Search and Seizure

4th Amendment

WEEKS V US (1914)

Weeks arrested at his place of business. Officer conducted a warrantless search.

– Revealed evidence of US mail to transport lottery tickets.

Searched home twice.– Took papers not relevant to the case.

WEEKS DECISION

9-0 conviction overturned Fruit of the poisoned tree

OLMSTEAD V US (1928)

Volstead Act (1919) – Prohibited the manufacture and importing of

alcohol. Olmstead was smuggling alcohol over the

Canadian border into Seattle.– Local and state officials arrested him based on

info gathered by a wiretap on his home phone. – No warrant, tapped the outside lines

OLMSTEAD DECISION

5-4 upheld search Placing a phone tap on outside premises did

not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.– No physical trespass

OLMSTEAD REVERSAL

Katz v US (1967)– Charles Katz suspect in LA illegal gambling.– Public phone booth tap by FBI

Conversations recorded Convicted of transmitting wagering info by phone.

– 7-1 overturn of Olmstead People are protected

MAPP V OHIO (1962)

May 23, 1957 – Cleveland Bombing suspect and gambling equipment 3 officers to the home but are denied access.

– 3hours later they return with a paper and break down the door.

– Mapp asks to see warrant and puts it down her dress. Officers stuggle and take it back

Discovered pornographic materials

MAPP DECISION

6-3 Overturned States are bound by the 4th amendment

MASSACHUSETTS V SHEPPARD (1984)

Badly burned and beaten body found.– Boyfriend questioned– Blood stains found in car he borrowed.– Search warrant for his house.

Search warrant– Affidavit properly completed.– Used a warrant for drug searches.– Did not include a list of specific items

Judge said he would make necessary changes.– Used the warrant in “good faith”

Blood stained clothing found.

SHEPPARD DECISION

6-3 Upheld conviction Officer acted with reasonable belief he was

following proper procedures. Evidence gained with a defective warrant is

legal if officer acted in “good faith”.

US v LEON (1984)

Unreliable confidential informant– Alberto Leon and others selling cocaine and meth from a

home and other places. Surveillance

– 5-6 people regularly visited– Photos taken– Persons with criminal records and previous association with

drug dealing.– Trips from Miami, bags searched.

Search warrant based mostly on surveillance.

LEON DECISION

6-3 Allowed the admission of evidence

Exclusionary rule applied to police, not judges

NIX V WILLIAMS (1984)

10 year old girl disappeared– Robert Williams was seen leaving with a large

bundle on the day of the disappearance. Police were told not to conduct any interrogation.

– “The child’s parents should be entitled to a Christian burial.”

WILLIAMS DECISION

7-2 upheld conviction “Inevitable discovery” exception

MARYLAND V GARRISON (1987)

Police had a warrant to search the “3rd floor apartment”.– Drugs and cash found– Apartment divided into 2 distinct apartments.

GARRISON DECISION

6-3 upheld the conviction Honest mistakes are made

Due Process

5th Amendment

Due Process of Law

5th and 14th Amendment

The way the government acts and the laws under which it acts must be fair.

Procedural Due Process

Government in all that it does must use fair procedures.

Rochin v California

Substantive Due Process

Laws must be fair

Pierce v Society of Sisters

Goss v Lopez (1975)

Student Rights 60’s and 70’s political unrest 1971 – Columbus Students attend rally – 10 day suspension

Goss Decision

Oral and written notification of charges

Evidence

Hearing

ESCOBEDO V IL (1964)

Danny E – custody in Chicago at 2:30 am in connection with shooting a relative.

18 hour interrogation– No attorney– No self-incriminating statements

Police later arrested friend.– Claimed Escobedo fired the fatal shots.– Escobedo arrested, not formally charged but told he could

not leave.

Continue Escobedo

– Repeatedly interrogated and denied right to see attorney who requested and was there.

– Handcuffed– Made some statements to his involvement.

ESCOBEDO DECISION

5-4, confession inadmissible

MIRANDA V AZ (1964)

Kidnapping and sexual assault near Phoenix Ernesto Miranda, 23, Mexican national

– Arrested at his home.– Taken to police station– ID’d by the victim and taken to interrogation room.

Repeatedly asked for attorney – refused.– 2 hours a signed confession taken.– Disclaimer he had waived his rights.

Miranda Continued

Denied representation at preliminary hearing.– 76 year old lawyer who had not practiced criminal

law in 16 years.– Urged him to plead guilty by reason of insanity

MIRANDA DECISION

6-3 – overturned

Burden of the state to protect the individual from self-incrimination.

Retried after retraction of his confession. Retrial based on an accussed successful

appeal does not constitute double jeopardy.

IN re GAULT (1967)

Obscene phone calls Accused was 15 year old Gerald Gault

– Reputation & serving probation for a prior offense.– Arrested and took him to juvenile.– Failed to notify parents.

Hearing – Not recorded– No witnesses or attorneys– Judge thought he was involved so he detained him.

Continue In re Gault

Dispositional hearing – week later– No record, etc.– Not informed of the charges– Admitted he dialed but friend talked

Sentence– Reform school until 21– Over 18 would have received $50 fine and 2

months in jail.

GAULT DECISION

7-2 – Overturned Violation of the 14th Amendment of Due

Process Beyond a reasonable doubt Jury trial not needed in a juvenile case.