CJ 100 1st Edition Lecture 8Outline of Current Lecture II. Fourth AmendmentIII. WarentsIV. Weeks vs. USV. Mapp vs OhioVI. Katz vs USVII. California vs. GreenwoodVIII. Domestic Drones Current LectureFourth Amendment- Remember: - Protection against unreasonable search and seizures- Probable cause - No general warrants (need specifics) When warrants are NOT required-- Consent- Plain view doctrine- this includes areas visible from the air- Plain feel and plain smell doctrine- police dogs who sniff luggage in public places are not conducting searches (so you are not subject to 4th amendment protections)Weeks v. United States (1914)- Exclusionary rule is created (1914)- can’t use evidence from illegal search and seizure- Huge check on police power- Only applied to federal casesMapp v. Ohio (1961)These 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.- Extended the exclusionary rule to the states (via the due process clause in the 14th amendment)- Don King Katz v. United States (1967)- Key issues:o “right to privacy”- does it extend outside the home? (ex. telephone booths, public places)o Do you need physical intrusion to constitute a search? (ex. Wire tapping)- Ruling- private conversations can be made in public places. Wire tapping violated privacyand therefore constituted a search and seizure unreasonable- need a warrant- If door is closed in a phone booth then privacy is expected - Think about the evolution of technology (cell phones)- Katz- What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th amendment protectionCalifornia v. Greenwood (1988)- 4th amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home- No reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on the side of the street o Also social media, anything you put out for the publicKyllo v. United States (2001)- Use of thermal imaging technology to see through walls- The use of thermal imaging technology constituted a search- did not fall under the “plainview doctrine” - Also deals with advanced technology Domestic Drones and the 4 th amendment (government technology is always about 20 years ahead of current technology) - NSA- large domestic surveillance program- listening to people- leading up to a big supreme court case in the future- Goes against the 4th amendmentK-9 Searches- Sniff by a police dog is NOT a search under the 4th amendment (US v. Place 1983) - Positive alerts by K-9 units are treated as a probable causeFlorida v. Jardines (2013)- Is a K-9 unit sniff outside of the house a 4th amendment “search”?? o A “search” requires both probable cause and a search
View Full Document