🫥
Criminal Procedure • Exclusionary Rule
CRIMPRO#006
Legal Definition
The 4th Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. To properly claim a 4th Amendment violation, a person must establish government action and standing.
Plain English Explanation
The 4th Amendment ("4A") is arguably one of the most important Amendments we have. It's what stops nosey government agents from getting all up in our personal lives. On exams, 4A issues will usually present themselves through the natural order of the criminal process: stop, arrest, search, confession, and pretrial or trial identification. Though these individual stages of the criminal process may have their own 4A related rules (which we'll discuss in other cards), the first two basic steps to a 4A analysis are:
(1) Determining whether there was government action. This usually means some act by a police officer, but it can also mean an act by someone the police asked or paid to act on their behalf. Without government action, 4A is not applicable.
(2) Determining whether the defendant has standing to contest the search or seizure. A person has standing if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing or place that is searched. How do we determine whether there is such a reasonable expectation of privacy? We use the 2-part Katz test: (1) is there a <subjective expectation> of privacy; (2) does society objectively consider there to be privacy in the thing or place to be searched? If you answer "yes" to both, then a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and a person has standing to contest its intrusion by a government agent.
(1) Determining whether there was government action. This usually means some act by a police officer, but it can also mean an act by someone the police asked or paid to act on their behalf. Without government action, 4A is not applicable.
(2) Determining whether the defendant has standing to contest the search or seizure. A person has standing if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing or place that is searched. How do we determine whether there is such a reasonable expectation of privacy? We use the 2-part Katz test: (1) is there a <subjective expectation> of privacy; (2) does society objectively consider there to be privacy in the thing or place to be searched? If you answer "yes" to both, then a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and a person has standing to contest its intrusion by a government agent.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Police suspect Bob is counterfeiting baseball cards, selling them on eBay, and transporting them through the postal system. Rather than get a warrant to search Bob's house, Police talk to Bob's neighbor who points out that Bob is never home at 4:00 pm and he keeps a hidden key under a fake rock. Police take the hint, find the key, and enter Bob's house where they find a pile of counterfeit baseball cards, envelopes, stamps, and a computer open to a website entitled, "How to Defraud People on eBay by Mailing Counterfeit Baseball Cards." Result: All of this evidence would have been incredibly useful in prosecuting Bob, had the police gotten a warrant. By not getting a warrant, their search of Bob's home violated Bob's 4th Amendment rights and, thus, are barred under the exclusionary rule.
Hypo 2: Same facts as Hypo 1:, except instead of the police entering Bob's house, his neighbor decides to break in after the police speak to him. After the neighbor breaks in, he photographs all the evidence and sends it to police. Result: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply here. Why? Because The Constitution protects people from abuses by the government. In other words, because Bob's neighbor is not an agent of the government, their actions—though wrong—do not prevent the government from making use of the evidence discovered. Note that if the neighbor was asked by police to break in, then they would be an agent of the government and the 4th Amendment would apply.
Hypo 3: Bob wants to talk to his drug dealer on the phone, but there are too many people in his house. He wants privacy, so he walks outside, goes into the alley behind his house, and hides behind a garbage can. Police notice this suspicious activity, so they use a sensitive microphone to listen to Bob talk. Result: Even though police are being nosey, Bob has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public alley, outside, on a phone call.
Hypo 2: Same facts as Hypo 1:, except instead of the police entering Bob's house, his neighbor decides to break in after the police speak to him. After the neighbor breaks in, he photographs all the evidence and sends it to police. Result: The 4th Amendment doesn't apply here. Why? Because The Constitution protects people from abuses by the government. In other words, because Bob's neighbor is not an agent of the government, their actions—though wrong—do not prevent the government from making use of the evidence discovered. Note that if the neighbor was asked by police to break in, then they would be an agent of the government and the 4th Amendment would apply.
Hypo 3: Bob wants to talk to his drug dealer on the phone, but there are too many people in his house. He wants privacy, so he walks outside, goes into the alley behind his house, and hides behind a garbage can. Police notice this suspicious activity, so they use a sensitive microphone to listen to Bob talk. Result: Even though police are being nosey, Bob has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public alley, outside, on a phone call.
Related Concepts
What are special needs search exceptions to the warrant requirement?
What are the 5 exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree exclusionary rule?
What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?
What are the Terry stop and frisk rules?
What are the wiretapping and eavesdropping exceptions to the warrant requirement?
What is a facially valid warrant?
What is the automobile exception to the warrant requirement?
What is the consent exception to the warrant requirement?
What is the evanescent evidence, and hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement?
What is the exclusionary rule?
What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
What is the good faith defense to an invalid warrant?
What is the harmless error rule?
What is the plain view exception to the warrant requirement?
What is the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement?
What is the stop and frisk exception to the warrant requirement?
When are police checkpoints valid?
When are police excused from knocking and announcing?
When does a person have automatic standing and a reasonable expectation of privacy in a 4th Amendment violation claim?
When do individuals have no standing and no reasonable expectation of privacy in a 4th Amendment violation claim?
When is a warrant based on a tip by an informant sufficient?
When is the exclusionary rule inapplicable?
