Slide 1The ConstitutionWarrantsAn Affidavit: The Key to Getting a WarrantA Search Warrant from a County CourtFederal WarrantKey Term: “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”Key Term: The Exclusionary RuleINCORPORATIONMapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Dollree Mapp Appealed ConvictionMapp v. Ohio (1961)Application of Exclusionary RuleStandard to pull a car overStandard for Pulling Car Over = “Reasonable Suspicion”What about a vehicle search?Getting Pulled Over vs. Getting Searched“I do not consent to a search”“Probable Cause” = standard to search inside carWhat about the K-9 Unit?Police Dogs and Car Searches: Illinois v. Caballes (2005)Things Change at the Home Though!Story time…Civil Forfeiture‘Equitable Sharing’What about these?DUI StopsUSUALLY NOT ALLOWEDWHAT ABOUT THIS?Other Searches That DO NOT Require WarrantsDo ya’ll mind if we come in?#1: Consent“What about my roommates?”What if Police Fly Over Your House?#2: Plain ViewWhen can police do this?#3: Exigent CircumstancesIs a toilet flush grounds to kick in your door?What is the standard for a “pat-down”#4: “Reasonable Suspicion” Pat DownsDoes the 4th Amendment apply here?What about a high school locker?5. No / Low Reasonable Expectation of PrivacySlide 46Do they need a warrant for this?Maryland v. King (2013)Cell Phone Searches: REQUIRE A WARRANT! (June 25, 2014)Riley v. California (2014)Riley v. California (2014)PRISM: Somebody is Watching You!Legal StandardsThe Fourth Amendment“Search and Seizure”: An IntroductionBy Hemant Sharma, University of TennesseeDepartment of Political ScienceThe Constitution•Text of Fourth Amendment (bold added):–The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Warrants•Issued by a judge or ‘magistrate’ based on information provided by the police through an affidavit, which is a sworn statement •Police need to show “probable cause” = likelihood of criminal activity•A warrant should be specific as to the items being sought and the place to be searched•Most warrants have a deadline for the search to occurAn Affidavit: The Key to Getting a WarrantA Search Warrant from a County CourtFederal WarrantKey Term: “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”•If illegally obtained evidence leads to more evidence, everything gets thrown out•This applies to illegally obtained confessions, as well•Nardone v. U.S (1937)Key Term:The Exclusionary Rule•NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, but essential for 4th Amendment protections• Means that illegally obtained evidence is “excluded” from criminal trials•It was created by the Supreme CourtINCORPORATION•AN AMENDMENT IS MADE TO APPLY TO THE STATES!!•EXCLUSIONARY RULE WAS NOT INCORPORATED RIGHT AWAY…Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Mapp v. Ohio (1961)•Case began when boxing promoter Don King told police that one of his businesses had been bombed•The suspect in the bombing was believed to be hiding in the home of Dollree Mapp•Police forcibly entered her home without a warrantMapp v. Ohio (1961)•Bombing suspect was not found in house•Police opened a small, closed storage box and found a stash of pornographic material•Mapp was charged with possession of pornography and was later convictedDollree Mapp Appealed ConvictionMapp v. Ohio (1961)•Supreme Court of Ohio said the search was invalid, but claimed that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states•By a 6-3 decision, Supreme Court of the United States overrules and decides that the exclusionary rule does in fact apply to the statesApplication of Exclusionary Rule•What are some ways a search can occur and impact your lives?Standard to pull a car overStandard for Pulling Car Over = “Reasonable Suspicion”•According to the Supreme Court, police can only stop a vehicle if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” of a traffic violation (or violation of any other law)•“Reasonable suspicion” is a low standard to meet; it has been defined as “something more than a hunch” (Terry v. Ohio, 1968)What about a vehicle search?Getting Pulled Over vs.Getting Searched•Ok, getting pulled over is a “seizure” that requires reasonable suspicion•But once you are stopped, what will allow police to search your car?•Well, if you consent, then they can search…“I do not consent to a search”•How would you respond to this question from an officer:–“Do you mind if I search your car? It will only take a second.”•Hint: Avoid “yes” or “no” answers to that question… simply say “I do not consent to a search”•Even without consent, they might still be able to search… if they have “probable cause” of illegal activity“Probable Cause” = standard to search inside car•After a stop, probable cause is needed to search vehicle—but no warrant is required (“automobile exception”)•Probable cause = a likelihood of illegal activity•Examples: smell of marijuana; syringes; guns / bullets; blood•With probable cause, police can search the whole car – even search closed items like glove compartment and purses (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999)What about the K-9 Unit?Police Dogs and Car Searches:Illinois v. Caballes (2005)•Police do not need a warrant to bring a drug sniffing to a car (Illinois v. Caballes, 2005); if the dog alerts, that gives police probable cause to search inside the car•However, if the duration of the stop is “unreasonably prolonged” as police wait for a dog, that is a violation of the 4th AmendmentThings Change at the Home Though!•Florida v. Jardines (2013)–Police bring a dog on a leash to someone’s porch–Dog is walked around and sniffs–Dog alerts–Information is used to get a warrant–Supreme Court says the dog sniff is INVALID–Home and CURTILAGE (area around home) are protectedStory time…My old car!Civil Forfeiture•This occurs when police seize your property even without filing criminal charges•Generally, probable cause is the standard needed for such a seizure•You can then go to court and attempt to re-acquire your property, although the burden is on you to show by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that the property was not connected to illegal activity•See this video: