Top 100 Cases in Criminal Law : Legal Briefs

AUDIOLEARN’S LEGAL BRIEFS PRESENTS

THE TOP 100 CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW

www.AudioLearn.com

Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Searches and Seizures ................................................................................................................ 2 1. Mapp v. Ohio ..................................................................................................................... 2 2. Terry v. Ohio ..................................................................................................................... 2 3. Illinois v. Gates .................................................................................................................. 3 4. United States v. Robinson................................................................................................. 3 5. New Jersey v. TLO............................................................................................................ 4 6. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton ............................................................................ 4 7. Board of Education v. Earls ............................................................................................. 5 8. Safford Unified School District v. Redding .................................................................... 5 9. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders....................................................................... 6 10. United States v. Dionisio ................................................................................................. 6 11. United States v. Mara ..................................................................................................... 7 12. Cupp v. Murphy .............................................................................................................. 7 13. Georgia v. Randolph ....................................................................................................... 7 14. Fernandez v. California .................................................................................................. 8 15. United States v. Jones ..................................................................................................... 8 16. Riley v. California ........................................................................................................... 9 17. Schmerber v. California ............................................................................................... 10 18. Maryland v. King .......................................................................................................... 10 19. Schmerber in Missouri v. McNeely ............................................................................. 11 20. United States v. Place .................................................................................................... 11 21. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond ................................................................................... 11 22. Illinois v Caballes .......................................................................................................... 12 23. Florida v. Jardines ........................................................................................................ 12 III. Right to an Attorney and Miscelleanous Rights re: Counsel .................................................. 13 24. Glasser v. United States ................................................................................................ 13 25. Betts v. Brady ................................................................................................................ 13 26. Gideon v. Wainwright .................................................................................................. 14 27. Escobedo v. Illinois........................................................................................................ 14 28. Miranda v. Arizona....................................................................................................... 15 29. In Re: Gault ................................................................................................................... 15 30. Montejo v. Louisiana .................................................................................................... 16

31. Strickland v. Washington ............................................................................................. 16 32. Padilla v. Kentucky ....................................................................................................... 17 33. Chaidez v. United States ............................................................................................... 17 IV. Right to Remain Silent............................................................................................................ 18 34. Berghuis v. Thomkins ................................................................................................... 18 35. Salinas v. Texas ............................................................................................................. 18 V. The Confrontation Clause ........................................................................................................ 19 36. Ohio v. Clark ................................................................................................................. 19 37. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ................................................................................. 19 38. Giles v. California ......................................................................................................... 20 39. Michigan v. Bryant ....................................................................................................... 20 40. Bullcoming v. New Mexico ........................................................................................... 21 VI. Competency of Defendant ...................................................................................................... 22 41. Dusky v. United States .................................................................................................. 22 42. Ford v. Wainwright ...................................................................................................... 22 43. Godinez v. Moran.......................................................................................................... 23 44. United States v. Sell....................................................................................................... 23 45. Panetti v. Quarterman .................................................................................................. 23 VII. Capital Punishment, 8th Amendment and Ex Post Facto Clause ........................................... 25 i. Capital Punishment, 8th Amendment .................................................................................... 25 46. Wilkerson v. Utah ......................................................................................................... 25 47. Weems v. United States. ............................................................................................... 25 48. Furman v. Georgia ........................................................................................................ 26 49. Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, Roberts v.

Louisiana .............................................................................................................................. 26 50. Coker v. Georgia ........................................................................................................... 27 51. Enmund v. Florida ........................................................................................................ 27 52. Atkins v. Virginia .......................................................................................................... 28 53. Roper v. Simmons ......................................................................................................... 28 54. Hudson v. McMillan ..................................................................................................... 29 55. Baze v. Rees ................................................................................................................... 29 56. Kennedy v. Louisiana ................................................................................................... 29 57. Glossip v. Gross ............................................................................................................. 30 58. Hall v. Florida................................................................................................................ 30 59. Graham v. Miller .......................................................................................................... 31

60. Miller v. Alabama ......................................................................................................... 31 61. Montgomery v. Louisiana ............................................................................................ 31 62. Moore .v Texas .............................................................................................................. 32 ii. Ex Post Facto Clause ............................................................................................................ 32 63. Snyder v. Doe ................................................................................................................. 32 64. Starkey v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections ................................................................ 33 65. Smith v Doe .................................................................................................................... 33 66. Peugh v. United States .................................................................................................. 34 67. Stogner v. California..................................................................................................... 34 iii. Sentencing and Juries .......................................................................................................... 34 68. Apprendi v. New Jersey ................................................................................................ 34 69. Ring v. Arizona.............................................................................................................. 35 70. Blakely v. Washington .................................................................................................. 35 71. Kansas v. Hendricks ..................................................................................................... 36 72. Kansas v. Crane ............................................................................................................ 36 VIII. Defenses – Generally ........................................................................................................... 38 73. Smith v. United States................................................................................................... 38 i. Insanity................................................................................................................................... 38 74. Clark v. Arizona ............................................................................................................ 38 75. Durham v. United States .............................................................................................. 39 76. Robinson v. California .................................................................................................. 39 77. Powell v. Texas .............................................................................................................. 40 78. Estelle v. Smith .............................................................................................................. 40 ii. PTSD..................................................................................................................................... 41 79. Houston v. State ............................................................................................................ 41 80. State v. Phipps ............................................................................................................... 41 81. United States v. Duggan ............................................................................................... 42 82. State v. Mizell ................................................................................................................ 42 83. United States v. Whitehead .......................................................................................... 43 84. Porter v. McCallum ...................................................................................................... 43 iii. Diminished Capacity ........................................................................................................... 44 85. United States v. Cameron ............................................................................................. 44 86. People v. Wolff .............................................................................................................. 45 87. United States v. Pohlot .................................................................................................. 45

iv. Self-Defense......................................................................................................................... 46 88. Gourko v. United States ............................................................................................... 46 89. Brown v. United States ................................................................................................. 46 90. Starr v. United States .................................................................................................... 47 91. Beard v. United States .................................................................................................. 47 92. Allison v. United States ................................................................................................. 47 93. Allen v. United States .................................................................................................... 48 v. Battered Spouse Syndrome ................................................................................................... 48 94. Ibn-Tamas v. United States .......................................................................................... 48 95. Moran v. Ohio ............................................................................................................... 49 96. State v. Kelly .................................................................................................................. 49 97. Dixon v. United States................................................................................................... 50 Miscellaneous and The Digital Frontier ....................................................................................... 51 98. Carpenter v. United States ........................................................................................... 51 99. Elonis v. United States .................................................................................................. 51 100. Packingham v. North Carolina .................................................................................. 52 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 53 Review Questions ......................................................................................................................... 54

I. Introduction Some of the cases you read about in this lecture will be like the ones seen in Criminal Procedure, and even in Evidence. That is because a good section of current criminal law was developed through case law before the Supreme Court. The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments all play a major role in criminal law, as does the 8th Amendment. Searches and seizures dictate what evidence can be used, when, and whether or not a criminal defendant’s rights were violated under the laws of the United States. The cases that you see frequently should be cemented in your mind. These concepts are highly testable, and you will return to these holdings within them time and again during your practice.

The right to an attorney and miscellaneous rights regarding a defendant’s lawyer is the next section, which will affect the ability to appeal a case in many instances. A defendant also has the right to confront his accusers, as found in the 6th Amendment. The competency of a defendant might also affect the ability for him to put on a defense or mitigate his potential sentence, as under the 8th Amendment. There will be a series of cases discussing the applicability of the death penalty as it pertains to juveniles and those with mental illnesses or mental impairments. The Ex Post Facto Clause is a major constitutional issue that affects the state of criminal law in the country.

Finally, the lecture will end with common defenses that are used in criminal cases, such as selfdefense, insanity, and even more recently Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The lecture will also cover new developments in digital crimes and evidence and offer some predictions about what the future holds for criminal law in the United States.

1

II. Searches and Seizures 1. Mapp v. Ohio The first case – and one that is studied repeatedly – is Mapp v. Ohio.

Facts: Ms. Mapp was part of the illegal gambling rackets in Cleveland. Police got a tip that Virgil Ogletree, a person known to police for multiple crimes, was at Mapp's residence. The officers went to her house, but Mapp called her attorney, who advised her not to allow them to enter without a search warrant. The officers left, but one remained to watch the house from across the street. Three hours later, the officers returned and when Mapp did not answer the door, they forced their way in. When she requested a warrant, a piece of paper was handed to her, which she tried to hide for safekeeping. The officers wrestled it away from her, and no one – herself, nor her lawyers, nor any member of the court – saw what was in the document.

Ogletree was found during the search, as well as other gambling paraphernalia, pornography, and a pistol.

Issue: Did the police have probable cause to suspect her of possessing illegal items or were the items the product of an illegal search?

Held: The state was bound to exclude evidence which was seized in excess of probable cause and in violation of the 4th Amendment, officially applying the exclusionary rule to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Rationale: Without applying the law to states through the 14th Amendment, the assurances against unreasonable federal searches and seizures would be merely a form of words. States must be bound by the same limitations as that of the federal government, otherwise, the 4th Amendment and entire concept of Due Process would be whittled away, in contravention of the intent of the Bill of Rights.

2. Terry v. Ohio The next case, Terry v. Ohio, has remained one of the most important decisions concerning the 4th Amendment and its prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Facts: A plainclothes police officer with many years of experience on the same beat, saw two men standing on a street corner and acting suspiciously. The officer had a reputation for stopping pickpockets and petty thieves, and he observed the two men pass back and forth on the same route, with each stopping to look into the same store window and stopped to chat. A third man joined briefly, who, after speaking with them, left quickly. The officer suspected the men were ‘casing the joint' for a robbery, and he approached them. He asked them their names, then patted down the defendant and felt a pistol. He removed the pistol and ordered the three men to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the two other men, grabbing another pistol. He did not search any of their under layers and stopped when he found weapons on the men.

Issue: Was a stop of this nature, and the subsequent pat-down search, (a so-called stop and frisk) a violation of the 4th Amendment?

Held: No. Rationale: To determine whether an act is reasonable requires the court to examine the nature and extent of government interests involved. What starts out as a reasonable search can become 2

unreasonable over the period of the search. In this case, the officer was experienced, had a lengthy period to observe the defendant and his companions, and the defendants were behaving in a suspicious manner. The search was limited to the outer surfaces of clothing until the weapons were found. The court emphasized that if the search was conducted for the protection of the police and others, then it should be limited in scope to discover weapons like guns or knives that could harm the police officer or other people. In this case, the search was limited, and therefore, not unreasonable.

Terry took into account the overall circumstances of the case; however, the Illinois v. Gates case solidified the ‘totality of the circumstances’ test when it comes to examining the viability of searches under the 4th Amendment.

3. Illinois v. Gates The Illinois v. Gates case introduced the ‘totality of the circumstances’ test that most students are familiar with when it comes to the Fourth Amendment.

Facts: The police got an anonymous letter which informed them that there was a couple in town that made a living by selling drugs. The letter named the couple, gave a general address, and indicated how the couple sold drugs in specific detail, ending with “I guarantee, if you watch them carefully, you will make a big catch.” The police found out that someone with a similar name to the man as stated in the letter had bought a plane ticket from Chicago to Florida. From there, the detective (Mader) worked with the DEA and watched the defendant, finding out that he was to be back in Chicago within 24 hours. Mader signed an affidavit and submitted that with the anonymous letter to a judge, who issued a warrant. Upon return of the suspect, the police searched his vehicle, finding over 350 lbs. of marijuana. The Illinois Supreme Court held that this search was unlawful based on the prior test of Spinelli, stating that the affidavit did not provide enough evidence to get probable cause.

Facts: May a judge issue a search warrant based on a partially corroborated anonymous informant’s tip?

Holding: Yes – and they overturned the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision.

Rationale: An informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are closely intertwined issues in determining probable cause – thus developing a ‘totality of the circumstances' test. The informant's letter by itself was not sufficient to get a warrant. The ‘reliability' prong of the previous Spinelli test would rarely be sufficiently met from an anonymous tip, and therefore, this test was now abandoned. There was criticism from the dissent stating that the ‘totality' test was too broad, and an informant could abuse the system by creating a bogus tip that motivated the police to begin a search and investigation.

4. United States v. Robinson Custodial searches have been a topic rife for interpretation under the 4th Amendment before the SCOTUS justices. One of the earliest cases was the United States v. Robinson matter.

Facts: The defendant was pulled over based on a tip that his operating license had been revoked.

Robinson was arrested and searched. The officer felt a package and could not identify its contents, and upon removal, discovered it was a crumpled cigarette packet. Inside were 14 capsules of white powder that ended up being heroin.

3

Issue: Was this search in violation of the defendant’s 4th Amendment rights?

Held: No Rationale: In the case of a lawful custodial arrest, a full search is not only just an exception to the 4th Amendment but would be considered a reasonable search under the constitution. This case established that once someone has been lawfully arrested, a full search is reasonable.

5. New Jersey v. TLO The next series of cases concerns the applicability of the 4th Amendment and crimes committed on public school property. Do students have an expectation of privacy such that the 4th Amendment is applied in the same way to school searches?

In New Jersey v. TLO, the basic standard for school searches was set forth.

Facts: A high school girl was searched on school grounds after she was caught smoking in the bathroom. She was sent to the Assistant Vice Principal's office, who demanded to search her purse after she lied about smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. During the search by the AVP, drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and evidence that she had been selling drugs was found, along with an opened pack of cigarettes. She was later convicted of dealing and using drugs and was subsequently expelled from school and fined $1,000.00.

Issue: Was this a reasonable search under the 4th Amendment, keeping in mind the student’s right to privacy?

Holding: Yes, this search was reasonable.

Rationale: There must be the existence of reasonable suspicion to perform a search, even in a school. The student’s possession of cigarettes had to do with whether or not she was being truthful when the AVP asked her about smoking. She lied, and therefore, it was reasonable to assume she had the cigarettes in her purse and that a school rule had been broken. This was deemed by the court to be more than a mere hunch. So, the initial search was reasonable. During the search, the extra paraphernalia was in plain view, and therefore, was an exception to the requirement of a warrant being needed under the 4th Amendment.

Concurrence: While the justices agreed, two of the justices felt that students in educational settings are not necessarily entitled to the same level of protection as citizens in non-school settings.

6. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton is the first case study.

Facts: The Vernonia school district had attempted to combat narcotic use in its student population. In addition to special classes, speakers, and presentations, they employed a drug dog, but all of this had limited effect. A random drug testing plan was adopted, which required that all student-athletes submit to the program as part of participating in the athletics program. Ten percent of all athletes would be randomly selected each week to give a urine sample, and if positive, the student could either submit to six weekly drug tests and get counseling, or sit out the current and following seasons.

Issue: Is it reasonable for a school to have a drug testing regimen place under the 4th Amendment?

Holding: In this case, yes.

4

Rationale: The 4th Amendment protects against legitimate expectations of privacy, and the schools must act in place of the parents. Public schools have a lowered expectation of privacy as compared to others in a non-public school setting. Urinalysis and drug testing certainly invade an individual's privacy interest. However, the school was testing only for drugs – not for whether the student had other issues, such as diabetes or pregnancy. The disclosures of the results were limited to school officials and not law enforcement, and it was not designed to be a criminal investigation. Combined with the importance of the purpose of testing for drugs (protecting their students), the Vernonia policy was held to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent argued that there was no given reason for the school district to dispense with individualized suspicion. It is a departure from SCOTUS jurisprudence, in that the court will rarely approve of blanket searches.

7. Board of Education v. Earls A more recent Supreme Court case called Board of Education v. Earls continued to uphold and expanded the ability of schools to drug test their students.

Facts: In Oklahoma, a school district instituted a drug test policy affecting their middle and high school students before they could participate in any extracurricular activity, not just athletics.

Two students sued based on their rights under the 4th Amendment. The district court granted the school summary judgment, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the policy was in violation of the 4th Amendment. They reasoned that a school should demonstrate that there is a drug abuse problem to the point that drug testing will actually help the problem.

Issue: Does a district-wide drug test policy for all students engaged in extracurricular activities violate the 4th Amendment?

Held: No, it does not.

Rationale: The court referred to the Vernonia case, holding that students participating in extracurricular activities have a diminished expectation of privacy, and the policy was furthering an important interest of the school. even if there was not a rampant drug abuse problem apparent.

Thus, there was no violation.

8. Safford Unified School District v. Redding Safford Unified School District v. Redding is one of the latest cases concerning searches and schools, and it puts a clear limitation on the school’s authority.

Facts: School officers received a tip that a 14-year-old had been giving classmates prescription strength ibuprofen and some over-the-counter naproxen. They searched her belongings first, then believing that she hid items in her clothing, had her strip to her underwear, pull out her bra and shake it, and pull out the elastic on her underpants to see what would fall. There was no contraband, and notably, no officials ever contacted the student's parents during the investigation. The student was an honor roll student with no history of drugs or discipline issues.

Issue: Was the strip search a violation of the student’s 4th Amendment rights? If so, did the school officials have qualified immunity?

Held: The answer to both questions is yes.

Rationale: There was reasonable suspicion based on the facts that the student in question was involved in pill distribution, meaning that a search of her backpack and outer clothing was warranted. However, the search violated the standard set forth in New Jersey v. TLO in that the 5

content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion of the search. However, the officials were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the search, the constitutionality of the law was not established. Qualified immunity requires notice of illegality. The dissent felt that the conduct shown by the authorities was clearly outrageous, and qualified immunity should not apply.

9. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders Speaking of strip searches, SCOTUS examined the reasonability of them in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders in 2012.

Facts: Florence was riding in a car with his wife and three children when his wife was pulled over for a traffic offense. Florence was looked up on the computer and apparently, he had an outstanding warrant in a neighboring country. He was arrested and placed in Burlington County jail before being transferred to the neighboring county 6 days later. At both jails, custody officers conducted a visual inspection of his body, including a search of his mouth, armpits, and genitals. He filed suit upon release, arguing that people arrested for minor offenses could not be subjected to invasive searches unless there is reason to believe that person has hidden weapons, drugs or other contraband.

Issue: May individuals be strip-searched before being committed to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect they are carrying contraband?

Held: Yes Rationale: The jails' interest in safety and security outweighs the privacy of detainees, even those accused of minor crimes and without suspicion of carrying contraband. The dissent argued that research showed that strip searches are necessary without reasonable suspicion. In New York, a study showed that where 23,000 people were strip-searched, only 1 inmate had hidden something that avoided x-ray and pat-down detection.

10. United States v. Dionisio The 4th and 5th Amendment often present simultaneously in criminal matters. In the United States v. Dionisio, the Court had to examine both Constitutional rights in a criminal case.

Facts: Individuals were subpoenaed by a grand jury, and they were asked to provide voice samples for comparison of intercepted wiretaps during an investigation concerning illegal gambling. The individuals objected on a constitutional basis, but the District Court denied it, saying the statements were not testimonial evidence under the 5th Amendment, nor were they a search under the 4th Amendment.

Issue: Does a compulsory voice sample violate a person’s 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizures?

Held: No Rationale: The 4th Amendment does not protect something that a person knowingly and regularly exposes to a public audience, such as what a voice sounds like. The 5th Amendment was also not implicated, given that the samples were not testimonial, but rather to be used only for identification purposes.

6

11. United States v. Mara A similar argument concerning handwritten samples was discussed in United States v. Mara.

Facts: Again, individuals were subpoenaed to provide handwriting samples to a grand jury. The Court of Appeals held that the government was required to show reasonableness to the request.

Issue: is the requirement to show a handwriting sample limited by the 4th Amendment?

Held: No Rationale: Drawing from the previous ruling from Dionisio, the Court held that the directive was narrow enough to require only the production of a physical characteristic, which violated no legitimate Fourth Amendment interest.

12. Cupp v. Murphy Cupp v. Murphy deals with other searches of the body under the Fourth Amendment.

Facts: After a woman was found strangled in her home with no sign of a break-in or robbery, her ex-husband heard the news and voluntarily came to the police for questioning. He was represented by counsel. The investigating officer noticed a dark spot on the defendant’s finger, and knowing that evidence from strangulation can be found under a person’s fingernails, the officer asked if he could take a scraping from the fingernails. The defendant refused. Despite objection and without a warrant, the officer took samples, showing skin, blood cells and fabric from the victim’s clothing.

He was convicted and appealed.

Issue: If police have probable cause to believe a crime was committed, does Fourth Amendment allow the limited search of a suspect who is briefly detained when there is a risk the suspect might destroy easily destructible evidence?

Held: Yes, if the search is limited to confirming this interest.

Rationale: The search of fingernail scrapings exceeds fingerprinting and handwriting samples, although in this case, the search of the defendant is justified under a search incident to arrest. The defendant was aware of the police’s suspicions. After being asked for the sample, he refused and began rubbing his hands together, sticking them in his pockets and moving them around. The police were thus justified in searching him for the limited and necessary purpose to discover potential evidence.

13. Georgia v. Randolph The 4th Amendment typically requires the use of a warrant to avoid any questions of an unreasonable search or seizure. The next few cases will clarify the law on the legality and scope of warrants.

First up is Georgia v. Randolph.

Facts: The defendant was separated from his wife. She eventually returned to the house, and one morning, complained to the police that her son had been taken by her husband (after a domestic dispute). When the police arrived, she also told them that her husband abused cocaine, citing it as the cause for their marital issues, revealing that they had only recently reconciled after their separation. When the defendant returned, the police asked him if they could search the house for drug paraphernalia. He refused. The police then asked Janet, who of course allowed it. The officer found cocaine, at which point his wife withdrew her consent for the search. The police 7

returned to the station with the drugs and obtained a search warrant. At trial, the defendant attempted to suppress the evidence and was denied.

Issue: Without a search warrant, do police have a right to search a house if one resident consents to the search while another resident objects?

Held: No, they do not.

Rationale: Even though other cases in the past allowed a co-resident to consent without the presence of the other occupant, in this case, it was different because the co-resident actually refused to consent to the search. Police cannot conduct a search if a co-occupant who is physically present objects to said search. One of the justices cautioned against taking an ‘originalist' attitude – that the man is the master of his household, and therefore his decision controls. He reminded the court that, constitutionally speaking, male and female are equal partners under the law. Breyer emphasized the circumstances of this particular case, and that based on the totality of the circumstances, the search was unreasonable. The dissent argued that the result had the potential of limiting police in their ability to fight domestic violence and that by living with another person, there should be some anticipation that the other person sharing access to their belongings might turn them over to law enforcement. Therefore, it seems that law enforcement should be expected to err on the side of caution and obtain a search warrant if there are any conflicting consensual issues.

14. Fernandez v. California The next case called Fernandez v. California and was heard several years later. The Court clearly delineated the limits that were originally set forth in Randolph.

Facts: The police believed a suspect related to gang violence had just entered an apartment. As they approached, they heard screaming, and the defendant's girlfriend opened the door, bloodied up. The police believed the defendant had assaulted her. The defendant told them to get out of the house, but he was eventually arrested on suspicion of the gang activity. After he was arrested and taken away, the police returned to the apartment to request a search from the girlfriend, who consented. At trial, the defendant challenged the lawfulness of this search based upon third-party consent over his objection and in light of the SCOTUS decision from Randolph.

Issue: May consent be given by a co-occupant when the other party has been removed from the premises for purposes such as a lawful arrest, even if the co-occupant has objected?

Holding: Yes. Rationale: Fernandez was no longer there and had been removed from the apartments for fair reasons. The law must respect the girlfriend’s independent voluntary consent, and so the police may honor it. In the dissent, the justices believed the girlfriend had been pressured by police into consenting, and once they knew the co-occupant had objected, the police should have obtained a search warrant. This case significantly expands the state’s rights under the 4th Amendment to search.

15. United States v. Jones The case in United States v. Jones is an important case dealing with the advent of GPS technology and its relationship to the 4th Amendment.

Facts: Mr. Jones owned a nightclub in D.C. The FBI and local police began an investigation concerning drug sales and used a GPS device on Jones's vehicle without a warrant. The vehicle 8

was tracked for 24 hours a day for a month. When Jones was eventually arrested, his defense attorney filed multiple motions, including one to suppress the data learned from the GPS. He was denied, and Mr. Jones was convicted at trial, and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he argued that GPS data violated his 4th Amendment rights. The court agreed, holding that the police action violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.

Issues: 1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the 4th Amendment, and 2) whether the government violated respondent's 4th Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his car without a valid warrant and without his consent.

Held: The installation of the GPS device, in this case, constituted a search under the 4th Amendment, and therefore the actions of the police were unconstitutional and in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Rationale: The court used the well-established concept that venturing onto someone’s property was a trespass and was a violation of the 4th Amendment. The government's installation of the GPS onto the car was a trespass in order to get information, and therefore it was a search. The concurrence held that there was both an element of trespass and a violation of the expectation of privacy regarding long-term surveillance. Scalia agreed with the result but argued that GPS monitoring does not impinge on expectations of privacy.

16. Riley v. California Riley v. California grapples with the issue of the ubiquity of cell phones and the 4th Amendment limitations on searches and seizures.

Facts: Prior cases held that police can search the body of someone without a warrant upon arrest if it is in the area where the defendant could reach to protect evidence or an officers' safety.

There were 2 cases at issue here: In case 1, the defendant was pulled over for expired registration tags, and it was discovered he had a suspended driver's license. After a standard inventory search, two handguns were revealed under the hood. The guns had been used in a gang murder, and the defendant was a suspect. He was placed under arrest and his cell phone was searched without a warrant, which yielded information about other crimes and gangs. In the second case, the defendant was arrested after police watched him participate in what appeared to be a drug sale. He was arrested, and his phone was taken. During the interview, multiple calls came in, and the officer opened the call history. The number from ‘home' in the phone was from the defendant's apartment, and using this information, the police obtained a warrant and found a huge supply of drugs, guns, and cash. Both defendants sought review in the Supreme Court.

Issue: May a cell phone’s contents be searched without a legally obtained warrant?

Held: No, a warrant is required to search a mobile phone.

Rationale: Digital data on a phone cannot be used as a weapon, and therefore, may not be obtained for the officer's protection. There must be a warrant to search the phone, even in a search incident to arrest. While evidence might be destroyed, this is the standard operation of a phone or computer, and a warrantless search probably wouldn't matter – data is vulnerable to being wiped away, and the phone could also become encrypted after too many failed attempts at logging in. Modern cell phones are akin to computers and hold many private details of an individual's life. Cell phones thus attract an expectation of privacy.

9

17. Schmerber v. California There are some exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, including the per se exigency circumstances, which were outlined in the Schmerber v. California case.

Facts: The defendant and a friend were driving home after a night of drinking when they skidded off the road and hit a tree. They both injured and transported to the hospital, where police officers asked him to submit to a blood test. Schmerber refused, so the police the instructed doctors to take a blood sample from him without a warrant or the defendant's consent. He was found to be over the limit and was arrested. The evidence went before the court, and he was subsequently convicted of drunk driving.

Issue: Was the evidence from his blood test legally obtained, or was it a violation of his 4th Amendment right against illegal search and seizure and 5th Amendment right against selfincrimination?

Held: Schmerber’s Constitutional rights were not violated upon the blood test occurring without his consent.

Rationale: Extraction and chemical analysis of blood do not involve ‘testimonial compulsion,' in violation of the 5th Amendment. As to the 4th Amendment, this was also not a violation.

Although Justice Brennan agreed that searching involving intrusions into the human body requires a search warrant, there are some exceptions provided the state can show there were exigent circumstances. In this case, had the officers waited longer, evidence of intoxication would have dissipated as the body metabolized the alcohol. Because there was a significant possibility of the destruction of evidence, the officers were within their limits to withdraw blood from Schmerber without his consent.

Dissent: The 4 remaining justices argued that an intrusion into someone’s physical body was a violation of the constitution of the highest sort, violating due process.

18. Maryland v. King In Maryland v. King, the question of legal searches moved on to the body of the defendant.

Facts: King was arrested for assault, and in accordance with Maryland police protocol, a DNA sample was taken at the time of his arrest, without his consent. It matched samples from an unsolved rape case. The evidence was presented to a grand jury, who called for an indictment.

King filed a motion to suppress, citing the Fourth Amendment. His motion was denied, he pled guilty and then appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the State of Maryland then called for the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Issue: Is taking and analyzing a cheek swab for DNA a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?

Held: Yes Rationale: If the arrest is supported by probable cause, and the defendant is held for a serious offense, then the DNA swab is akin to fingerprinting or photographing. The decision was close, (5-4) and the dissenting justices were shocked, saying that categorically, “the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of one or in possession of incriminating evidence.”

10

19. Schmerber in Missouri v. McNeely The next case deals with bodily fluid samples again, but this time under the auspices of the exception of exigent circumstances from Schmerber in Missouri v. McNeely.

Facts: The defendant was stopped at 2 a.m. after police saw him speeding and meandering over the center line. The officer reported signs of intoxication (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech) and smelled alcohol on his breach. He failed the field-sobriety tests and refused to blow into a breathalyzer. The officer arrested him, and instead of taking him to the police station, the officer drove him directly to a medical center to get a blood test. He did not have a warrant but did ask the defendant for his consent – after warning him that by refusing, his license would be revoked for 1 year. Despite his continued refusal, the officer instructed the lab technician to draw blood.

He was over the limit, and the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as an unreasonable search and seizure.

Issue: Does the fact that alcohol blood levels dissipate create exigent circumstances that allow an officer to order a blood test without obtaining a warrant?

Held: No Rationale: An involuntary blood draw is a search under the Fourth Amendment, and there were no other factors besides the dissipation of alcohol concentration in the blood to suggest there was an emergency. This is somewhat of a departure from the rationale employed by the court in Maryland v. King upon allowing a cheek swab for DNA without consent. It is still an invasive search, but in that case, it was allowed, as well as in Schmerber, under much the same facts. The inconsistencies of the Supreme Court abound.

20. United States v. Place One area of law that is rife with litigation is the use of drug dogs in searches for criminal cases.

The first case to reach the Supreme Court is the United States v. Place.

Facts: The defendant's behavior attracted the attention of police officers while at the airport. After speaking to the defendant, they found that the luggage tags revealed a fake address, and told DEA agents, who asked to search his luggage, and he declined. After an hour and a half, the officers found a drug dog who alerted to contraband. The agents waited a full weekend to obtain a warrant to search the luggage, which revealed a kilogram of cocaine.

Issue: Whether police, based on reasonable suspicion, may seize luggage at an airport and use a drug-detection dog to sniff the temporarily seized luggage?

Held: Yes Rationale: While the length of time the luggage was held was unreasonable, the dog sniffing the luggage was not. The luggage was originally located in a public place, and it does not require opening the luggage, which would otherwise expose private items to public views. Therefore, this was not considered to be a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

21. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond The next case examined by the Supreme Court is the City of Indianapolis v. Edmond.

Facts: The city set up multiple checkpoints to stop drugs. At each roadblock, officers would conduct an open-view exam and another officer would walk a drug-detection dog around each vehicle. All stops lasted around 5 minutes and did not rely on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

11

Issue: Whether police could stop vehicles at a dragnet-style drug checkpoint and subject the exterior of the vehicles to a search by a drug-detection dog?

Held: Yes. Rationale: The court noted that the checkpoint itself was an impermissible seizure under the Constitution; however, the use of a drug-detection dog sniffing the exterior does not turn the seizure into a search.

22. Illinois v Caballes The next case the court examined regarding drug dog was Illinois v Caballes.

Facts: The defendant was stopped by police for speeding. When the officer reported the stop, a member of the drug squad made his way to the stop, who walked his drug dog around the defendant’s car. At the time, the defendant was receiving only a warning ticket. The dog raised an alert, and after a search, the officers found marijuana in the trunk. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking after his motion to suppress was denied.

Issue: Is a drug sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop a violation of the Fourth Amendment Held: No. Rationale: The sniff reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no one has the right to possess. However, if the reasonable seizure becomes unreasonably long in its duration, and the drug dog is used during this unreasonable extension, it violates the Constitution. The use of the dog was not an invasion of the reasonable expectation of privacy, and it was not implemented for an unreasonably long period after the initial seizure.

23. Florida v. Jardines Florida v. Jardines continued to explore the limits and breadth of the Fourth Amendment, particularly in regards to the use of ‘drug dogs.’

Facts: Police received an anonymous tip that a house was being used to grow marijuana. They used a drug-sniffing police dog to smell the front door of the home, and the dog alerted to the existence of contraband. On this basis, a search warrant was executed, and the homeowner was arrested. At the time the case reached the Supreme Court, 27 states, and the federal government supported the idea that using a drug dog was a minimally invasive warrantless search.

Issue: Is the use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings a search under the Fourth Amendment?

Held: Yes Rationale: The majority decision did not focus heavily on the right to privacy, but rather it hinged on the basis of a citizen's property rights. When police physically intrude on people, houses, papers or other effects to obtain information, then a search has occurred. The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home (or the curtilage) is part of the home under the Constitution, and therefore is protected under the law.

12