Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence

Transcription

1 Search & Seizure Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence [Simplified] The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Interpretation Of 4th Amendment SUPREMACY CLAUSE: US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. US Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the US Constitution (Marbury) Therefore, what the US Supreme Court says about search and seizure is what the States must follow

2 However Oregon v Hass, 40 US 74, 79 (975): [A] State is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards... But, of course, a State may not impose such greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them. Therefore... The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the 4th amendment State courts must follow the Supreme Court s interpretation of the 4th Amendment BUT, the state in interpreting a search and seizure situation can provide the defendant with greater protection under the state s constitution. Got it? Reading Search & Seizure Cases WHICH AUTHORITY IS CONTROLLING? ) United States Supreme Court; or ) New York Court of Appeals?

3 Reading Search & Seizure Cases The Court of Appeals, if they accept the case, will render a decision. The Court of Appeals can base its decision on either: 4th Amendment (SCOTUS s Interpretation); and/or Article, Section (NY Constitution) US Supreme Court or NY Court of Appeals? Reading a New York Court of Appeals Decision Since Court of Appeal s decisions interpreting the 4th Amendment are based on the US Supreme Court s interpretation, you can safely use them (KeyCite them in case the Supreme Court has decided something recently) Of course, if the decision is based on Article, Section, use them because they will govern state prosecutions. US Supreme Court Or NY Court of Appeals? Use NY Court Of Appeals Decisions, But... When doing research, use CONTROLLING New York court cases and assume that they are based on the current state of law. In those decisions you will find US Supreme Court decisions NOTE: Always look for recent US Supreme Court decisions where the NY courts have not had a chance to address that issue.

4 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The right of the people to be secure in THEIR persons, houses, papers, and effects... [Standing] REASONABLENESS: The cornerstone of the 4th Amendment...against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures... [Warrantless Searches] No warrants shall issue... Searches: An intrusion of a protected privacy interest Seizures: A significant interruption of a person's liberty of movement as a result of police action [The Warrant Clause] Frisk Protective Sweep Stop a be issued by a neutral magistrate REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID WARRANT b be based on probable cause, c designate the place to be searched, and what is to be seized. Fourth Amendment Terms Defined US 4th Amendment & NY Article, Section (st Paragraph) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The List of Terms ) their ) search; ) frisk (lesser of search); 4) protective sweep (lesser of search); 5) seizure; 6) stop (the lesser of seizure); 7) probable cause, 8) reasonable suspicion (lesser of probable cause); 9) search warrants, and 0) warrantless searches. 4

5 The List of Terms ) their ) search; frisk; protective sweep; ) seizure; stop; 4) probable cause, reasonable suspicion; 5) search warrants, and 6) warrantless searches. Their Defendant Must Show Standing Their makes the 4th personal Defendant must show that the search was done in a place where the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy. BURDEN. Standing A defendant moving to suppress physical evidence has the burden of establishing standing Must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises or object searched A legitimate expectation of privacy exists where defendant has manifested an expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable 5

6 Legitimate Expectation of Privacy TWO COMPONENTS ) What did the defendant do? (subjective) did defendant exhibit an expectation of privacy in the place or item searched, that is, did he seek to preserve something as private ) Reasonableness (objective): does society generally recognize defendant s expectation of privacy as reasonable, that is, is his expectation of privacy justifiable under the circumstances Standing to challenge a Search Need this to make a motion to suppress physical evidence NOT a possessory interest in the goods seized MUST assert a privacy interest in the place or item searched SEARCH: Search An intrusion of a protected privacy interest. FRISK: SEARCH, FRISK, and PROTECTIVE SWEEP A very limited search whose purpose is to discover weapons for the safety of the police officer. PROTECTIVE SWEEP: A very quick and limited intrusion into an area simply to find hidden people who might poise a danger to police while in a premise. 6

7 Search Example SEARCH. The police going into a person s pockets is clearly a search: ) the pockets are a protected privacy interest and ) the police going into the pockets is an intrusion. NO SEARCH. The police looking at the gun in a person s hand: ) the view is out in the open for everyone to see and therefore there is no privacy interest. SEIZURE Seizure SEIZURE AND STOP A significant interruption of a person s liberty of movement as a result of police action. Whenever the police accost a person and retrains his/her freedom to walk away. An arrest is a seizure. STOP A stop is a limited seizure, short of an arrest. Probable Cause Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion PROBABLE CAUSE Facts that are known to the police officer would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief a particular person has committed a crime. In New York, probable cause is also called reasonable cause and is defined statutorily in CPL 70.0 (). In order to arrest a person, there must be probable cause. 7

8 Reasonable Suspicion Probable Cause & Reasonable Suspicion REASONABLE SUSPICION Reasonable suspicion is a belief that criminality is at hand. Since this is less than probable cause, a person cannot be arrested on reasonable suspicion. Search Warrants Search and Arrest Warrants A search warrant is a court order directing a police officer to search a particular thing (e.g., home or car) to seize a particular thing. Arrest Warrants Search and Arrest Warrants An arrest warrant is similar to a search warrant. A court order directing a police officer to arrest a particular person. 8

9 EXCEPTIONS TO WARRANT CLAUSE RULE: The seizure of an individual's property without obtaining a warrant is per se unreasonable, subject to several narrow, welldefined exceptions (People v Brown, 96 NYd 80 (00); People v Diaz, 8 NYd 06; Thompson v Louisiana, 469 US 7,9-0). REASONABLENESS The touchstone of any analysis of a governmental invasion of a citizen's person under the 4th Amendment and Article, Section is reasonableness (People vbatista, 88 NYd 650, 65). DETERMINING REASONABLENESS To determine reasonableness, the suppression court must perform a two-step analysis (Terry v Ohio, 9 US, 9-0; People v De Bour, 40 NYd 0, ). was the officer's action justified from the beginning? was the search reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place? SOME RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS a CONSENT d EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST EXCEPTIONS e VEHICLE EXCEPTION c PLAIN VIEW f STOPS, FRISKS AND PROTECTIVE SWEEPS Exceptions to Warrants The Warrantless Search Most search and seizures are done without warrants. The People have the burden of overcoming the presumption that a warrantless search is unreasonable under the fourth amendment. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exceptions to Warrants [NOT A COMPLETE LIST] Abandonment Administrative Search Border Search Exception Consent Search Exception Exigent Circumstances Good Faith Doctrine (Not in New York) Inevitable Discovery Doctrine (Not in NY) Inventory Search Exception Moving Vehicle/Probable Cause Doctrine Open Fields Doctrine. Plain View Doctrine Protective Sweep Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest Stop & Frisk (Terry Stop) Student Search Exception Vehicle Exception 9

10 CONSENT SEARCHES RULE: 4th Amendment generally prohibits the warrantless entry of a person's home either to make an arrest, or to search. This rule does not apply where there is voluntary consent. Consent can only be given by either by the individual whose property is searched, or from a third party, possessing common authority over the premises. BURDEN ON PEOPLE: heavy burden of proving voluntariness of the defendant s consent to search under the totality of circumstances; consent cannot be a product of duress or coercion, express or implied. FACTORS IN DETERMINING VOLUNTARINESS People v Gonzalez,9 NYd 4 CUSTODY: Whether the individual was under arrest or in custody BACKGROUND: The background of the individual RELATIONSHIP: Whether individual has been evasive or uncooperative with law enforcement authorities ADVISED: Whether the individual was advised of his/her right to refuse to consent Consent The Gonzalez Factors Custody Background Past Cooperation 4 Advised Third Party Consent Possesses Common Authority. 0

11 California, 95 US 75) Police are allowed to search the person of individuals lawfully arrested, or the area within their immediate control, if the search "closely follows Search for weapons if there is a fear for safety Prevention of the Destruction of Contraband Search in the area within defendant's reach To properly conduct a search incident to arrest, the police must make a full custodial arrest. US v Robinson, 44 US 8, 5 Speeding citation, in itself, does not justify a full blown search of a car as incident to arrest Knowles v Iowa, 55 US (998) There must be probable cause to make a lawful arrest. (see, e.g., People v Ralfopoulos, 74 ADd 47 (d Dept 000) Search must be contemporaneous with the arrest People v Gokey, 60 NYd 09 at SILA is allowed when it is "not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest..." People v Smith, 59 NYd 454, 458 A bag that is within the immediate control or grabbable area of a suspect at the time of his arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to arrest unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence People v Gokey, 60 NYd 09,. THIRD PARTY CONSENTS APPARENT COMMON AUTHORITY! Rests on the mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes;! Officers may rely in good faith on the apparent capability of an individual to consent to a search, and the circumstances reasonably indicate that the individual does, in fact, have the authority to consent. WHO CAN CONSENT? WHERE ONE CONSENTS AND THE OTHER REFUSES Where one refuses to consent, the police cannot then look to another to consent: warrantless search of a shared residence for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to the refusing resident on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident. YES NO MUST LIVE THERE (SHARE) ANYONE NOT LIVING THERE! A spouse IF shared! Other Family members IF shared! A common law spouse IF shared! Boyfriend or girlfriend IF shared! A casual babysitter! An independent contractor! A landlord or lessor does not have authority to consent to a search of a tenant's apartment! Roommates or cotenant IF shared! A guest IF shared CLOSED CONTAINERS: The apparent or actual authority of a third person to consent to a search of a premises which he or she jointly occupies with the defendant does not furnish apparent authority for a search of a closed and concealed item owned by the defendant, in the absence of evidence that the consenting person also has common authority, by way of mutual use, joint access or control, over the bag. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST Search Incident A recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement (People v Belton, 55 NYd 49, 5; United States v Chadwick, 4 US, 4; Chimel v [the] arrest" (People v Belton, supra at 5). Lawful Purpose a Safety of Arresting Officer b Arrest Arrest Lawful Search Incident Search Incident To A Lawful Arrest Arrest: Custody Lawful: Probable Cause Search contemporaneous

12 execution of a search warrant execution of an arrest warrant a valid exception to the warrant requirement PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT CLAUSE Plain view doctrine, a judicially created and crafted exception to the Warrant Clause Coolidge v New Hampshire(40 US 44) THREE CONDITIONS If sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized if certain conditions are met: Horton v California,496 US 8; Arizona v Hicks,480 US ;People v Brown,96 NYd 80; People v Diaz, 8 NYd 06 POLICE ARE LAWFULLY IN THE POSITION FROM WHICH THE OBJECT IS VIEWED The police must show that they did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed. Seizures of items may be observed in plain view during: DISCOVERY OF THE ITEMS MUST BE INADVERTENT OBJECT S INCRIMINATING NATURE IS IMMEDIATELY APPARENT Plain View Lawful Position Discovery Inadvertent Incriminating Nature Exigent Circumstances to Enter a Home PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable (People v Molnar, 98 NYd 8, [00]). PROPER ENTRY: NEED PROBABLE CAUSE + EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. if there is probable cause, the police may proceed without a warrant to effectuate an arrest within a home if exigent circumstances exist to justify a warrantless entry (Kirk v Louisiana, 56 US 65, 68 [00]; gravity or violent nature of the alleged offense whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed FACTORS: In determining whether exigent circumstances are present, both the federal and state courts have applied a number of different factors. These factors include... (People v McBride, 4 NYd 440 [00]) clear showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime; strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; LIST NOT COMPLETE List is illustrative and not to be viewed as definitive or exhaustive (People v Cloud, 68 ADd 9, 94 [st Dept 99],affd. 79 NYd 786 [99]) likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and. peaceful circumstances of the entry ULTIMATE INQUIRY: ultimate inquiry a suppression court must make is whether in light of all the facts of the particular case there was an urgent need that justifies a warrantless entry (Martinez-Gonzalez, 686 F.d at 00)

13 Protection of owner s property PROCEDURE Inventory search be conducted according to a familiar routine procedure Pursuant to authorized procedures, an impounded vehicle may be searched to inventory contents Protection of police against claims over lost property RATIONALLY DESIGNED Procedure must be rationally designed to meet the objectives that justify the search in the first place Protection of police from potential danger REASONABLENESS Procedure meet two standards of reasonableness NO DISCRETION Procedure must limit the discretion of the officer in the field Exigent Circumstances Different Types Hot Pursuit Preservation of Contraband Protection of Life Emergency SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS: VEHICLE SEARCH Vehicle Searches VEHICLE EXCEPTION Warrantless search of vehicle permitted where there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is being used to commit a crime or that it contains evidence of a crime Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest Arizona v Gant, 556 US (009) Police can search the car as incident to a lawful arrest only if the defendant is in the vehicle or beside it. Once the defendant is placed in the police vehicle, it is no longer allowed as SILA (the vehicle is no longer within his/her immediate control) Inventory Searches PURPOSE REQUIREMENTS Vehicle Searches Vehicle Exception (Instrumentality) Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest Inventory

14 Levels of Police Intrusion LEVEL UNDER De Bour WHAT POLICE NEED (standard) WHAT POLICE CAN DO Right to Approach & Request Information Objective Credible Reason Cannot be based on mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity Can request ID &/or explanation as to whereabouts However, the person has the right NOT to answer and walk away; police cannot follow. People v Howard, 50 NYd 58 Common Law Right to Inquire Founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot Present indication of criminality based on observable conduct or reliable hearsay Can question in accusatory manner (eg, what s the bag, can I look in the bag). Person has right not to answer Short of seizure, but if suspect leaves (i.e., walks or runs away), that raises the level to and allows police to seize If there is an anonymous tip with a general description (e.g., "man with gun", "drugs being sold", "shots being fired"), police have right to approach and question a person fitting that description Right to Stop and Detain Reasonable Suspicion Reasonable suspicion The quantum of knowledge necessary to induce an ordinary prudent & cautious person under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand People v Cantor, 6 NYd 06 Can seize a person, investigate & frisk Frisk is allowed only when the officer reasonably suspects that s/he is in danger of physical injury by virtue of the detainee being armed Terry v Ohio, 9 US 4 Right to Arrest Reasonable Cause (Probable Cause) Can seize a person and arrest him or her People v De Bour, 40 NYd 0 (976), People v Hollman, 79 NYd 9, and related cases FLIGHT TO STOP The police can stop a person to conduct an investigation if there is reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime. LEVEL REASONABLE SUSPICION Information sufficient to induce a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that criminal activity is at hand. FLIGHT What happens of the police approach someone under Level (Approach and Request) or Level (Common Law Right to Inquire) ofde Bour-Hollman and the defendant flees? PURSUIT Pursuit of a fleeing suspect is equivalent to a stop and is likewise justified only on reasonable suspicion. UNDER LEVEL ONE Flight alone absent any other information does not establish reasonable suspicion of criminality individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry. ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT MIGHT ALLOW REASONABLE SUSPICION & STOP! specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity! the confrontation occurs in a high crime area AND! the officers are investigating a crime UNDER LEVEL TWO Flight establishes reasonable suspicion of criminality 4 Levels Of De Bour ) Right to Approach & Request Information ) Common Law Right to Inquire ) Right to Stop and Detain 4) Right to Arrest 4

15 LEVEL Police are entitled to approach and request information from an individual provided that they have an objective, credible reason for the approach. They may ask: for identity, address or destination. LEVEL A defendant s acts may raise the level: Flight Hiding a telltale item This inquiry, which is the least intrusive of all police measures, must be made in a general, nonthreatening manner. LEVEL RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE: When there is no indication of criminal activity, a person who is questioned has a right not to speak with a police officer, and to leave 5

16 LEVEL A police officer is entitled to approach a citizen and make inquiry of a more intrusive nature Officer must have a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Officer may interfere to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but may not forcibly seize the individual. LEVEL This type of questioning would lead the person approached to reasonably believe that he/she is suspected of some wrongdoing and is the focus of the approaching officer s investigation. LEVEL ANONYMOUS TIP v IDENTIFIED INFORMANT ANONYMOUS TIP: Where the police receive an anonymous tip that provides general information, they may have a right to inquire but nothing more. The lack of accountability for false reports renders anonymous tips the weakest sort of information. 6

17 LEVEL ANONYMOUS TIP v IDENTIFIED INFORMANT IDENTIFIED INFORMANT: Information provided by an identified informant, providing a description the criminal and and of the person who committed it is enough for Level. The police need not make an independent showing of the witness s reliability and basis of knowledge. Level The police may forcibly pursue and/or stop and detain an individual if they have information that, though falling below the probable cause necessary to arrest, provides them with a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by that individual. FRISK: Level Frisk is allowed only when the officer has reason to believe that the defendant possesses a weapon Report of the person with the weapon Bulge 7

18 SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS Did the police lawfully get to the defendant or place? YES NO Once the police are lawfully there, did they lawfully seize the contraband? NO GRANT SUPPRESSION YES DENY SUPPRESSION Search & Seizure Analysis ) What was the item seized (the item the defendant moves to suppress)? ) Where was the item seized (e.g., the home, the street, in a vehicle)? ) Was the item properly seized? What Was The Item Seized? (the item the defendant moves to suppress) CPL 70.0 only allows defendant to move to suppress certain items. The most popular items to move to suppress are: Physical Evidence Statements Identification Testimony Fruit of the Poisonous Tree 8

19 Where Was The Item Seized? (e.g., the home, the street, in a vehicle) Different rules and analysis apply depending on whether the items was seized in the home, the street or in a vehicle. Was The Item Properly Seized? The Item seized must be seized pursuant to: Search or Arrest Warrant OR Recognized Exception to the Warrant Clause THREE COMMON PLACES TO APPLY SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS HOME Did the police lawfully enter the home? If so, did they lawfully seize the contraband? STREET Did the police lawfully approach or stop the defendant? If so, did they lawfully seize the contraband? VEHICLE Did the police lawfully stop the vehicle? If so, did they lawfully seize the contraband? 9

20 Protective Sweep Plain View Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest (SILA) Recognized Exception to the Warrant Clause General Analysis A Did the police lawfully get to the defendant or the item seized? B If police are lawfully there, did they lawfully seize the item? SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS: THE HOME GETTING INTO THE HOME Did the police lawfully get into the home? Warrant (Arrest or Search) Consent (Appropriate Person) Exigent Circumstances Hot Pursuit Preserve Life Preserve Contraband THEN WHAT? If so, did they lawfully seize the contraband? Plain View Consent Arrest (with or without warrant) Consent A Recognized Exception to the Warrant Clause Home Analysis Did the police lawfully get into the home? B If they are lawfully there, did they lawfully seize the item? 0

21 A Did The Police Lawfully Get Into The Home? Warrant (Arrest or Search) Consent (Appropriate Person) Exigent Circumstances a. Hot Pursuit b. Preserve Life c. Preserve Contraband B If So, Did They Lawfully Seize The Item? Plain View Consent Arrest a) Protective Sweep b) Consent c) SILA SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS: STREET ENCOUNTERS Did the police lawfully approach or stop the defendant? THE DEBOUR LEVELS Right to Approach & Request Information Common Law Right to Inquire Right to Stop and Detain Right to Stop and Arrest Abandonment If so, did they lawfully seize the contraband? Plain View Consent THE DEBOUR LEVELS Inquire Frisk Arrest Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest (SILA) Consent

22 Recognized A Exception to the Warrant Clause Street Analysis Did the police lawfully approach or stop the defendant? B If so, did they lawfully seize the item? A Did the police lawfully approach or stop the defendant? 4 THE DE BOUR LEVELS Approach & Request Information Common Law Right to Inquire Right to Stop and Detain Right to Seize and Arrest ABANDONMENT ABANDONMENT EQUALS NO SEARCH Search is an intrusion into a protected privacy interest. Property is abandoned when the expectation of privacy in the object or place searched has been given up by voluntarily and knowingly discarding the property. MUST BE VOLUNTARY When the defendant voluntarily abandons property, they abandon or waive their constitutional protection towards that property UNLAWFUL POLICE ACTIVITY Voluntary act of abandonment cannot be in response to any unlawful police conduct Where an article is discarded as a spontaneous reaction to illegal police conduct then no abandonment will be found and the article will be inadmissible. DROPPING The act of dropping an item does not establish its abandonment, which is established only if the circumstances reveal a purposeful divestment of possession of the item searched. BURDEN The burden rests upon the People to establish the waiver.

23 B If so, did they lawfully seize the item? Abandonment Plain View Consent 4 De Bour (see next slide) B If So, Did They Lawfully Seize The Item?? Inquire Frisk 4 Arrest a) SILA b) Consent Applicable De Bour Levels Recognized Exception to the Warrant Clause Vehicle Analysis A Did the police lawfully stop the vehicle? B If so, did they lawfully seize the item?

24 L E V E L L E V E L L E V E L (Reasonable Suspicion) L E V E L 4 (Probable Cause) SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS: VEHICLE STOP STOPPING Police may not arbitrarily stop a vehicle Right to Approach and Request Information ONLY JUSTIFIED WHEN: DE BOUR FOUR LEVELS OF ENCOUNTERS INITIATED BY POLICE Common Law Right to Inquire STOP AND DETAIN Right to Stop & Detain OR OR ROADBLOCKS ARREST AND SEIZE Right to Stop & Arrest When conducted pursuant to nonarbitrary, non-discriminatory, uniform procedures. OR TRAFFIC INFRACTION OR EQUIPMENT VIOLATIONS Where motorist has violated a traffic regulation EXIT Police officer who lawfully stopped vehicle for traffic infraction may, as safety precaution, order occupants to exit vehicle A Did The Police Lawfully Seize The Vehicle? Traffic Infractions or Equipment Failures Roadblocks De Bour Levels a) Stop and Detain (level ) b) Seize and Arrest (level 4) B If So, Did They Lawfully Seize The Item?? Plain View Consent De Bour Levels (see next slide) 4

25 B If so, did they lawfully seize the item? APPLICABLE De BOUR LEVELS Frisk Arrest a) Vehicle Exception b) SILA c) Consent d) Inventory SUPPRESSION ANALYSIS Did the police lawfully get to the defendant or place? YES NO Once the police are lawfully there, did they lawfully seize the contraband? NO GRANT SUPPRESSION YES DENY SUPPRESSION 5