Rakas

To object to search, D has to show reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or thing

Olson

Can object to search of apartment

Carter

Kennedy conc that all social guests have privacy rights but not those solely for business

Simmons

Testimony of ownership inadmissible at trial

Lower courts

They do have standing since its a seizure

Search when:

1.Person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and

2. That expectation is recognized as reasonable by society

White

D has no expectation of privacy that second person will not reveal

Kyllo

Constituted a search in 2001

Riley

Constitute a search

Knotts

Tracking on public highway only supplements visual observation so not a search

Karo

Not search to install, but need warrant to monitor once it enters curtilage

Jones

Five concurring justices suggested long-term monitoring might be a search

Smith

Not a search

Open fields doctine

Oliver

No expectation of privacy when not home or curtilage

Ciraolo

Fixed wing airplane at 1,000 ft not a search

Riley

Helicopter at 400 ft also not a search but following factors can change that: revelation of intimate details of home, undue noise, wind, interference with use

Caballes

Suspicionless dog sniff does not constitute search

King

Do not constitute search

Jones

The trespass approach to search

Attachment of GPS device was search. 

Scalia: (1) physical trespass, (2) for purpose of collecting information

Alito: Could be decided on Katz since prolonged tracking violated privacy

Sotomayor: GPS capabilities can "chill associational and expressive freedoms"

Jardines

P commited unlicensed physical intrusion in a protected area by "gathering information"

Mendenhall

When a person's freedom of movement is curtailed by means of physical force or show of authority. Seized when in light of circumstances, reasonable person would not believe he was free to leave.

Hodari

Not a seizure since there is show of authority but no submission

Atwater

No violation as long as probable cause

Michigan v Summers

Allowed

Karo

Meaningful interference with possessory interest of defendant

Place

Place detention held legal when 90 minutes

Lo Ji Sales

1. Probable cause

2. Oath

3. Particularity - place, thing, items

4. Neutral and detached magistrate

Brinegar

When circumstances in P's knowledge would warrant person of reasonable caution to believe the item subject to seizure will be found in the place

Pringle

PC for all 3 men in car in Pringle was reasonable because of shared possession. It left open the question of whether a one-third chance amounts to probable cause.

Gates

1. Underlying circumstances

2. Reliability

3. If not sufficient, corroboration

Harris

Enough if dog sufficiently qualified

Franks

Deliberate or recklessness in making false statement or ommission

Whren

Court resists inquiry in subjective state of mind

Ramirez

No exception since requirement is explicit in 4th

Wilson

Requires it

Hudson

Exclusion not available

McArthur

P has that right

Ybarra

Allowed

Watson

Allowed without warrant when PC

Payton

Not allowed without warrant 

Santana

Legitimate without warrant if PC

Warren v Hayden

Exception

Kentucky v King

Exception

Stuart

Exception to warrant

Fisher

Court wants to avoid second-guessing of police conduct

Mincey

Exception ends when justification ends

Colorado v Bertine

Not a search

Chimel

Rationale:

1. Remove weapons D may use to resist or escape

2. Search evidence to prevent concealment or destruction

V Qs

Full body search after custodial arrest is lawful

Gant

Search justified only (1) for weapons within D's reach, or (2) reasonable suspicion that evidence related to offense of arrest is in vehicle

Belton not overruled to can search all containers in passenger compartment

Search of trunk not permitted

Carrol

Line of cases created auto exception. No need for warrant but PC needed.

Acevedo

May search containers if PC about containers.

Ross

Refused to make distinction between containers and trunk.

V Q

Auto exception has expanded but most vehicles in cases were operable. May not apply to immobile vehicles.

Carney

Look at factors that indicates if mobile home is mobility-ready

Horton

Seizure of items in plain view constitutional even if discovery not inadvertent

Hicks

Incriminating nature must be readily apparent. Even slight movement can constitute search.

Dickerson

If feel of object during lawful patdown make identity of object "immediately apparent", seizure is justified

Bond

Squeezing of luggage without justification is a search

Bustamonte

Consent has to be voluntary; evaluated in TOC

Rodriguez

Would reasonable person believe giver had authority?

Jimeno

Scope of consent depends on RPP's perception.

Terry

 Stop and frisk legal when P has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, stop is brief, and frisk is limited for weapons for which there is reasonable suspicion

Suspicion standard

Point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from facts, reasonably warrant intrusion

Alabama v White

Sources upheld even with innocent-seeming details because there was corroborated prediction of future activity

Florida v JL

Information of guy in plaid shirt, without any else, not found enough

Dunaway and Royer

Scope exceeded when D escorted to police station or faraway room on airport

Buie

Incident to arrest, may search spaces from which attack may be launched without reasonable suspicion. After that, reasonable suspicion required and search limited to spaces where person may be hiding.

Michigan v Long

Search restricted to passenger compartment when there is reasonable suspicion D is dangerous and can get immediate access to weapons

Mimms; Wilson

D allowed by Mimms; passengers by Wilson

Camara

Warrant clause has no meaning in non-criminal context

NJ v TLO

Justified under special needs doctrine

Burger

Allowed because P searched under authority of regulatory law, but outer reaches of special needs doctrine

Aukai

Are legal under special needs doctrine

Sitz

Authorized under special needs doctrine

Edmonds

Not allowed under special needs because of relation to criminal law enforcement

Miranda

Accused must be given warnings when in custody before interrogation may begin. Court has not required rigid adherence to language; warnings must convey basic rights.

Keohane

Whether in circumstances, RPP would feel at liberty to leave

But, Mathiason

Not custody when D voluntarily walked in police station

Berkemeyer

No warnings for temporary detention after traffic stop

Mathis

No it is not

RI v Innis

Words or actions designed to elicit an incriminating response. Objective test but police knowledge of D susceptibility is a factor.

Perkins

Does not amount to Miranda interrogation

Elstad

Two step interrogation allowed in good faith circumstances

Siebert

Two steps: (1) Violation intentionsl? (2) Look at circumstances

1. Completeness and detail of Qs in Round 1

2. Overlapping content

3. Timing and setting of Rounds 1 and 2

4. Continuity of police personnel

5. Degree to which P treated Round 2 as contination of 1

6. Curative measures

Quarles

Public safety exception

Muniz

4 members sought exception

Hibel

Majority gave exception when Qs pertained to identity

Schmerber

Do not violate 5th since no compelling to self-incriminate

Waiver

Express waiver preferred but not necessary. Butler. Waiver can be inferred from TOC. Thompkins. 

Invocation

Invocation must be unambiguous. Thompkins (2.75 hrs).

P to scrupulously honor right. Mosley.

Reinterrogation

Wait at least 2 hours. Mosley (> 2.0 hrs) Miranda warnings not necessary; waiver evaluated under TOC.

CO v Spring

D need not know what charges against him when waiving

Waiver

 May be inferred based on conduct. Butler.

Edwards Invocation

 Invocation to be unambigous. Davis.

Questioning to cease until counsel present or D reinitates contact. Edwards.

Reinterrogation

Police may approach after 14 days. Shatzer.

No need to show re-Miranda; just show valid waiver under TOC. Bradshaw.

Burbine

No obligation to inform D; D may still waive

Roberson

Unlike right to silence and 6th amendment, it is not crime-specific

Spano

Totality of circumstances to evaluate coercion.

Lisenba

Not coercion because attitude of D.

Quarles

Threats of violence always give rise to 5th coercion.

Fulminante

Snitch wielding power in jail equivalent to P doing it.

Massiah

Right attaches automatically at start of formal proceedings. P may not deliberately elicit response after that point.

Kuhlmann

Informers have to do more than merely listen.

Escobedo

Miranda restricted Escobedo to its facts. There, court used following factors:

1) investigation has begun to focus on D

2) D has been taken into police custody

3) interrogation lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements

4) the suspect has requested and been denied counsel

5) the police have not effectively warned him of 5th right

Patterson

Waiver of Miranda rights is adequate waiver for 6th purpose

McNeil

It is offense specific

Cobb

Lesser offense standard Blockburger: Two offenses the same when proving elements of one will prove the other

Weeks; Mapp

Weeks imposes exclusionary rule on feds; Mapp on states

Calandra

Does not apply to grand jury proceedings

Miranda violation

Can be used to impeach. Harris.

5th violation

May not be used to impeach. Portash.

6th violation

Can be used to impeach. Ventris.

1. Independent source. Murray.

2. Attenuation or dissipation of taint. Wong Sun. 

3. Inevitable discovery. Nix.

Brown

1. Length of time

2. Flagrancy of initial misconduct

3. Existence of intervening causes

4. Presence or lack of free will

Ceccolini

Claim for exclusion weaker when it comes to witnesses

Patane

Are admissible

Leon

Proper if executing officer believed in good faith that warrant was valid

Nathanson

If affidavit very inadequate, improper in spite of good faith

Herring

Exclusionary rule does not apply