constitutional criminal procedure dr. charles feer criminal justice instructor

ConstitutionalCriminal Procedure

Dr. Charles FeerDr. Charles Feer

Criminal Justice Instructor Criminal Justice Instructor

Investigative Constitutional Law

Understanding the 4th Amendment

History and Text of the Fourth AmendmentHistory and Text of the Fourth Amendment During colonial times, British customs agents in America During colonial times, British customs agents in America

were issued general warrants known as “writs of assistance,” were issued general warrants known as “writs of assistance,” which the agents used to search whenever, wherever and which the agents used to search whenever, wherever and whomever they pleased.whomever they pleased.

When the colonist won their independence, they added the When the colonist won their independence, they added the Fourth Amendment in order to prevent the kinds of abuses Fourth Amendment in order to prevent the kinds of abuses perpetrated with the writs of assistance.perpetrated with the writs of assistance.



The Three Covered ActivitiesThe Three Covered Activities To establish guidelines for applying the Fourth Amendment and To establish guidelines for applying the Fourth Amendment and

its exclusionary and civil liability rules the court found it its exclusionary and civil liability rules the court found it necessary to compose its own legal definitions, which describe necessary to compose its own legal definitions, which describe three forms of activity. three forms of activity.

The Fourth Amendment covers The Fourth Amendment covers three distinct forms of three distinct forms of investigative actions—searches, seizures of people, and investigative actions—searches, seizures of people, and seizures of propertyseizures of property. .

The Fourth Amendment protects The Fourth Amendment protects three different interests—three different interests—privacy, liberty and possessionprivacy, liberty and possession..


The Three Covered Activities The Three Covered Activities (Continued)(Continued)

2.2. ““Seizure of the Person” Defined and IllustratedSeizure of the Person” Defined and Illustrated A “seizure of the person” interferes with an individual’s A “seizure of the person” interferes with an individual’s

liberty interest.liberty interest. It occurs when intentional police conduct It occurs when intentional police conduct reasonably indicates that the person must comply with police reasonably indicates that the person must comply with police commands.commands.

“…“…a person has been a person has been ‘seized’ ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” believed that he was not free to leave.” (Mendenhall v. US)(Mendenhall v. US)




The Three Covered Activities The Three Covered Activities (Continued)(Continued)

3.3. ““Seizure of Property” Defined and IllustratedSeizure of Property” Defined and Illustrated A “seizure of property” requires a meaningful A “seizure of property” requires a meaningful

interference by governmental officials with a interference by governmental officials with a person’s legitimate right to possess that person’s legitimate right to possess that property.property.



The Warrant ClauseThe Warrant Clause The second half of the Fourth The second half of the Fourth

Amendment is often called “the warrant Amendment is often called “the warrant clause.”clause.”

The Congress and state legislatures have The Congress and state legislatures have enacted statutes authorizing specific enacted statutes authorizing specific categories of search warrants to be categories of search warrants to be issued by judges. issued by judges.

Typically, a warrant can be issued for Typically, a warrant can be issued for stolen or embezzled property, for stolen or embezzled property, for contraband or evidence of a crime, and contraband or evidence of a crime, and for evidence tending to establish the for evidence tending to establish the identity of a criminal.identity of a criminal.

Related Case Law: Related Case Law: NY Tel. Co. v. USNY Tel. Co. v. US

(Searches and seizures without a warrant are presumed unreasonable and must be justified by standard exception.)



Warrantless Searches and SeizuresWarrantless Searches and Seizures The Constitution does not forbid all searches and seizures, only The Constitution does not forbid all searches and seizures, only

unreasonable searches and seizures.unreasonable searches and seizures. A search or seizure not authorized by warrant must come within A search or seizure not authorized by warrant must come within

one of the recognized exceptions.one of the recognized exceptions. ““Exceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and Exceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and

carefully delineated, and the police bear a heavy burden when carefully delineated, and the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.” (Welsh v. Wisconsin)warrantless searches or arrests.” (Welsh v. Wisconsin) Other Related Cases: Elkins v. US, and Katz v. USOther Related Cases: Elkins v. US, and Katz v. US



The Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary RuleExclusionary Rule The Fourth Amendment does not say what consequence should The Fourth Amendment does not say what consequence should

happen if a person’s right against unreasonable search and happen if a person’s right against unreasonable search and seizure is violated.seizure is violated.

The exclusionary rule created by the Supreme Court in Weeks v. The exclusionary rule created by the Supreme Court in Weeks v. US had not been authorized by any congressional legislation.US had not been authorized by any congressional legislation.

The Supreme Court decided the consequence should be The Supreme Court decided the consequence should be exclusion of resulting evidence derived from the violation from exclusion of resulting evidence derived from the violation from the prosecution case as proof of defendant’s guilt.the prosecution case as proof of defendant’s guilt.



The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule (Continued)(Continued)

The objective of the exclusionary rule, according to the Fourth The objective of the exclusionary rule, according to the Fourth Amendment, is to prevent officers from willfully engaging in Amendment, is to prevent officers from willfully engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures.unreasonable searches and seizures.

The exclusionary rule only applied to federal prosecutions; The exclusionary rule only applied to federal prosecutions; however, in the case of Wolf v. Colorado, the justices flirted however, in the case of Wolf v. Colorado, the justices flirted with the idea of extending it to the states.with the idea of extending it to the states.

Other Related Cases: Katz v. US, Wolf v. Colorado, Janis v. US, Other Related Cases: Katz v. US, Wolf v. Colorado, Janis v. US, and Mapp v. Ohioand Mapp v. Ohio



ExceptionsExceptions to the Exclusionary Rule to the Exclusionary Rule The “The “Standing” DoctrineStanding” Doctrine

““Fourth Amendment rights are personal in natureFourth Amendment rights are personal in nature , , and we think that definition of those rights is more and we think that definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.” (Rakas v. Illinois)standing.” (Rakas v. Illinois)

The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule cannot The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule cannot be invoked by a person whose own, legitimate be invoked by a person whose own, legitimate rights were not implicated by the search or seizure.rights were not implicated by the search or seizure.

Related Case Law: Rakas v. Illinois and Rawlings Related Case Law: Rakas v. Illinois and Rawlings v. Kentuckyv. Kentucky



Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued)(Continued)

The “Objective Justification” DoctrineThe “Objective Justification” Doctrine A search or seizure that is objectively reasonable A search or seizure that is objectively reasonable

does not violate the Fourth Amendment, without does not violate the Fourth Amendment, without regard to an officer’s subjective motive, intent or regard to an officer’s subjective motive, intent or analysis.analysis.

The doctrine of objective justification also applied The doctrine of objective justification also applied in the civil liability context.in the civil liability context.

Related Case Law: Whren v. US and Devenpeck v. Related Case Law: Whren v. US and Devenpeck v. Alford Alford




The “Attenuated Taint” DoctrineThe “Attenuated Taint” Doctrine Under the doctrine of “attenuated taint,” evidence may be Under the doctrine of “attenuated taint,” evidence may be

admissible even though it might not have been obtained but for admissible even though it might not have been obtained but for an earlier illegality, provided that intervening acts have broken an earlier illegality, provided that intervening acts have broken the chain of direct causation.the chain of direct causation.

““We need not hold that all evidence is “fruit of the poisonous We need not hold that all evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the…illegal actions of the…




……police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable as to be purged of the primary taint.” (Wong distinguishable as to be purged of the primary taint.” (Wong Sun v. US)Sun v. US)




The “Independent Source” DoctrineThe “Independent Source” Doctrine The exclusionary rule does not apply, despite an unreasonable The exclusionary rule does not apply, despite an unreasonable

search or seizure based on one ground, if there was a separate, search or seizure based on one ground, if there was a separate, untainted source of the same evidence.untainted source of the same evidence.

Related Case Law: Murray v. USRelated Case Law: Murray v. US The “Inevitable Discovery” DoctrineThe “Inevitable Discovery” Doctrine A search or seizure error does not necessitate suppression of A search or seizure error does not necessitate suppression of

evidence that would have been discovered inevitably through evidence that would have been discovered inevitably through lawful means.lawful means.



Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued)(Continued) The “Good Faith” DoctrineThe “Good Faith” Doctrine The Supreme Court has applied the “good faith” exception to The Supreme Court has applied the “good faith” exception to

permit the introduction of evidence in spite of police error in the permit the introduction of evidence in spite of police error in the following kinds of cases:following kinds of cases:

Search WarrantsSearch Warrants Arrest WarrantsArrest Warrants Unconstitutional StatutesUnconstitutional Statutes MisidentificationMisidentification ConsentConsent




Objectively-reasonable mistakes made in good faith may permit Objectively-reasonable mistakes made in good faith may permit evidence to survive a suppression motion in limited kinds of evidence to survive a suppression motion in limited kinds of situations.situations.

““The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in wilful, or at the very assumes that the police have engaged in wilful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. Where the official action was pursued in complete some right. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.” (Michigan v. Tucker)force.” (Michigan v. Tucker)


Understanding the 4th Amendment Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

(Continued)(Continued) Permissible Auxiliary UsesPermissible Auxiliary Uses Evidence that is inadmissible in the prosecution case-in-chief under Evidence that is inadmissible in the prosecution case-in-chief under

the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule may be used for the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule may be used for impeachment and other purposes.impeachment and other purposes.

Limiting the exclusionary rule to the prosecution case-in-chief, the Limiting the exclusionary rule to the prosecution case-in-chief, the court has permitted suppressible evidence to be admitted for purposes court has permitted suppressible evidence to be admitted for purposes other than to prove guilt, and in other proceedings:other than to prove guilt, and in other proceedings:

Impeachment/RebuttalImpeachment/Rebuttal SentencingSentencing



Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued)(Continued) Parole/Probation Revocation HearingsParole/Probation Revocation Hearings Grand Jury ProceedingsGrand Jury Proceedings Deportation ProceedingsDeportation Proceedings

If evidence is ruled inadmissible on grounds that it If evidence is ruled inadmissible on grounds that it is the poisoned fruit of an unlawful search or is the poisoned fruit of an unlawful search or seizure, that ruling only applies to the prosecution seizure, that ruling only applies to the prosecution case-in-chief and does not make the evidence case-in-chief and does not make the evidence inadmissible to rebut the defendant’s inconsistent inadmissible to rebut the defendant’s inconsistent testimony, or for other purposes.testimony, or for other purposes.

Related Case Law: Walder v. USRelated Case Law: Walder v. US




Conduct by Private PartiesConduct by Private Parties The independent actions of private individuals or groups are not The independent actions of private individuals or groups are not

subject to the Fourth Amendment, and so the exclusionary rule subject to the Fourth Amendment, and so the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by private parties not acting does not apply to evidence obtained by private parties not acting as government agents.as government agents.

Related Case Law: Walter v. US, Jacobsen v. US, and Burdeau Related Case Law: Walter v. US, Jacobsen v. US, and Burdeau v. McDowellv. McDowell




Conduct by Foreign OfficialsConduct by Foreign Officials Because the Fourth Amendment has no application to foreign Because the Fourth Amendment has no application to foreign

officers in foreign countries, the exclusionary rule does not apply officers in foreign countries, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by foreign officers and turned over to US to evidence obtained by foreign officers and turned over to US agents. agents.

Nor does it extend to searches and seizures conducted outside the Nor does it extend to searches and seizures conducted outside the US against citizens of a foreign country, even by US agents.US against citizens of a foreign country, even by US agents.

Related Case Law: Verdugo-Urquidez v. USRelated Case Law: Verdugo-Urquidez v. US



Civil Rights Lawsuits for Fourth Civil Rights Lawsuits for Fourth Amendment ViolationsAmendment Violations

Fourth Amendment violations may not only mean the suppression Fourth Amendment violations may not only mean the suppression of resulting evidence but may also subject officers and their of resulting evidence but may also subject officers and their agencies to civil liability for both damages and attorney’s fees.agencies to civil liability for both damages and attorney’s fees.

Officers and their agencies may be liable in money damages for Officers and their agencies may be liable in money damages for violating constitutional rights under color of authority, where the violating constitutional rights under color of authority, where the search or seizure cannot be justified, or is carried out in an search or seizure cannot be justified, or is carried out in an unreasonable manner.unreasonable manner.

Related Case Law: City of Riverside v. RiveraRelated Case Law: City of Riverside v. Rivera

constitutional criminal procedure dr. charles feer criminal justice instructor

Documents

amendment exclusionary

amendment history

amendment purposes

th amendment exceptions

us slide

covered activities

exclusionary rule exceptions

us searches