Constitutional Criminal Procedure

1. ConstitutionalCriminal Procedure Dr. Charles Feer Criminal Justice Instructor

2. Understanding the 4th Amendment • History and Text of the Fourth Amendment • During colonial times, British customs agents in America were issued general warrants known as “writs of assistance,” which the agents used to search whenever, wherever and whomever they pleased. • When the colonist won their independence, they added the Fourth Amendment in order to prevent the kinds of abuses perpetrated with the writs of assistance. Investigative Constitutional Law

3. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Three Covered Activities • To establish guidelines for applying the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary and civil liability rules the court found it necessary to compose its own legal definitions, which describe three forms of activity. • The Fourth Amendment covers three distinct forms of investigative actions—searches, seizures of people, and seizures of property. • The Fourth Amendment protects three different interests—privacy, liberty and possession. Investigative Constitutional Law

4. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Three Covered Activities (Continued) • 1. “Search” Defined and Illustrated For Fourth Amendment purposes, a “search” is an official infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy. Investigative Constitutional Law

5. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Three Covered Activities (Continued) • “Seizure of the Person” Defined and Illustrated • A “seizure of the person” interferes with an individual’s liberty interest. It occurs when intentional police conduct reasonably indicates that the person must comply with police commands. • “…a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” (Mendenhall v. US) Investigative Constitutional Law

6. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Three Covered Activities (Continued) • “Seizure of Property” Defined and Illustrated • A “seizure of property” requires a meaningful interference by governmental officials with a person’s legitimate right to possess that property. Investigative Constitutional Law

7. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Warrant Clause • The second half of the Fourth Amendment is often called “the warrant clause.” • The Congress and state legislatures have enacted statutes authorizing specific categories of search warrants to be issued by judges. • Typically, a warrant can be issued for stolen or embezzled property, for contraband or evidence of a crime, and for evidence tending to establish the identity of a criminal. • Related Case Law: NY Tel. Co. v. US (Searches and seizures without a warrant are presumed unreasonable and must be justified by standard exception.) Investigative Constitutional Law

8. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Warrantless Searches and Seizures • The Constitution does not forbid all searches and seizures, only unreasonable searches and seizures. • A search or seizure not authorized by warrant must come within one of the recognized exceptions. • “Exceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and carefully delineated, and the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.” (Welsh v. Wisconsin) • Other Related Cases: Elkins v. US, and Katz v. US Investigative Constitutional Law

9. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule • The Fourth Amendment does not say what consequence should happen if a person’s right against unreasonable search and seizure is violated. • The exclusionary rule created by the Supreme Court in Weeks v. US had not been authorized by any congressional legislation. • The Supreme Court decided the consequence should be exclusion of resulting evidence derived from the violation from the prosecution case as proof of defendant’s guilt. Investigative Constitutional Law

10. Understanding the 4th Amendment • The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • The objective of the exclusionary rule, according to the Fourth Amendment, is to prevent officers from willfully engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures. • The exclusionary rule only applied to federal prosecutions; however, in the case of Wolf v. Colorado, the justices flirted with the idea of extending it to the states. • Other Related Cases: Katz v. US, Wolf v. Colorado, Janis v. US, and Mapp v. Ohio Investigative Constitutional Law

11. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule • The “Standing” Doctrine • “Fourth Amendment rights are personal in nature, and we think that definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.” (Rakas v. Illinois) • The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule cannot be invoked by a person whose own, legitimate rights were not implicated by the search or seizure. • Related Case Law: Rakas v. Illinois and Rawlings v. Kentucky Investigative Constitutional Law

12. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • The “Objective Justification” Doctrine • A search or seizure that is objectively reasonable does not violate the Fourth Amendment, without regard to an officer’s subjective motive, intent or analysis. • The doctrine of objective justification also applied in the civil liability context. • Related Case Law: Whren v. US and Devenpeck v. Alford Investigative Constitutional Law

13. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • The “Attenuated Taint” Doctrine • Under the doctrine of “attenuated taint,” evidence may be admissible even though it might not have been obtained but for an earlier illegality, provided that intervening acts have broken the chain of direct causation. • “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 illegal actions of the… Investigative Constitutional Law

14. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • …police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable as to be purged of the primary taint.” (Wong Sun v. US) Investigative Constitutional Law

15. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • The “Independent Source” Doctrine • The exclusionary rule does not apply, despite an unreasonable search or seizure based on one ground, if there was a separate, untainted source of the same evidence. • Related Case Law: Murray v. US • The “Inevitable Discovery” Doctrine • A search or seizure error does not necessitate suppression of evidence that would have been discovered inevitably through lawful means. Investigative Constitutional Law

16. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • The “Good Faith” Doctrine • The Supreme Court has applied the “good faith” exception to permit the introduction of evidence in spite of police error in the following kinds of cases: • Search Warrants • Arrest Warrants • Unconstitutional Statutes • Misidentification • Consent Investigative Constitutional Law

17. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • Objectively-reasonable mistakes made in good faith may permit evidence to survive a suppression motion in limited kinds of situations. • “The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in wilful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.” (Michigan v. Tucker) Investigative Constitutional Law

18. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • Permissible Auxiliary Uses • Evidence that is inadmissible in the prosecution case-in-chief under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule may be used for impeachment and other purposes. • Limiting the exclusionary rule to the prosecution case-in-chief, the court has permitted suppressible evidence to be admitted for purposes other than to prove guilt, and in other proceedings: • Impeachment/Rebuttal • Sentencing Investigative Constitutional Law

19. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • Parole/Probation Revocation Hearings • Grand Jury Proceedings • Deportation Proceedings • If evidence is ruled inadmissible on grounds that it is the poisoned fruit of an unlawful search or seizure, that ruling only applies to the prosecution case-in-chief and does not make the evidence inadmissible to rebut the defendant’s inconsistent testimony, or for other purposes. • Related Case Law: Walder v. US Investigative Constitutional Law

20. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • Conduct by Private Parties • The independent actions of private individuals or groups are not subject to the Fourth Amendment, and so the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by private parties not acting as government agents. • Related Case Law: Walter v. US, Jacobsen v. US, and Burdeau v. McDowell Investigative Constitutional Law

21. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule (Continued) • Conduct by Foreign Officials • Because the Fourth Amendment has no application to foreign officers in foreign countries, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by foreign officers and turned over to US agents. • Nor does it extend to searches and seizures conducted outside the US against citizens of a foreign country, even by US agents. • Related Case Law: Verdugo-Urquidez v. US Investigative Constitutional Law

22. Understanding the 4th Amendment • Civil Rights Lawsuits for Fourth Amendment Violations • Fourth Amendment violations may not only mean the suppression of resulting evidence but may also subject officers and their agencies to civil liability for both damages and attorney’s fees. • Officers and their agencies may be liable in money damages for violating constitutional rights under color of authority, where the search or seizure cannot be justified, or is carried out in an unreasonable manner. • Related Case Law: City of Riverside v. Rivera Investigative Constitutional Law