1. Exigent Circumstances
1.1. Level Of Justification
1.1.1. Probable Cause
1.1.1.1. Where exigencies of a situation compel police to act immediately or risk either imminent danger to themselves or others, destruction of evidence, or escape of a suspect.
1.1.1.1.1. Exigencies are viewed from the totality of the facts known to officers at the time of the invasion
1.1.1.2. It would be unreasonable to require the warrant process
1.1.1.2.1. Government's burden to show warrant cannot be secured in time
1.2. Prerequisites to have the Exception
1.2.1. (1) Circumstances that present police with a sufficiently compelling urgency, making the warrant process impracticable or risky
1.2.2. (2) The police had justification amounting to probable cause to believe that items relating to crime would be found or that the suspect committed a crime.
1.3. Situations Applying
1.3.1. Most common in hot pursuit cases.
1.3.1.1. Police may search a home to find a suspect, and if searching may seize evidence connected to the crime. Permissible because exigent circumstances to prevent escape
1.3.1.2. Hot pursuit alone is insufficient
1.3.1.2.1. Must still have probable cause that the subject committed the crime and he is in a particular dwelling.
1.3.1.2.2. Must be in the immediate and continuous pursuit
1.3.1.3. Gravity of the offense is a factor of consideration
1.3.1.3.1. May not be applicable to minor offenses
1.3.2. Applies to situations where the delay required to obtain a warrant would create an imminent risk of destruction of evidence, escape of suspect, or danger to police or others
1.3.2.1. Gravity of the crime and likelihood suspect is armed considered factors in assessing urgency
1.3.2.2. It is a fact specific analysis to determine if a warrant is impracticable
1.3.2.3. When police feel/anticipate incriminating evidence may be destroyed or removed, but lack justification police may
1.3.2.3.1. (1) Secure the premises and prevent entry while awaitng warrant
1.3.2.3.2. (2) Seek telephonic warrants as authorized in some jurisdictions.
1.3.3. Applies when justifying entering a home where police believe the occupant is seriously injured or in imminent danger
1.3.3.1. Ongoing violence is sufficient justification to enter
1.4. Limits to the Exception
1.4.1. Limited to the areas where the suspect or weapons may be hiding
1.4.1.1. Ie. Person in closet
1.4.2. Must be within the necessities of the moment
1.4.3. Limited by the nature of the emergency
1.4.3.1. 2 hours to search a murder suicide scene is unlawful because the area has been secured
1.4.3.2. If search is designed to find the source of a fire and extinguish it, valid. However once the scene is secured, a search warrant is required.
1.4.4. Inapplicable to situations where suspects are unaware of police surveillance or presence
1.5. Cases Applying
1.5.1. Hot Pursuit
1.5.1.1. Warden V. Hayden
1.5.1.2. Welsh v. Wisconsin
1.5.2. Exigent Cicumstances
1.5.2.1. Minnesota v. Olson
1.5.3. Emergency Situations
1.5.3.1. Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart
1.5.4. Limits
1.5.4.1. Governmental Burden
1.5.4.1.1. Bailey v. Newland
1.5.4.1.2. US v. Davis
1.5.4.2. Police Surveilance
1.5.4.2.1. US. v. Santa
1.5.4.2.2. US v. Hernandez
1.5.4.2.3. US v. Davis
1.5.4.3. Destruction of Evidence, w/o Probable Cause
1.5.4.3.1. Segura v. US
1.5.4.3.2. Illinois v. McArthur
1.5.4.4. Nature of Emergency
1.5.4.4.1. Thompson v. Louisiana
1.5.4.4.2. Michigan v. Clifford
1.5.4.4.3. Michigan v. Tyler
1.5.4.5. Hot Pursuit Limit
1.5.4.5.1. Mincey v. Arizona
2. Automobiles
2.1. Level of Justification
2.1.1. Probable Cause
2.1.1.1. Authorizes warrant-less search where officers have probable cause to believe there is contraband or other evidence of criminal activity in the vehicle
2.1.2. Recognizes the impracticability of obtaining a warrant to search a car stopped by police on the open road.
2.1.3. Citizens have less privacy expectation in automobiles than in their homes
2.2. Prerequisites of the Exception
2.2.1. Probable cause contraband or criminal activity evidence is there.
2.3. Situations Applying
2.3.1. Permits warrant-less search of entire vehicle limited only by the size and nature of items for which there is probable cause to search.
2.3.2. Police not required to obtain a warrant to open a container found in car, even if their probable cause to search is limited to the container not the car.
2.3.3. Officers w/ probable cause to search a car may inspect a passenger's belongings as long as they are capable of conceding the object of the search
2.3.4. Applies to ALL moving vehicles (boats and motor homes)
2.4. Limits to the Exception
2.4.1. Search covers all areas of vehicle so long as item search for may be containable there.
2.5. Cases Applying
2.5.1. Generally
2.5.1.1. Carroll v. US
2.5.2. Search Entire Vehicle
2.5.2.1. California v. Acevedo
2.5.2.2. US v. Ross
2.5.3. Passenger Belonging
2.5.3.1. Wyoming v. Houghton
2.5.4. Motor Homes
2.5.4.1. California v. Carney
2.5.5. Delay in opening
2.5.5.1. United States v. Johns
3. Inventory Search
3.1. Level of Justificiation
3.1.1. Reasonable based upon Government interest vs. Degree of intrusion.
3.2. Examples of
3.2.1. Examination of impounded vehicles
3.2.2. Impounded personal effects
3.3. Cases Applying
3.3.1. Florida v. Wells
3.3.2. Colorado v. Bertine
3.3.3. Illinois v. Lafayette
4. Search Incident to Arrest
4.1. Level of Justificiation
4.1.1. Probable Cause
4.1.1.1. Based upon exigencies presented by a particular type of confrontation b/w police officer and citizen
4.1.1.2. When placed under arrest, there is an obvious danger that the arrestee may violently resist and use any weapon on his person or w/in his/her reach.
4.2. Prerequisites of the Exception
4.2.1. Basic prerequisite for a search is the underlying arrest is lawful (based on P/C suspect committed the crime)
4.2.1.1. if arrest is in a private building, that a valid arrest warrant is held
4.2.2. Generally, the arrest must preceed the search, as the arrest justifies the search
4.2.2.1. One exception, detained without announcing formal arrest until search complete
4.3. Situations Applying
4.3.1. License to conduct a search w/o judicial approval should be strictly circumscribed to the necessities of the moment.
4.3.1.1. The scope of the search incident to arrest is limited to the person of the arrestee and the grabbable space from which he could reach weapons or evidence
4.3.1.1.1. Cigarette pack may be removed an opened by officer at time of arrest
4.3.1.1.2. Must occur contemporaneously with arrest, opening later requires warrant
4.3.1.1.3. Includes the entire area of the passenger compartment as w/in the proper scope of the search incident to arrest, even if suspects have already been removed from vehicle.
4.3.2. As long as the search is lawful, no additional justification is required to conduct a search incident to the arrest.
4.3.3. May be made when
4.3.3.1. Arrestee is unsecured and w/in reaching distance of passenger compartment
4.3.3.2. It is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest may be in the vehicle
4.4. Limits to the Exception
4.4.1. Search must be at the time of arrest
4.4.1.1. if detained and secured, exigencies disappear.
4.4.2. Arrest on the street in front of home does not within vicinity of the inside, no search for the home without warrant
4.5. Cases Applying
4.5.1. Arrest before Search
4.5.1.1. Rawlings v. Kentucky
4.5.2. Person and Grabbable Space
4.5.2.1. Chimel v. California
4.5.2.2. US v. Robinson
4.5.2.3. New York v. Belton
4.5.3. Contemporaneous Opening (Container Doctrine)
4.5.3.1. US v. Chadwick
4.5.4. Lawfulness of Arrest
4.5.4.1. Gustafson v. Florida
4.5.4.2. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
4.5.5. When SIA can be made
4.5.5.1. Arizona v. Gant
4.5.6. Officer Motive
4.5.6.1. Whren v. United States
4.5.7. Vicinity of Arrest
4.5.7.1. Vale v. Louisiana
4.5.8. Phones
4.5.8.1. Riley v. California
5. Administrative Search
5.1. Level of Justification
5.1.1. Reasonable based upon Government interest vs. Degree of intrusion.
5.1.2. Typially required warrant unless
5.1.2.1. (1) warrantless inspection of gun dealers
5.1.2.2. (2) Owner or operator of commercial premises in closely regulated industry has a reduced expectation of privacy.
5.2. Defined
5.2.1. The searches unrelated to criminal investigations are "administrative searches" and judged against an open-ended test of reasonableness not dependent on particular information
5.2.1.1. Standard is reasonableness, evaluated as an entire program, not on an individual basis
5.3. Situations Applying:
5.3.1. Suspicionless drug testing is outweighed by the schools interest in detecting drug use, as such urinalysis is not intrusive
5.3.2. Justifies inspections for businesses, arson, border checkpoints, sobriety checkpoints, impounded cars (including disassembly and reassembly of cars at borders)
5.3.3. Must demonstrate an individualized suspicion
5.3.3.1. Strip searches will require more justification than individualized suspicion.
5.4. Examples of
5.4.1. Held no requirement of a warrant when a school principal searches a student's purse for drugs
5.4.2. No warrant when supervisor searches gov. employees office for professional misconduct
5.4.3. No warrant required when probation officer searching probationer's home
5.4.4. Gun dealer who chooses to engage in the pervasively regulated business and accept federal license , does so with the knowledge his records, fire arms, and ammo are subject to inspection.
5.4.5. An impermissible search occurs when drug testing political candidates.
5.5. Cases Applying
5.5.1. Student Searches
5.5.1.1. New Jersey v. TLO
5.5.1.2. Safford v. Redding
5.5.1.3. Board of Education v. Earls
5.5.2. Employee Searches
5.5.2.1. O'Connor v. Ortega
5.5.2.2. National Treasury v. Von Raab
5.5.2.3. Skinner v. Railway
5.5.3. Probation Officer
5.5.3.1. Griffin v. Wisconsin
5.5.3.2. Samson v. California
5.5.4. Regulatory Searches
5.5.4.1. US v. Biswell
5.5.4.2. New York v. Burger
5.5.4.3. City of LA v. Patel
5.5.5. Candidates
5.5.5.1. Chandler v. Miller
5.5.6. Border Searches
5.5.6.1. US v. Ramsey
5.5.6.2. US v. Flores- Montano
5.5.7. Vehicle Checkpoint
5.5.7.1. Martinez-Fuerte
5.5.7.2. Prouse
5.5.7.3. Sitz
5.5.7.4. Lidster
6. Consent
6.1. Level of Justification
6.1.1. No Justification
6.1.2. Express or implied
6.1.3. May be evidenced by Conduct of the Consenting party.
6.2. Rationale
6.2.1. Individuals may waive the protection of the 4th amendment.
6.2.2. Limited by the consenting party.
6.3. Factors
6.3.1. Based upon the totality of the circumstances was the consent voluntary and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.
6.3.1.1. No bright-line duty to inform the consenting party of 4th amendment rights or to ensure understanding of those rights.
6.4. 3rd Party Consent
6.4.1. Common Authority=mutual use by persons with joint access or control
6.4.2. Would the facts available to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had control over the premises
6.4.3. Consent of the landlord does not outweigh the refusal of the current tenant.
6.5. Cases Applying
6.5.1. General Rule
6.5.1.1. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
6.5.2. Special Cases
6.5.2.1. U.S. v. Carter
6.5.2.2. Florida v. Jimeno
6.5.2.3. U.S. v. Drayton
6.5.3. 3rd Party Consent
6.5.3.1. Illinois v. Rodriguez
6.5.3.2. Georgia v. Randolph
6.5.3.3. Fernandez v. California
6.5.3.4. Ohio v. Robinette