CJS 101 1st Edition Lecture 13 Outline of Last Lecture l. Due process revolutionA. search and seizure definedll. The meaning of “search”A. Katz v. United Stateslll. Search and seizure distinctionsA. Levels of suspicionVl. Stop and friskA. Terry v. ohioB. Terry testC. Frisk definedOutline of Current Lecture l. Search with warrantsII. Exceptions to warrant requirementA. Chimel v CaliforniaIII. Significance of Arizona v Gant and beltonIV. K-9 dog sniffsA. Illinois v Caballes llV. Automobile ExceptionA. Carroll v United StatesB. consent searchesCurrent LectureSearch with warrants: Reasonableness depends on particularity, reasonable cause, affidavitThese 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.Constitution says searches mist be based on a warrantExceptions 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 lawfulAccording 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 controlIn a house… can search the room the arrest is made inIn 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 itArizona v Gant illustrates how the law can changeIllinois 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 trunkAutomobile Exception: can search a vehicle without a warrant if the probable cause exists that’s the vehicle is part of a crimeCaroll v United States if the vehicle has contraband you cans search the whole thingMichigan v Sitz: Road sobriety checkpoints are legal, minimual intrusion on privacyInventory searches exception: when a vehicle is seized, you can inventory its contents, protects property against claims of theft or loss, protect police from dangerous contentsConsent 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 propertyExigent circumstances: emergency circumstances, hot pursuit, imminent