Criminal Investigation

1. 4th Amendment
◼ Search-examination or inspection of
premises or person for evidence
◼ Seizure-taking of a person or property into
custody
◼ 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable
search and seizure
◼ Exclusionary Rule-prohibits use in Court of
illegally obtained evidence

2. Probable Cause
◼ Arrest
◼ Search Warrant
◼ Developed by: Officers
own info, info given by
informant, info plus
corroboration

3. ◼ Michigan v. Summers, (1981) The
general rule is that every arrest, as well as
every seizure having the essential
attribute of a formal arrest, is
unreasonable unless supported by
probable cause.

4. ◼ Devenpeck v. Alford, (2004) A
warrantless arrest by a police officer is
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
if, given the facts known to the officer,
there is probable cause to believe a crime
has been or is being committed. The
offense establishing probable cause need
not be closely related to the offense the
arresting officer identifies at the time of
arrest.

5. ◼ 4th Amendment protects right of people to
be secure in their persons, house papers,
effects, forbids unreasonable search and
seizure
◼

6. ARREST WARRANT
◼ Arrest Warrant: entry to suspects own
residence and must have reason to believe
suspect is there
◼ If third party location: must get search
warrant

7. Authority needed to enter
private premise: search
warrant or arrest warrant
will authorize police entry
into private premises

8. ◼ Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204
(1981) An arrest warrant cannot be used
as a legal authority to enter the home of a
person other than the person named in
the arrest warrant. If the person to be
arrested is in the home of another person,
a search warrant must be obtained to
enter that home to make an arrest. The
only exception is when exigent
circumstances exist; they justify a
warrantless entry.

9. Search Warrants and
Probable Cause:

10. SEARCH WARRANTS
◼ Written order issued by a judge to a law
enforcement officer
◼ Authorizes search of a specific premises
for stolen or unlawful goods,(contraband)
or for suspects and bringing them before
the Judge

11. ◼ No warrant shall be issued without
probable cause
◼ Probable cause-refers to facts that are
reliable and generate a reasonable belief
that a crime has been committed
◼ Probable cause is
◼ listed in search warrant
◼ Affidavit.

12. ◼ Obtaining a warrant offers two clear
advantages: Probable cause is presumed
present, and it is a good defense in civil
cases for damages.

13. Search Warrant Decisions
◼ Wilson v. Arkansas-
knock and announce
is standard warrant
requirement
◼ U.S. v. Banks-knock
and announce, must
wait reasonable time

14. ◼ Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) -
Although knock and announce is part of
the requirement of reasonableness in
searches and seizures, it is not a rigid rule
and is subject to exceptions based on law
enforcement interests.
◼ United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31
(2003) After knocking and announcing
their presence and intention to search, 15
to 20 seconds is sufficient time for officers
to wait before forcing entry into a home to
execute a search warrant for drugs.

15. ◼ Knock and announce is standard entry on
search warrants
◼ No knock provision: due to destruction of
evidence, escape, assault on officers
◼ No knock authority must be requested by
affiant( person requesting search
warrant) in search warrant affidavit

16. IMPORTANT
◼ EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE BEEN
GRANTED A NO KNOCK WARRANT:
◼ IT IS A BEST PRACTICE FOR THE ENTRY
TEAM TO YELL POLICE RIGHT BEFORE
HITTING THE DOOR.
◼ ENTRY TEAM SHOULD BE IN RAID
JACKETS/UNIFORM IDENTYFYING THEM
AS POLICE

17. Night Time Endorsement
◼ Night time Endorsement: Request to
execute the search warrant outside of the
normal times as listed in state statutes.
◼ must be requested by affiant( person
requesting search warrant) in search
warrant affidavit
◼ Arizona normal time of execution is 630AM
to 10PM. (0630x2200 hours)

18. SEARCH INCIDENT TO
ARREST
◼ Chimel v. California 1969
◼ Arms reach pursuant to arrest
◼ United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218
(1973)
◼ - fully body search allowed post arrest (No
body cavities)

19. 4th Amendment Exceptions
Search incident to arrest
Evidence can be recovered from the
arrestee

20. ◼ Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
After making an arrest, the police may
search the area of the arrestee’s
immediate control to discover and seize
any evidence in his or her possession and
to prevent its concealment or destruction.

21. Search Incident to Arrest
◼ United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218
(1973) After making an arrest, the police
may make a warrantless search of the
arrestee.

22. ◼ Cell Phones: Search Incident to Arrest
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)-
May the government conduct a
warrantless search of the contents of a
cell phone seized after an arrest when no
exigent circumstances exist? No. Riley v.
California established that a search of
information found in a cell phone is not a
proper search incident to an arrest. Due
to the personal nature of information
stored in a cell phone, a search warrant
must first be obtained.

23. Autos Post Arrest
NY. V. Belton
◼ Can search vehicle and
containers post arrest
◼ Both decisions limited by
Gant v. Arizona
Thorton v. U.S.
◼ Can search vehicle if
arrest made outside of
vehicle

24. ◼ Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615
(2004) Officers may search the passenger
compartment of a vehicle after a lawful
arrest even if the suspect was not in the
vehicle when arrested.

25. ◼ New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
The police may examine the contents of
any container found in the passenger
compartment of a car, as long as it may
reasonably be thought to contain
something that might pose a danger to
the officer or hold evidence in support of
the offense for which the suspect has
been arrested.

26. Search of Vehicle with Probable
Cause

27. Motor Vehicle Searches With Probable
Cause
◼ Warrantless searches of motor vehicles are
valid, but probable cause is required.
◼ The power of the police to search a vehicle
based on probable cause is extensive.

28. ◼ United States v. Ross, (1982) If the police
legitimately stop a car and have probable
cause to believe that it contains
contraband, they can conduct a
warrantless search of the car. The search
can be as thorough as a search authorized
by a warrant issued by a magistrate.
Therefore, every part of the vehicle in
which the contraband might be stored
may be inspected, including the trunk and
all receptacles and packages that could
possibly contain the object of the search.

29. CONSENT SEARCH
◼ Burden of proof lies with prosecutor
◼ Issues: Who can give consent? What constitutes
free and voluntary consent?
◼ Third party can consent to jointly shared areas
◼ Cannot: Lie to get consent, intimidate to search,
imply they have no alternative
◼ Do not have to tell person they don’t have to
consent

30. CONSENT FORM

32. ◼ Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
Consent is valid if officers ask for consent
to search an item and inform the person
that he or she has a right to refuse
consent. However, there is no requirement
under the Fourth Amendment that the
officer inform the person that he or she
has the right to refuse consent for it to be
valid. It suffices if a reasonable person
under the same circumstances would
understand that he or she is free to
refuse.

33. ◼ Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067 (2006)
A physically present co-occupant’s
[husband’s] stated refusal to permit entry
into a home occupied by him and his
estranged wife renders a warrantless
entry and search unreasonable and invalid
“as to him” despite the wife’s consent to
the search. If two co occupants are
present, both must consent to the search
or else the search is invalid.

34. Do not have to tell person they
can refuse to give consent
◼ United States v. Drayton 536 U.S. 194
(2002) The Fourth Amendment does not
require police officers to advise bus
passengers of their right not to cooperate
and to refuse consent to searches.

35. Can’t lie to get consent
◼ Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543
(1968) There is no valid consent to a
search if permission is given as a result of
police misrepresentation or deception.

36. Crime Scene Search

37. ◼ Crime Scene: Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S.
385 (1978) The fact that a place searched
was the scene of a serious crime did not in
itself justify a warrantless search in the
absence of any “indication that the
evidence would be lost, destroyed, or
removed during the time required to
obtain a search warrant and there is no
suggestion that a warrant could not easily
and conveniently have been obtained.”

38. PLAIN VIEW

39. Plain View Doctrine
◼ Officer has right to seize evidence in plain view
(must be lawfully at the location)
◼ HARRIS V. U.S.
◼ Plain view or open view doctrine-if a law
enforcement officer has a right to be somewhere
and sees evidence of contraband of a crime-can
seize and it will be admissible

40. ◼ Plain View has three requirements. (1) Awareness of the
item must be through use of the sense of sight; (2) the
officer must be legally in the place from which the item
is seen; and (3) it must be immediately apparent that
the item is subject to seizure.

41. ◼ Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)
Although items must be immediately
recognizable as subject to seizure if they
are to fall under the plain view doctrine, it
is not necessary that there be certain
knowledge that incriminating evidence is
involved. Probable cause is sufficient to
justify seizure. Also, the use of a flashlight
by an officer to look into the inside of a
car at night does not constitute a search
under the Fourth Amendment.
◼

42. ABANDONED PROPERTY

43. ◼ Abandoned property: is that your bag, if a
person says no then no expectation of
privacy exists
◼ Denial-luggage, airport, trunk, apartment

44. STOP AND FRISK BASED ON
REASONABLE SUSPICION

45. Terry v Ohio-major ruling on Stop and Frisk,
Court says officer must observe suspicious
activity and fear for safety of self or others
Terry Stop-reasonable suspicion, must
articulate why, more than mere suspicion

46. Stop and Frisk
◼ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) The
police have the authority to stop a person
even without probable cause, as long as
there is reasonable suspicion to believe
that the person has committed a crime or
is about to commit a crime. The person
may be frisked if there is reasonable
suspicion that the person may jeopardize
the officer’s safety.

47. Reasonable Suspicion
◼ Practical definition: When an officer
believes a crime has taken place, is taking
place or is about to take place, he or she
may stop and question the suspects. The
officers could also frisk the suspects for
weapons if they feel the suspect poses a
danger to them or others.
◼

48. Stop and Frisk- police can stop
people for suspicious behavior
Can frisk outer clothes for weapon if
officer feels endangered

49. Limitations
STOP
◼ Must be temporary, no
longer than necessary
◼ Least intrusive action
FRISK
◼ Cannot squeeze,
manipulate
◼ Can’t be used as fishing
expedition for evidence

50. STOP
◼ Persons stopped cannot be forced to
answer questions
◼ Cannot be forced to ID self unless there is
a state law
◼ Frisk not automatic

51. Protective Sweep
◼ Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) The
Fourth Amendment permits a properly
limited protective sweep in conjunction
with an in-home arrest when the
searching officer possesses a reasonable
belief based on specific and articulable
facts that the area to be swept harbors an
individual posing a danger to those on the
arrest scene.