1. Is the 4th amendment implicated?
2. If the 4th amendment is implicated, is there a warrant?
3. If no valid warrant, is there an applicable exception to the warrant requirement?
4. If no applicable exception, what should the court do?

1. Was there government action?
2. Was there a search?
3.  Was there consent and if so did the consenter set any temporal or spatial limits?

1. Issued by an independent magistrate.
2. Based on probable cause.
3. Describing persons or items with particularity?
4. Executed properly?

1. Hot Pursuit
2. Search Incident To Arrest
3. Frisk following a valid stop
4. Carroll-Chambers Search
5. Inventory Search
6. Administrative Search
7. Consent

1. Does the prosecution want to use the evidence in its case-in-chief?
2. Does the defendant have standing to challenge the evidence?
3. Did the police act in good faith;
4. Did they violate the defendan't rights deliberately, recklessly, or as part of a pattern of systemic negligence?
5. Is there an attenuated connection between the illegality and the evidence?
6. Would the evidence inevitably have been found without the illegality?
7. Does the prosecution want to use the evidence to impeach the defendant? 

• On duty public official = state action.
• Off duty public official - must look at what whether they had an investigative motive, or a private agenda (off duty cop looking through son's sock draw = tough call).
• Private actors = 2 prong analysis and d's have burden of proof on both.
• nexus - did the state know of and affirmatively acquiesce in the private actors behavior? look to funding, state mandates, inducement, informants on payrol is iffy. Mere general reward, knowledge and industry regulation is not enough.
• Did the state repeat the private search or extend it. (field test not an extension, lab test is)

1. Subjective - was there an attempt to keep it private?
2. Objective  - is the expectation of privacy one that society is prepared to accept as reasonable?

• Invitation
• if d invites they have no expectation of privacy
• Scope 
• informant cannot exceed the scope of the invitation.

• External attributes are never private
• anything you abandon. DNA/Fingerprints are free game. 

• Home - greatest protection
• four corners, can be temporary as in a hotel room.
• Curtilage - area around home intermediate protection 
•  d must take affirmative steps
• Open Fields - no protection. Expectation is that people will trespass lots.

Curtilage v. Open Fields

4 Factors

1. Proximity
2. Enclosures
3. Nature of the uses
4. Precautions taken to exclude others. 
5. Quasi factor - legitimacy of the interest.

Is going through a fence a search?

Is the device commonly available to the public? In other words should someone be put on notice that a private citizen may use that information.

remember this is home based may not apply equally to other uses.

1) "reasonable inferences should be drawn by neutral magistrates, not zealous leo's."

2) Warrant requirement slows down LE just enough

3) We don't want officers barging into homes

4) Forces officers to stay within the limits of the warrant

• For the homeowner must have 1) arrest warrant or exception 2) reason to believe that the person is home. Once inside evidence in plain sight is usable.
• For third party need a search warrant to look for the third party.

1) Cannot be paid based on # of warrants

2) Cannot go on the search or be part of the investigative process

3) it is presumed that the magistrate actually read the application 

Existence of fcasts an circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they have have reasonably trustworthy information that are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution un the belief that an item subject to seizere will be found in the place to be searched.

Keys 1) something or someone subject to seizure (fruits or instrumentalities) 2) in the place to be searched 3) at the time the place is to be searched

Existence of fcasts an circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which they have have reasonably trustworthy information that are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution un the belief that an offense has been or is going to be committed by the person to be arrested.

Keys 1) particular person 2) particular offense

1) Quality

2) Quantity

(1) Aguilar-Spinelli - still applies in some states

(2) Gates - federal and remaining states

Two prongs for validity, must clear the first before you get to the second.

1) Basis - first hand knowledge, detailed knowledge of activity showing that they are insiders

2) Veracity - Prior accurate info, informants rep, corroboration with observed events

Based on this did Magistrate have a substantial basis to believe that PC existed

Yes. paradigm = postal inspector knows that child porn is being delivered.

Consent Exception

Rationale(s)

Criteria

Scope

Rationale(s) - Waiver (knowing and intelligent/personal rights) Relinquishment (voluntariness/allows other people to relinquish your rights) Resonableness (solely based on LE's point of view

Criteria - Valid consent

Scope - set by consenter

(1) Indication of Consent

(2) Authority

(3) Voluntariness

(4) Scope

(a) did d use words or actions to convey consent OR;

(b) that would convince a reasonable person of consent

(a) consenter had authourity OR;

(b) reasonably appeared to have authority

 Yes based on reasonablenessof LE.

Non - Consenter/objector must be present and of equal or dominant status to stop a search.

 LE cannot be responsible for the objector not being there, but they don't have to go looking for the objector and can wait until they arent around.

College roomate may grant access to common areas, but not roommates room.

(1) based on relinquishment theory.

(2) cannot be based on coercion

(3) no miranda-esque need to let suspect know they have a right to refuse.

(4) Special vulnerabilities - age, education, intelligence, intoxication, mental illness, lack of experience with cjs, actual knowledge of right to refuse

(5) co-ercive characteristics # of officers, threats, tone and tude, brandishing of weapons, advisement of rights, length of detention, nature of the request, claim of a right to search.

(1) gives consenter some control

(2) can only look in containers for thing being searched for. (no people can fit in a purse)

(3) Can revoke consent or set time limits.

SITA

Rationale

Criteria

Scope

Rationale - officer safety/prevention of destruction of evidence

Criteria - valid arrest i.e. pc or warrant

Scope - Wngspan/grab area at the moment before the search(Gant). Can include locked containers if they are in the grab area.

(1) can look for confederates in adjoining areas outside the grab area

(2) only requires reasonable suspicion

(3) can only look for people, but police can use plain view doctrine

(1) Search of the arrestee.

(2) must be a full custodial arrest.

(3) includes packages and containers found on the persons body as long as it could hold a weapon or evidence of the crime.

(4) does this mean that they can search a smartphone

After Gant - LE can search interior of car not trunk as long as an occupant has access OR;

they have reason to believe that their is evidence of the crime in the car.

Exigent Circumstances - Hot Pursuit Exception

Rationale

Criteria

Scope

Rationale - public safety, suspect escape, destruction of evidence (weakest)

Criteria - hot pursuit - must be pursuing a fleeing suspect or community caretakeing - rendering assistance. Ussually has to be a felony going on.

Scope - where people, weapons, or evidence might be until things are secured.

Carroll Chambers Auto Search

Rationale

Criteria

Scope

Rationale - mobility of cars and regulation of public highways

Criteria - Probable Cuase to stop the vehicle (Whren PC for a traffic stop can be pretext for the stop). Merely a ticket can only do a car frisk.

Scope - anywhere in the car, containers, trunk even car lining but not forever in timr

Administrative Searches (non- police/buliding- health inspectors)

Rationale

Criteria

Scope

Rationale - Public Safety

Criteria - notice, consent

Scope - whatever is needed to accomplish public safety

Rationale - Public Safety

Criteria - Substantial gov't interest, gov't must show need for suprise inspections, statutory definitions supplant warrant requirement

Scope - defined by statutory criteria

Rationale - not for investigation, not looking for anything in particular, protects arrestees/car owners and LE liability

Criteria - lawful arrest/impoundment and standardized procedures

SCOPE - people everything, cars cannot damage structural integrity of the car)

What is the Plain View Doctrine (plain sensory perception)?

Rationale

Criteria

Scope

Police can seize anything in plain view as long as they have PC to believe it is or contains fruits, instrumentalities, evidence, or contraband.

Rationale - no extra invasion as long.

Criteria - LE has lawfully gotten its vantage point.

Scope - anything LE has not manipulated that is within there area of perception