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. Lecture 13 Outline of Last Lecture l. Due process revolution A. search and seizure defined ll. The meaning of “search” A. Katz v. United States lll. Search and seizure distinctions A. Levels of suspicion Vl. Stop and frisk A. Terry v. ohio B. Terry test C. Frisk defined Outline of Current Lecture l. Search with warrants II. Exceptions to warrant requirement A. Chimel v California III. Significance of Arizona v Gant and belton IV. K-9 dog sniffs A. Illinois v Caballes llV. Automobile Exception A. Carroll v United States B. consent searches Current Lecture Search with warrants: Reasonableness depends on particularity, reasonable cause, affidavit Constitution says searches mist be based on a warrant BIOM 121 1nd EditionExceptions to warrant requirement: - search incident to lawful arrest - vehicle searches - inventory searches - consent searches - exigent circumstances searches - plain view searches “incident to arrest”: based on officer safety, prevent destruction of evidence, arrest must be lawful According to Chimel v California (1969) search incident to arrest is limited to the following: the person of the arrestee and the area within his/her immediate control In a house… can search the room the arrest is made in In a car…search limited to instances of concerns for officer safety when the arrestee is not in custody, or to search for evidence of the crime arrested for -Belton rule gave total discretion to cops, they could search the entire passenger compartment, and anything in any containers with in it Arizona v Gant illustrates how the law can change Illinois v Caballes says that no suspicion is needed for an officer to conduct a dog sniff in a vehicle, if a dog “alters” on drugs, it represents probable cause to search the vehicle, including the trunk Automobile Exception: can search a vehicle without a warrant if the probable cause exists that’s the vehicle is part of a crime Caroll v United States if the vehicle has contraband you cans search the whole thing Michigan v Sitz: Road sobriety checkpoints are legal, minimual intrusion on privacy Inventory searches exception: when a vehicle is seized, you can inventory its contents, protects property against claims of theft or loss, protect police from dangerous contents Consent searches: search made without probable cause or a warrant that is agreed to by the person being searched, to claim your rights you must assert them! Who can give consent? Person to be searched, parent-guardian, person with “common authority” over a home or rental propertyPlain view: The right to search and seize what officers can discover by the use of their ordinary senses (if I can see it, smell it, hear it) Minnesota v Dickerson (1993) when conducting a patdown, immediately identifiable items can be seized (knives, guns, contraband) Open fields doctrine: allows police officers, acting without warrant to walk past “no trespassing signs” to find marijuana plants in fields on private property Exigent circumstances: emergency circumstances, hot pursuit, imminent