Collateral use exceptions Harris v New York 1971 impeachment of defendant United States v Calandra 1974 grand jury Chapter 4 The prosecutor can use illegal ceased evidence grand jury considers illegally ceased Exclusionary rule allows him to do this Able to get defendant indicted but hard to evidence prove guilty Pa Bd of Pardons Parole v Scott 1998 revocation hearing Parol is a conditional release from a correctional facility Can use illegally ceased evidence for parole purposes Evidence of violation of parole Ins v Lopez Mendoza 1984 deportation hearing hearing with no jury in hearing the government needs to prove that the person is here illegally the defendant can give evidence of their own In deportation hearing government can use illegally ceased evidence exclusionary rule If one of these apply prosecutor can use in case and chief United States v Leon 1984 Good faith and reasonable referred to as good faith exception but bad name because you need good faith and reasonable What happened in this case Police had evidence that Leon had drugs going on in Leon s place Police showed judge and judge said it was good enough evidence But when police showed evidence the evidence was stale so search warrant was invalid which ended up making the evidence illegal Police and judge did not know it was stale and had no reason to know Said if the police are acting in good faith and their acting reasonably then we re going to permit the evidence to come in Reliance on incorrect court records from another county Example case Herring v U S Basic idea behind these cases is reliance on court records If there was a screw up in the system and an officer sees a warrant for your arrest when he pulls you over therefore searches your car and finds drugs Although the warrant and searching was illegal and not allowed the drugs are still illegal and will be used against you 4th Amendment protects privacy and freedom of movement Before we can ask if 4th amendment was violated we need to make sure that the 4th Chapter 3 amendment was applied This has to be looked at first search of people and places the threshold issues are 1 Whether the person had an expectation of privacy 2 Whether society is willing to protect it reasonable seizures of person and things the threshold issue the degree of interference with freedom of movement Seizures movement Is there a seizure Ascertain this by looking at the degree of interference with freedom of Less more No seizure Brief stop Full arrest Justification needed with stop and arrest Nothing Reasonable suspicion Probable cause With a stop police need reasonable suspicion Who determines Police do subject to judicial review Reasonable suspicion based on very specific facts facts must be able to be articulated by the officer officer has to be able to say he saw the person did this and this etc Ascertaining reasonable suspicion People v Oliver Michigan 2001 decided by Michigan supreme court officer knew that bank robbers often have a getaway car he thought an apartment complex parking lot would be a good place for a hidden car As he drove in a car exited and he noticed it was the same number of robbers that were riding in the car and the passengers did not look at him So he stopped the car The question is was the stop legal reasonable suspicion Not one of these facts would stand alone but since he could name numerous specific facts it was lawful With an arrest full seizure need probable cause Who determines This depends on whether or not a warrant is needed with warrant judge without warrant police subject to judicial review 48 hour rule If police make determination of probable cause and arrests someone the judge needs to decide on the probable cause within 48 hours Person can sit in jail for 2 days until decision Ascertaining probable cause Probable cause for an arrest requires sufficient evidence exists and is reviewed by the judge to support the reasonable conclusion that someone has committed a crime Probable cause for a warrant a level of evidence sufficient to provide a reasonable conclusion that the proposed objects of a search will be found in the location that law enforcement officers request to search traditional test is Aguilar and Spinelli from Aguilar v Texas 1964 and Spinelli v US 1969 Basis of officer s knowledge Reliability of info Problem with informant Current Illinois v Gates 1983 Arrest Warrant Issues Always need probable cause for an arrest Whether warrant is required or not is a key issue That depends on whether the arrest is a public arrest or a private arrest Traditional rules permitted police to arrest in public without a warrant in cases of a felony where there is probable cause U S v Watson 1976 cases of a misdemeanor when the officer witnessed the crime Payton v New York 1980 held that a warrantless entry into a home for a routine felony arrest was a violation of the 4th amendment This is due to the higher level of privacy protection in a home Exigent circumstances exceptions problems with applying this rule e g practice of police coercing people inside a home to exit in order to carry out a warrantless public arrests What about minor offenses that carry no jail time Atwater v City of Lago Vista 2001 Held Arrest reasonable for minor non jailable offense Use of force Traditional rule permits the use of reasonable amount of force to carry out an arrest Deadly force Common law rule was deadly force ok to stop a suspect in a felony case Tenn v Garner 1985 changed the rule by requiring that the arrest is for a felony probable cause to believe there is a threat of serious physical harm to police or public Chapter 5 Warrantless searches Persons General rule in order for search to be reasonable police must first obtain a search warrant Warrantless searches as exceptions to general rule to find reasonableness balance privacy against state interests With exceptions police does not need warrant Stop and Frisk A stop is a seizure A frisk is a search This involves both Need reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts Terry v Ohio 1968 Rationale and scope of search looking for weapons Need reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts Officer suspected they were going to rob something so he figured they would have weapons Profiling problem Court took side of police safety to guard against the risk of the public police can do suitable pat down not a full search in mind of searching for weapons Argument that the stop was too brief The longer the stop more