrest made involving vehicle, police may search:
- The arrestee’s person; and
- Anywhere within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, and
- Anywhere it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
- Search of a Cell Phone: Riley v. California (search incident to arrest, found phone in pocket, searched phone and connected him to recent shooting): Phone has heightened expectation of privacy and therefore law enforcement may not search the phone absent a warrant
- still unclear is they can make you give phone or passcode
- court goes back to original balancing test here, gets away from bright-line rule→makes it case-by-case, balancing government interests and privacy interest
- search incident to arrest analysis:
- first: make sure the arrest is lawful
- second: ask where the arrest is being made and what’s being searched (e.g. a public search of the person, a search of home, search of vehicle)
- third: if it’s a phone seized then get a warrant to search
ii. Plain View Doctrine: Collidge v. New Hampshire
- Plain View Doctrine: an objective of incriminating nature may be seized w/o a warrant if it is ‘plain view’ of a police officer lawfully present at the scene
- Not really an exception to the warrant requirement, but rather as a justification for the police to conduct a warrantless seizure of the evidence in plain view
- An article is in plain view and subject to warrantless seizure by police if:
- Police lawfully make an initial intrusion or otherwise be in a position from which they can view a particular area;
Police must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and- No longer required (Horton)
- It is immediately apparent to police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure
- Arizona v. Hicks (bullet fired through apartment below; moved turntable to see number – that was a search)
- Have to have probable cause to believe equipment stolen
- If you have to pick it up and look at it→not immediately incriminating
- Reading the serial numbers wasn’t a seizure – it was the moving of the stereo that was the search and required the warrant
- 2nd search that required probable cause
- Immediately apparent: requires probable cause
- Issue here that it wasn’t immediatetly apparent to the police that the items observed may be evidence (otherwise, wouldn’t of had to move the turntable to get the numbers)
- **need probable cause to support the immediately apparent requirement
- Horton v. California (magistrate issued search warrant only for the proceeds, he found weapons in plain view and seized them)
- Inadvertence prong is not a necessary condition
iii. Automobile Exception
- Generally Speaking: Carroll v. US
- Basis for automobile exception: mobility and lower expectation of privacy in car
- Sidenote: exception to the warrant requirement—look at framer’s intent→balance nature of intrusion v government interest→if govt interest wins, create an exception
- What’s an Automobile: California v. Carney
- Issue: whether the 4th am requires law enforcement to acquire a warrant before searching a motor home when there is probable cause of a felony being committed
- Holding: no—police do not have to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle, to include a motor home, so long as they have probable cause
- Rule: automobile exception—police don’t need a warrant to search a vehicle so long as they have probable cause
- They can search anywhere in the car where the evidence for which they are searching may be
- Includes containers if the container can fit the evidence
- Carroll and Ross (issue: whether the automobile exception includes containers)
- Carroll: creates automobile exception—can search anywhere evidence can be related to the PC
- Ross: if PC justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle that may conceal the object of the search
- Containers: California v. Acevedo (issue: whether the automobile exception allowed the police to open the sack w/o a warrant or did the fact that PC attached to the sack, not the car, require a warrant) (fedex package police knew contained weed put in car)
- No warrant required—under automobile exception you can search anywhere evidence may be
- Allows warrantless search of the package
- Overturns Sanders
- Rule: the police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained
- Police didn’t have probable cause to believe contraband hidden in any other part of the car and a search of the entire car would have been w/o probable cause and unreasonable
- Passengers’ Possessions: Wyoming v. Houghton (boyfriend had syringe, searched girlfriend’s purse): When police have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may search a passengers’ belongings so long as those belongings are capable of concealing the object of the search
- But cannot search passengers’ bodies
- Curtilage: Collins v. Virginia (searched motorcycle beside home): Automobile exception does not allow for warrantless searches of vehicles parked within the curtilage of the home, scope of the automobile exception extends no further than the automobile itself