Item: Powers Law Firm PA
Rating: 5
Author: J.R.

Home

Educating a New Generation of Lawyers

Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields 2021 - Campbell Law - Part 1

Criminal Procedure Outline - Professor Fields 2021 - Campbell Law - Part 3

By Miller Moreau
Professor Fields - 2021

Download the PDF version of this outline

<< Part 2 | Part 4 >>

i. Warrantless Searches and Seizures

i. Searches Incident to an Arrest

Search of a Person: US v. Robinson (believed driver was driving w/o permit, stopped car, pat down of suspect revealed cigarette package with heroine)
1. Issue: whether the ‘search incident to an arrest’ exception to the warrant requirement allows for a full search of the person, as opposed to only a “safety” search
2. Holding: yes, search incident to an arrest allows the officer to search the entire person of the arrestee – not limited to where a gun or knife could be
3. An arrest based on probable cause alone is a reasonable search under the 4th am. A search of the person incident to the arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement. This allows for a full search of the person
  1. Search may be made of the area within the control of the arrestee
  2. Rationale: officer safety and need to find/preserve evidence
  3. Area within the control of the arrestee
  4. Not limited to weapons or evidence
Search of a Home: Chimel v. California (police had warrant authorizing arrest for burglary of a coin shop, they searched home after he said no w/o a warrant)
1. Issue: whether law enforcement may search the entire home when arresting an individual in his/her home
2. Holding: no, while police may conduct a warrantless search incident to an arrest while in the home, the search is limited to:
  1. The arrestee’s person; and
  2. The area within the arrestee’s immediate control, meaning the area from within which she might gain possession of a weapon or destructible device
Search of a Vehicle: Arizona v. Gant (arrested for driving with a suspended license, put in back of patrol car, searched his car and discovered cocaine in pocket of a jacket in the backseat)
1. Issue: whether the scope of a search incident to an arrest in a vehicle extends to the entire passenger compartment after arrestee is placed in car
2. Holding: no, police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is:
  1. Within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, OR
  2. It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
  3. Belton: you can search anywhere in the car (limitless) – this is basically the same rule as Belton because the first prong is ineffectual
3. Rule: when lawful arrest made involving vehicle, police may search:
  1. The arrestee’s person; and
  2. Anywhere within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, and
  3. Anywhere it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
Search of a Cell Phone: Riley v. California (search incident to arrest, found phone in pocket, searched phone and connected him to recent shooting): Phone has heightened expectation of privacy and therefore law enforcement may not search the phone absent a warrant
1. still unclear is they can make you give phone or passcode
2. court goes back to original balancing test here, gets away from bright-line rule→makes it case-by-case, balancing government interests and privacy interest
search incident to arrest analysis:
1. first: make sure the arrest is lawful
2. second: ask where the arrest is being made and what’s being searched (e.g. a public search of the person, a search of home, search of vehicle)
3. third: if it’s a phone seized then get a warrant to search

ii. Plain View Doctrine: Collidge v. New Hampshire

Plain View Doctrine: an objective of incriminating nature may be seized w/o a warrant if it is ‘plain view’ of a police officer lawfully present at the scene
1. 1. Not really an exception to the warrant requirement, but rather as a justification for the police to conduct a warrantless seizure of the evidence in plain view
2. An article is in plain view and subject to warrantless seizure by police if:
  1. Police lawfully make an initial intrusion or otherwise be in a position from which they can view a particular area;
  2. ~~Police must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently;~~ and
    1. No longer required (Horton)
  3. It is immediately apparent to police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure
Arizona v. Hicks (bullet fired through apartment below; moved turntable to see number – that was a search)
1. Have to have probable cause to believe equipment stolen
2. If you have to pick it up and look at it→not immediately incriminating
3. Reading the serial numbers wasn’t a seizure – it was the moving of the stereo that was the search and required the warrant
4. 2nd search that required probable cause
5. Immediately apparent: requires probable cause
  1. Issue here that it wasn’t immediatetly apparent to the police that the items observed may be evidence (otherwise, wouldn’t of had to move the turntable to get the numbers)
6. **need probable cause to support the immediately apparent requirement
Horton v. California (magistrate issued search warrant only for the proceeds, he found weapons in plain view and seized them)
1. Inadvertence prong is not a necessary condition

iii. Automobile Exception

Generally Speaking: Carroll v. US
1. Basis for automobile exception: mobility and lower expectation of privacy in car
  1. Sidenote: exception to the warrant requirement—look at framer’s intent→balance nature of intrusion v government interest→if govt interest wins, create an exception
What’s an Automobile: California v. Carney
1. Issue: whether the 4th am requires law enforcement to acquire a warrant before searching a motor home when there is probable cause of a felony being committed
2. Holding: no—police do not have to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle, to include a motor home, so long as they have probable cause
3. Rule: automobile exception—police don’t need a warrant to search a vehicle so long as they have probable cause
  1. They can search anywhere in the car where the evidence for which they are searching may be
  2. Includes containers if the container can fit the evidence
4. Carroll and Ross (issue: whether the automobile exception includes containers)
  1. Carroll: creates automobile exception—can search anywhere evidence can be related to the PC
  2. Ross: if PC justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle that may conceal the object of the search
Containers: California v. Acevedo (issue: whether the automobile exception allowed the police to open the sack w/o a warrant or did the fact that PC attached to the sack, not the car, require a warrant) (fedex package police knew contained weed put in car)
1. No warrant required—under automobile exception you can search anywhere evidence may be
  1. Allows warrantless search of the package
2. Overturns Sanders
3. Rule: the police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained
  1. Police didn’t have probable cause to believe contraband hidden in any other part of the car and a search of the entire car would have been w/o probable cause and unreasonable
Passengers’ Possessions: Wyoming v. Houghton (boyfriend had syringe, searched girlfriend’s purse): When police have probable cause to search a vehicle, they may search a passengers’ belongings so long as those belongings are capable of concealing the object of the search
1. But cannot search passengers’ bodies
Curtilage: Collins v. Virginia (searched motorcycle beside home): Automobile exception does not allow for warrantless searches of vehicles parked within the curtilage of the home, scope of the automobile exception extends no further than the automobile itself

Learn More

Related Topics

The Charlotte lawyers at Powers Law Firm PA are dedicated to compassionate legal representation, predicated on superlative knowledge, trial skills, and conscientious advocacy.

The gift of a legal education extends beyond a fulfilling way to earn a living. Omni autem cui multum datum.

Bill Powers - Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com

Carolina Law Blog / Awards and Certifications

★★★★★

I am so fortunate to have had Bill Powers on my case. Upon our first meeting, Bill insisted that through the emotions of anger, sadness, confusion, and betrayal that I remain resilient. He was available to answer questions with researched, logical, truthful answers throughout our two year stretch together... J.R.

Bill Powers and his firm were a true blessing. If anyone is contacting an attorney, it's more than likely not from a positive life experience. If there was a rating for "bedside manner" for lawyers he'd get a 10/10 for that as well. The entire staff were helpful... K.C.

Bill Powers’ staff has handled several traffic citations for me over the years, and they exceeded my expectations each and every time. Would highly recommend anyone faced with a traffic citation or court case contact his office and they will handle it from there. M.C.

Bill and his staff are flat out great. I (unfortunately) was a repeat customer after a string of tickets. These guys not only took care of the initial ticket for me, but went the extra mile and reduced my problems from 3 to just 1 (very minor one) on the same day I called back! I would recommend them to anyone. A.R.

Submit a Law Firm Client Review