Criminal Procedure Outline I - Part 2

G. Qualified Immunity

1. Was there a violation of a statutory or constitutional right; and
2. Was that right CLEARLY ESTABLISHED @ time of alleged misconduct
   1. I.e. was there a previous case that established that right
      1. (1) Naturally, no new law will be created then

H. Search Warrants

1. Elements (same for arrest warrant)
   1. PC
   2. Oath/Affirmation
   3. Particularly describing the place to be searched & persons or things to be seized
      1. (1) Lo-Ji Sales: left warrant blank to be filled out later
      2. (2) Read in fair context - i.e. if it lists 7 things for a robbery then it’s ok to seize other non-specific things related to a robbery (Anderson v. Maryland)
      3. (3) Incorporation of other documents if: 1) warrant uses appropriate incorp language and 2) supporting doc accompanies the warrant
   4. Reviewed and approved by neutral and detached magistrate
      1. (1) Lo-Ji Sales → magistrate took part in the investigation = not neutral and detached
2. Execution
   1. Knock & Announce rule = norm
      1. (1) Wilson v. Arkansas → Implicit from CL
      2. (2) Richards v. Wisconsin → no per se exemption from knock-and-announce rule
         1. (a) Only need REASONABLE SUSPICION (specific and particularized facts) for exigencies
            1. Dangerous to officers
            2. Futile (fugitive)
            3. Destruction of evidence
         2. (b) No remedy in criminal court for violating - we learn this b/c it’s still tested and provides for civil remedies
      3. (3) 15-20 seconds = enough time to wait after K&A to enter (US v. Banks)
   2. After Entry:
      1. (1) May search containers that could contain searched item (i.e. ring can fit anywhere v. piano)
      2. (2) May seize object not w/in warrant w/ PC it contains contraband
      3. (3) Officers may need to adjust their search given new info discovered immediately before or during search
         1. (a) Maryland v. Garrison → cops able to use evidence obtained prior to realizing search was in wrong house
      4. (4) Ybarra v. Illinois → police may not search anyone in premises not listed in warrant w/o independent PC to search that person
         1. (a) Michigan v. Summers → implicit authority to detain occupants of a home that is being searched pursuant to valid search warrant so long as search is conducted
         2. (b) Bailey → automatic, implicit right to detain and doesn’t require anything besides valid search warrant and a search
   3. EXCEPTIONS:
      1. (1) Exigent Circumstances
         1. (a) Circumstances/Factors:
            1. Hot Pursuit
               1. Stanton v. Sims can warrantlessly enter home even for minor offense
            2. Evidence will be destroyed (MOST COMMON)
               1. Schmerber: car accident + trip to hospital = no warrant for BAC
               2. Missouri v. McNeely: no categorical allowance of blood draw
               3. BUT Mitchell: unconscious driver = no chance for breath test = blood draw is chill
            3. Suspect will escape
            4. Harm will result to police/others
               1. Gravity of Harm & Likelihood suspect is armed
               2. Warden v. Hayden: armed robbery + fled into home (and didn’t matter if they searched for more weapons anywhere in home)
               3. “Community Caretaking” Brigham City Utah v. Stuart: police may enter home to respond to emergency and not crim. investigation
         2. (b) NOTE: does not apply if police create the exigency BUT it’s ok if they don’t violate the 4th amendment/threaten to engage in conduct that violates (Kentucky v. King)
      2. (2) Search Incident to Lawful Arrest (SILA)
         1. (a) Chimel v. California → can search w/ a lawful arrest the (1) person for weapons or evidence and (2) area under D. immediate control (w/in 12 feet?)
         2. (b) US v. Robinson → automatic justification to SILA & doesn’t matter what the thing is
         3. (c) Riley v. California → EXCEPTION = CELL PHONES (need search warrant) absent exigency
         4. (d) Maryland v. Buie → may also search closets/places immediately adjacent to the arrested D. to search for other people that would hurt police (NOTE scope is limited to looking for people and officer safety - not containers)
         5. (e) NY v. Belton → SILA in car = police may search entire passenger compartment to the car (and all containers inside)
         6. (f) Thornton → extends Belton to recent occupants of vehicles
         7. (g) Arizona v. Gant → BELTON IS LIMITED → only search vehicle when D. is unsecured and w/in reaching distance at time of search AND added “reasonable belief” that more evidence will be found in car
         8. (h) Whren → subjective motivations for pretextual traffic stops doesn’t matter
         9. (i) Ladson → same
      3. (3) Automobile Exception
         1. (a) Carroll → PC only needed (mobility rationale) to search car
         2. (b) Chambers → added reduced privacy concern
         3. (c) Coolidge → car in driveway and searched a year after = court said 4th violation b/c cars doesn’t mean abuse whatever
         4. (d) Carney → mobile homes count as cars, don’t need warrant
      4. (4) Inventories
         1. (a) Basically, 4th applies to criminal investigations → towing a car and performing an inventory = A-OK
         2. (b) Ditto for people
         3. (c) AS LONG AS it follows a procedure → inventory cannot be used to circumvent the 4th
      5. (5) Containers (in cars)
         1. (a) Definition: any object capable of holding another object
            1. Only thing where there is no privacy is something like a plastic bag
            2. All other containers treated exactly alike (brown paper bag → locked trunk)
         2. (b) California v. Acevedo: err on the side that police can search a container in a car w/o warrant if their search is supported by PC
            1. Two Circumstances:
               1. As part of valid auto exception search police come across container = may search as long as large enough to hold evidence
               2. Police may have PC that container has evidence; may search car for container and open it