- 1. Under the Fourth Amendment probation against unreasonable searches and seizures, a seizures of the person can be defined as follows: “A person has been “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave, ranging from a minimally intrusive stop and frisk to formal custodial arrests.” 2. Under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against --, a seizure of property “occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). Usually, a seizure involves the taking into custody by a law enforcement officer of an item of property believed to relate to criminal activity. 

- The constitutional mandate of the Fourth Amendment that warrants (and affidavits or applications for warrants) must describe very specifically “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” Failure to comply with the level of specificity required to satisfy the particularity requirement can result in judicial denial for an application for a warrant. A warrant that was erroneously grant in the absence of p can later be invalidated thereby jeopardizing the searches or seizures conducted pursuant to the warrant. 

- A rule developed by the U.S Supreme Court that states that evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights by law enforcement officers or agents will be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution against the persons who rights are violated. Subject to several exceptions, the exclusionary rule usually also prohibits the introduction of derivative evidence, both tangible and testimonial, that is the product of the primary evidence that is otherwise acquired as an indirect result of an unlawful search or seizure. 

- An exception of the fruit of a poisonous tree doctict that allows the admission of tainted evidence if that evidence was obtained in a manner that is sufficiently removed or attenuated from unconstitutional search, thereby rendering the evidence admissible at trial. 

- An exception to the exclusionary rule for illegal searches conducted in good faith. Under this exception, whenever a law enforcement officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a detached and neutral judge or magistrate and acted within its scope, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant will not be excluded even though the warrant is later determined to be invalid. The good-faith exception has been extended to protect police who acted in good-faith reliance upon a statue (late found invalid) that authorized warrantless administrative searches. 

- The legal right a person to judicially challenge the conduct of another person or the government for an invasion of a reasonable exception of privacy. In general, standing depends on whether the person seeks relief has legally sufficient personal interest at stake to obtain judicial resolution of merits of the dispute. 

- A serious situation developing suddenly and unexpectantly that demands immediate action rather than conformity with the usual requirements of law. They usually include emergency situations that have given rise to imminent danger to life, serious damage to property imminent escape of a subject, or the imminent destruction of evidence. 

- A sworn written statement presented to a proper judicial officer alleging that a specified person has committed a specified crime. 

- The proceedings before a judicial officer in which three matters must be declared; whether a crime was committed, whether the crime occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime. A chief purpose of the preliminary hearing is to protect the accused from inadequately based prosecution in felony cases by making a judicial test of the existence of probable cause early in the proceedings. 

- A procedure by which a party obtains a legal right to compel the opposing party to permit access to information in order to promote the orderly ascertainment of the truth during trial. Discovery in criminal case usually involves allowing the moving party to obtain, inspect, copy, or photograph items within the possession or control of the opposing party. The process can also be used to compel access to witnesses for the purpose of conducting a deposition. 

Deposition- 

 “to speak the truth” 1. An examination conducted by the court of by the attorneys of a prospective juror or witness to determine if he or she is competent or qualified for service. 2. During a trial, a hearing conducted by the court out of the presence of jury on some issue upon which the court must make an initial determination as a matter of law. 

 1. An examination or inspection of a location, vehicle, or person by a law enforcement officer for the purpose of locating objects—Carroll doctrine, searches conducted in the open fields, observations and seizures of abandoned property, and frisks conducted as a part of brief, limited, investigation detention. 

The fair probability that someone is involved in criminal activity or that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Probable cause is the level of proof required to justify the issuance of an arrest warrant or search warrant, all arrests made without a warrant, and most searches made without a warrant. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within a person’s knowledge and of which he or she has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to justify a person of reasonable caution and prudence in believing that something is true. It means something is less than certainty but more than mere suspicion, speculation, or possibility. It has often been referred to as meaning more like than not. 

 Evidence that is not causally linked to unconstitutional governmental activity is admissible so long as the challenge evidence is first discovered during lawful police activity or, alternatively, although initially discovered unlawfully, is later obtained lawfully in a manner independent of the original discovery. 

 Doctrine—a variation of the independent source doctrine allowing the admission of tainted evidence if it would inevitably have been discovered in the normal course of events. Under this exception, the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that, even though the evidence was actually discovered as the result of a constitutional violation, the evidence would ultimately or inevitably have been discovered by lawful means, for example, as the result of the predictable and routine behavior of a law enforcement agency, some other agency, or a private person. 

 An individual honest – and one that society would be willing to acknowledge as legitimate—that he or she would be entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion in a particular place or item. Violations of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy constitute a search or seizure for 4^th amendment purposes, thereby giving rise to various constitutional and statutory rights and procedures to persons with proper standing. 

 Crime prevention though due process of law vis-à-vis formal, adjudicative, adversary fact-finding processes that are concerned with legal guilt. One of Herbert Packer’s two competing conceptualizations of value systems that function in the U.S. system of criminal justice.

 A written statement sworn to or affirmed before an officer authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. Unlike a deposition, an affidavit requires no notice to the adverse party or opportunity for cross-examination. In the criminal law, law enforcement officers and others use affidavits to provide information to a magistrate in order to establish probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant or a search warrant. 

 A written order issued by a judicial officer requiring a person accused of a criminal offense to appear in a designated court at a specified time to answer the charge or charges. 

 of an accused person in the first court having jurisdiction over his or her case. Its primary purpose is to ensure that an arrest was supported by probable cause.

usually composed of sixteen to twenty-three persons, selected according to law and sworn in, whose duty is to receive criminal complaints, hear the evidence put forth by the prosecution and find indictments when it is satisfied that there is probable cause that an accused person has committed a crime and should be brought to trial. May also investigate criminal activity generally and investigate the conduct of public agencies and officials. In many states, all felony charges must be considered by a grand jury before filing in the trial court. Unlike a trial jury, which hears a cease in order to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, a grand jury decides only whether there is sufficient evidence to cause a person to be brought to trial for a crime.  

 A formal, written accusation submitted to a court by a prosecutor, without the approval or intervention of a grand jury, alleging that a specified person has committed a specific offense. An information is similar in nature and content to an indictment and serves as an alternative to the indictment in some jurisdictions initiate felony prosecutions only through indictment; others allow use of the information only after the defendant has waived an indictment. 

 involves removing or redacting false portions of an affidavit in application for a warrant that were made either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. 

 The geographical area from which the jury is drawn and in which court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a case, usually, the county or district in which the crime is alleged to have been committed. 

(warrant requirement—4th) evidence required in a warrantless search is greater than that of a search with a warrant. (Magistrate is more neutral then the acting police officer)

Letting the suspect know of their rights (Miranda rights)

 only serious crimes bring forth the need for a warrantless search

              -a risk that evidence will be destroyed

              -hot pursuit of a fleeing felon

              -a threat to the safety of suspect or others,

              - a likelihood that the suspect will flee and thereby escape

 (Caught making illegal calls by the FBI on pay phone, sifted from protection to privacy). A subjective expectation of privacy is legitimate if it is “one that society decides is reasonable”—Ex: an overnight guest at a house can expect privacy and is reasonable

Terry was stop and frisked without reasonable suspicion “the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

 Guy got a DUI, and car was searched and found drugs. The police has discretion to impound a car, as long as it exercised by according to standard criteria and not under suspicion. 

 (Right to counsel, Felony cases—6th) the fourteen amendment right due process clause incorporated the sixth right to counsel, made to the states

(Unreasonable search and seizure –4th) Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, but not the exclusionary rule. (Note: overruled by Mapp v. Ohio)

if an independent source gains evidence, the exclusionary rule does not apply;  ruled that evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means remained admissible.

 the Court held that while the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.

(4^th) a anonymous tip gave specify details of drug carting, brought probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.

 case in which the Court held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. Therefore, Belton extended the so-called "Chimel rule" of searches incident to a lawful arrest, established in Chimel v. California (1969), to vehicles. The Supreme Court sought to establish bright line rules to govern vehicle search incident to eliminate some confusion in the cases. (He searched it because it was in his reach)

 police officer let into dormitory, say drugs in the room, plain view doctrine. 

found porn in the trunk, not related to what they were searching for. evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states.

 made it unlawful to use deadly force when not in immediate danger or only accused misdemeanor offense. (shot dead a boy, and it was lawful at the time). 

absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. The court reasoned that while luggage is movable like an automobile, it does not have the lesser expectation of privacy associated with an automobile.

Fruit from a poisonous tree, any evidence found from the original unlawful search becomes tainted and at admissible in court. 

case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues. It was not until the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the exclusionary rule was deemed to apply to state courts as well. (Illegal took paper on lottery tickets)

 The good faith reliance, this is when the police works with an invalid warrant before it is known to be invalid

 an arrest without a warrant in the doorway upheld because no fourth amendment expectation of privacy existed in such a location