*warrant requirement related to seizure of persons/when is warrant required?

-Khoury, informant, informs to postal inspector about Watson's possession of stolen credit cards.

-Khoury:history of valid info including on Watson

-Watson arrested and was asked if his car could be searched, he said yes and stolen credit cards were recovered

-At trial, Watson argued to suppress cards b/c his arrest was illegal for lack of probable cause and consent to search car was involuntary b/c he was not told that he could withold consent.

-motion originally denied

-Court of Appeals overruled and held

1. arrest unconstituional b/c postal inspector didn't get arrest warrant and

2. based on totality of circumstances, consent to search was coerced and search is invalid.

-Supreme Court overturned Court of Appeals and ruled common-law rule empowers postal officers to make arrest without warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe crime has been committed

**Watson's arrest did NOT violate 4th ammendment**

**appeals challenge constitutionality of NY's statutes that authorize police to enter private residence without a warrant and with force to make a routine arrest.**

-4th ammendment: prohibits police from making warrantless and nonconsensual entry into suspect's hometo make arrest.

-In both cases, Payton and Riddick, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

-In both cases, no arrest or search warrants were obtained.

-Supreme Court overturned convictions because no arrest warrants were obtained.  

**ISSUE: whether an arrest warrant, not search warrant, is adequate to protect 4th amm. interests of persons notnamed in warrant, when their homes are searched w/o their consent.**

-Officers have arrest warrant for Lyons, entered house and he wasn't present but observed coccaine.

-Sent for a search warrant, and in meantime conducted another search andfound more evidence.

-One of men outside house was arrested and charged.

-At trial, argued for suppression of evidence on grounds it was illegally obtained b/c agentsfailed to secure search warrant b4 entering house.

-Officer argued he didn't think he needed to b/c he thought arrest warrant for Lyons was sufficient.

**Supreme Court ruling: officers must obtain a search warrant prior to searching and arresting a suspect in the home of a 3rd party.**

ISSUES:

1. whether a person arrested and held for trial on an information is entitled to a judicial determination of probable cause for detention

2. if yes, whether adversary hearing ordered by District Court and approved by Court of Appeals is required by Constitution.

-case is a class action suit that challenged Florida procedures that foreclosed a suspect's right to a preliminary probable cause hearing.

-ISSUE IS WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DETAINING THE ARRESTED PERSON PENDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

-Court rules that a nonadversary proceeding in which a detached magistrate evaluates probable cause is sufficient.

-FBI attached listening device to oustside of phone booth and overheard Katz phone conversations in which he transmitted wagering info from LA to Miami and Boston.

-Court of Appeals rejected Katz's argument that the recordings were obtained in violation of 4th amm. b/c there was no physical entrance into area occupied by Katz.

-Supreme COurt overturned: govt.'s activities violated privacy upon which Katz relied when using booth and constituted a search and seizure.

-Harlan concurring: 2 fold requirement

    1. person exhibited expectation of privacy

    2. the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

-Black dissenting:believes wording/language of ammendment only protects tangible objects and doesn't apply words to apply to easdropping.

**Issue: whether the 4th amm. required agents to obtain a warrant before they screened the films.**

-without making an effort to obtain a warrant or to communicate with the consignor or cosignee of shipment, FBI agents viewed the films.

-Although the labels on the film boxes gave agents probable cause to believe that the films were obscene and that their shipment in interstate commerce had offended the federal criminal code, the labels alone were NOT sufficient to support a conviction and weren't mentioned in indictment.

-Supreme Court ruling: agent's viewing of videos was unconstitutional without a search warrant and violated petitioner's expectaion of privacy.

Summary: TLO caught smokin cigarettes by a teacher. Principal questioned her and she completely denied it so he searched her purse and found cigarettes, rolling papers, weed, pipe, empty bags, money, and list of customers.

-TLO moved to suppress all evidence b/c of illegal search.

-Issue surrounds whether same probable cause requirements for a search in usual instance is applicable to children in high school

-Supreme Court Rulings:

*school officials ability to search students and maintain order in school does not need to be based on requirements of probable cause, but on the reasonableness of the search.

* how to determine resonableness??

   **reasonable grounds to suspect that search wil turn up evidence that student violated law/school rule.

   **Search is permissable if measures adopted are resonably related to objectives of search and not excessivley intrusive.

**Overall, the search was NOT unreasonable**