Welcome
Apply the Case Law: Search of a Residence with Warrant
A law enforcement officer swore an affidavit for a search warrant that was signed by a magistrate. The officer exercised the warrant and seized evidence based on the search. The affidavit’s material facts, which were used to support the finding of probable cause for the search, read as follows:
On November 13, 2014, Louis and Clarke were shot to death with 9-millimeter rounds. Timmy, an individual incarcerated in the North Bluff County Jail, confessed his involvement in the murders to at least three people, one of whom was Bill, a friend of the suspect. Bill told law enforcement officials that Timmy told him that Timmy had traded a pistol for marijuana with an individual named “Blacky.” Blacky was known to law enforcement as Roberto Gonzales. Bill knew that Blacky lived at the address listed on the search warrant.
The affidavit described the “thing to be searched for” as a 9-millimeter pistol and/or ammunition and the place to be searched as Gonzales’s residence. The officer exercised the warrant and seized evidence based on the search. While searching the residence, officers found several items that they suspected were stolen. The officers radioed the police station and had the serial numbers checked out, determining that the items were stolen. The officers also discovered cocaine and related paraphernalia, marijuana, and several firearms. However, the pistol they were looking for was not among the items seized.
1. Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
- Edwards v. Arizona (Chapter 17) to address whether the jailhouse confession of Timmy to Bill was constitutional (students will need more information about whether Timmy had requested a lawyer and in what capacity Bill was or was not working for the police).
- Illinois v. Gates (Chapter 1) to address the totality of the circumstances of whether law enforcement officers had probable cause for the search.
- United States v. Leon (Chapter 2) if the argument is made that there was insufficient evidence in the affidavit to establish probable cause for the warrant.
- Arizona v. Hicks (Chapter 13) to address whether the stolen items were in plain view, because they were not immediately recognizable as stolen and the serial numbers had to be called in.
- Horton v. California (Chapter 13) to address whether the drugs were in plain view – “inadvertent discovery.”
2. What was the basis for the search in this case?
A search warrant. The stolen property and drugs were seized under the plain view doctrine.
3. Could the officers legally seize the drugs?
Yes. The drugs were immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers were legally in the place to be searched.
4. Could the officers legally seize the firearms?
Yes. The firearms were immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers were legally in the place to be searched.
5. Could the officers legally seize the suspected stolen items?
Probably not. The stolen items were not immediately recognizable as contraband, and the officers had to radio in for confirmation.
Apply the Case Law: Jailhouse Informant
Remington was arrested and jailed on weapons charges relating to a crime committed in Arkansas. Remington was also a suspect in a Mississippi murder case. In an attempt to determine if Remington committed the Mississippi crime, police officers planted a government informant in Remington’s jail cell to try to collect evidence about the crime. The informant’s agreement specified that he was not to elicit any information about Remington’s pending Arkansas charges. The informant struck up a conversation about the murder by asking if Remington had ever killed anyone. Eventually, Remington told the informant about the murder, giving sufficient detail. This information was given to officers working on the case. At about the same time, officers learned from another informant that Remington had hidden the murder weapon at a particular place. Based on that information, officers obtained a search warrant. Officers found the weapon. Remington’s fingerprints were found on the weapon, and it was determined to be the murder weapon.
1. Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
- Edwards v. Arizona (Chapter 17) to address whether the jailhouse confession of Remington to the informant was constitutional (students will need more information about whether Remington had requested a lawyer).
- United States v. Henry (Chapter 21) to address whether the right to counsel was violated when the police intentionally created a situation to elicit incriminating statements.
- Murray v. United States (Chapter 2) to address the independent source for obtaining the search warrant.
2. Did the actions of the jailhouse informant violate Remington’s right to counsel?
Most likely, especially if Remington had requested an attorney.
3. If the jailhouse informant’s testimony was inadmissible, was the gun admissible in court?
Yes, because of the independent source doctrine.
Apply the Case Law: Probable Cause (Automobile)
Two police cars patrolling a high-crime area came upon two automobiles sitting next to each other with their engines running. As they approached, one of the cars sped off, but the other one was blocked in by one of the police patrol cars. One patrol car followed the moving vehicle, while the officer from the other patrol car approached the blocked vehicle. As the officer approached the driver’s side window, he noticed empty beer cans on the floorboard and part of a 12-pack of beer on the seat. He asked the occupant for her identification. She replied that her identification was in her purse next to the beer on the passenger-side seat and offered to retrieve it. The officer instructed her not to, and instead, walked around the vehicle and opened the passenger’s side door to get the purse. When the officer opened the purse to retrieve the identification, he found drugs. Meanwhile, the other patrol car stopped the vehicle that had sped away. After ordering the occupant out of the car, officers searched the vehicle. The officers discovered drugs in that vehicle as well. The occupant stated that he had just bought the drugs from the woman in the other car.
1. Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
- United States v. Sharpe (Chapter 3) for similar facts of the case that may be added by the instructor.
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, Illinois v. Wardlow (Chapter 3) to address evasive actions when observed by police.
- United States v. Ross (Chapter 9) to address probable cause to search the vehicles.
- Wyoming v. Houghton (Chapter 9) for similar circumstances of opening the woman’s purse.
- Maryland v. Wilson (Chapter 10) to address ordering the second vehicle’s occupant out of the car.
- Wong Sun v. United States (Chapter 2) to address fruit of the poisonous tree for the confession of the occupant of the second vehicle.
2. Did the officer violate the woman’s Fourth Amendment rights by opening her purse without consent?
This is arguable, but probably not, given that the officer saw the beer first.
3. Was there probable cause to follow the vehicle that sped away?
Yes. Officers may continue an investigation of evasive behavior by following a vehicle or persons.
4. Was there probable cause to search the vehicle that sped away?
This is arguable, but probably not. The vehicle did speed away, which allowed officers to follow it and stop it based on probable cause. However, given the facts provided, the officers did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. If other facts had arisen from the stop or interview of the occupant, sufficient probable cause might have existed to search the vehicle.
5. Can the testimony of the person who stated he bought drugs from the woman be used in court?
Apply the Case Law: Search of Home on an Anonymous Tip
Based on an anonymous tip, police officers went to a house where it was suspected that marijuana was growing on the property. One officer went around the back of the house on a small walkway to a park that bordered the house. She was able to look over the six-foot-high privacy fence and see stalks of marijuana growing in pots in the back yard. The other officer went to the front of the house. The officer stepped between some shrubs and the house to look inside the windows. There, the officer saw a bag of marijuana on a couch.
1. Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
- Illinois v. Gates (Chapter 1) to address the anonymous tip.
- Oliver v. United States (Chapter 13) to address officers viewing public fields for contraband.
- California v. Ciraolo (Chapter 13) to address officers’ naked-eye observation of the back yard (which was part of the curtilage).
2. Could the officers legally take these actions based on the anonymous tip?
Yes, based on California v. Ciraolo.
3. Are either of these searches legal? If so, why?
Oliver would allow the officer to walk around the house to the public park. Ciraolo would allow the naked-eye observation of the plants in the back yard. The officer could not step between the bushes and the house to look inside the window because that breaks the plane of curtilage; therefore, the observation of the bag of marijuana would be inadmissible.
Apply the Case Law: Shots Fired at a School
Officers responded to a “shots fired” call at a school. When the officers arrived, they observed a person (Dillon) fleeing the school grounds. One officer (Butch) pursued the person, while the other officer (Cassidy) went inside the school. School officials told Cassidy that Dillon had planted a bomb in the school. When Dillon did not stop, Butch fired his pistol, striking Dillon in the leg. When Butch approached, Dillon immediately asked for a lawyer. Butch placed Dillon in handcuffs and searched him, finding no weapon. Based on a radio call from Cassidy at the school, Butch then asked Dillon where the bomb was located. Repeating himself three times, Dillon told Butch where the bomb was located. Officers found and defused the bomb.
1. Which cases are most applicable to these facts?
- Illinois v. Wardlow (Chapter 3) to address fleeing in the presence of an officer.
- Tennessee v. Garner (Chapter 16) to address deadly force by the officer.
- United States v. Robinson (Chapter 7) to address the officer searching Dillon after the arrest.
- New York v. Quarles (Chapter 18) to address the officer questioning Dillon after he had requested an attorney.
2. Was Butch justified in pursuing Dillon?
Probably. There can be an assumption that Dillon was still armed; therefore, the officer could use deadly force (see also Ryder v. City of Topeka, 814 F. 2d 1412 910th Cir. (1987)). There is some question about Dillon being shot in the leg. The officer could not intentionally do that, but if he shot to stop the fleeing person, and just happened to hit Dillon in the leg, that is probably justified.
4. Did Butch violate Dillon’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights by questioning him after he had asked for a lawyer?