CRJU 203 1st Edition Lecture 4 Outline of Current Lecture I. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy II. Mere Land Rule a. Exceptions i. Plain view search ii. Consent searches Current Lecture - Reasonable Expectation of Privacy o Court has said yes, there are reasonable expectations of privacy o But there must be certain factors o Does law enforcement have the right to search you body? Or should they have a warrant? Is there excessive force that needs to be used to obtain that evidence? Does the search threaten the safety of the person? Is the person’s dignity affected? (when searching a person’s private areas)o In the case of confiscated luggage- law enforcement cannot search without a warrant o Abandoned propertyThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute. No one can claim a reasonable expectation of privacy with abandoned property  If you left something in the street, its not your property anymore Same goes for abandoned homes etc. - Mere Land- just land o It depends on the location of the land in relation to the house o The 4th amendment protects the curtilage (immediate area around the house) o Barns are sometimes considered curtilage o If the curtilage is open to view by the public, then law enforcement is allowed to look at the same thing the public can see o The “looking” by law enforcement isn’t against the 4th amendment o Whatever they can see from the outside the house/property is subject to the public’s view as well  So law enforcement isn’t doing anything wrong  No evidence that there is actual living in the land  Law enforcement is allowed to encroach on the that land - If its mere land and there are weed plants on the land, law enforcement can come and confiscate the plants - A warrant is not necessary to even seize the plant because it is in the public’s view as well so they an grab it when they see it o Exceptions  Plane view search- Law enforcement has to be in a place that they have a right to be- so if its an open field (mere land) they can be there looking - If they see an item or anything that is evidence of a crime they canseize it even without a warrant - The moment they seize the item, it has to be already apparent that it is evidence of a crime - There has to be probable cause at that very moment not later -Arizona vs. Hicks -Court has expanded the “plane view” rule to more senses o Minnesota vs. Dickerson Consent searches -The person agrees to be searched, law enforcement has the right to search you -All they have to do is ask-no warrant needed -They try to set you up to give consent -That consent has to be given voluntarily o Just giving into consent because it’s law enforcement does not count -Law enforcement has to prove that that person consented -When they want to search you, they don’t tell you that you have a right to refuse -Who has the right to consent? o You cannot consent for someone elseo If two or more people share a common area (roommate) and one person from the two say yes the search, law enforcement can come into the house/apartment and search o The third party consenter has to have the right to consent (a guest etc.) o A hotel clerk cannot give consent to law enforcement into a room in the hotel o Landlords cannot give consent to law enforcement in to search a property of theirs o How far can the search go? The scope of the search is going to be determined based on what law enforcement describes what they need to search  People can limit the search if law enforcement doesnot have anything specific to search