Interests Protected by the Fourth Amendment

Similar documents
THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PATRICIA SMITH. Argued: October 20, 2011 Opinion Issued: January 13, 2012

In Plane View: Is Aerial Surveillance a Violation of the Fourth Amendment - California v. Ciraolo

A MAN S BARN IS NOT HIS CASTLE: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF STRUCTURES UNDER THE OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE

,Suptrtut Court of 71ReuEllik_ SC DG OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE KELLER REVERSING

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I. ---o0o--

"The Conundrum of the Curtilage: A Critical Interpretation of Florida v. Jardines"

Police Trespass and the Fourth Amendment: A Wall in Need of Mending

False Security: Kyllo and Thermal Imaging of the Non-Residential Structure by Christopher Desmond

FACT SHEET. Farmers are challenged daily by. When Can the Government Enter Your Farm? FEB 2015

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1998 DONNA L. SAMPSON STATE OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES v. DUNN 480 U.S. 294 (1987)

The Post-Katz Problem of When "Looking" Will Constitute Searching Violative of the Fourth Amendment

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. William F. Stone, Judge. October 31, 2018

Search & Seizure: Historical Analysis of the Fourth Amendment

California v. Greenwood: Police Access to Valuable Garbage

SURVEY OF TRENDS IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW

Domestic Drones CAUSE FOR CONCERN?

Search Warrant Exceptions. Coach Presnell

Warrantless Satellite Surveillance: Will our 4th Amendment Privacy Rights be Lost in Space?, 13 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L.

California v. Ciraolo: The Demise of Private Property

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr SPM-AK-1.

THE MARCH OF SCIENCE: FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS ON REMOTE SENSING IN CRIMINAL LAW

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Return to Open Season for Police in the Open Field, The

We apply the open fields doctrine in a case involving an aerial observation of a corn field.

Emerging Technology and the Fourth Amendment

Criminal Procedure Update: Drones, Dogs and Delay TOPICS. Recent Supreme Court Cases. Professor Laurie L. Levenson Loyola Law School (2016)

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

LET THIS JARDINES GROW: THE CASE FOR CURTILAGE PROTECTION IN COMMON SPACES

The GPS Tracking Case Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States v. Jones: The Foolish revival of the "Trespass Doctrine" in Addressing GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment

Kyllo v. United States: Innovative or Originalist?

GENERAL ORDER PORT WASHINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

United States Court of Appeals

Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses

Volume 60, Issue 2 Page 503. Stanford. Orin S. Kerr

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Court of Appeals

Location Privacy: The Legal Landscape. David L. Sobel Senior Counsel, EFF Stanford PNT Symposium October 29, 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. August Term, Argued: October 30, 2017 Decided: May 1, No cr

Re: AB 1327 (Gorell): Law enforcement should be required to obtain a warrant to use drones in California, except under exigent circumstances.

No D.C. No. CR HJF

THE ABANDONMENT DOCTRINE AND UNITED STATES V. SPARKS I. INTRODUCTION

Spies in the Skies: Dirtboxes and Airplane Electronic Surveillance

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Fourth Amendment places certain restrictions on when and how searches and seizures

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

Supreme Court Rules On GPS Trackers: Is It 1984 Yet? Legal Question of the Week Vol. 5, Number 2 January 27, 2012

IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO.: MM10A. vs. JUDGE: ZACK

The Supreme Court, Civil Liberties, and Civil Rights

Warrantless Investigative Seizures of Real and Tangible Personal Property by Law Enforcement Officers

CODE OFFICIAL LIABILITY

ISSUE Did sheriff s detectives have sufficient reason to enter the defendants property under the so-called community caretaking rule?

Public Copy CASPER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Investigative Procedure: Search & Seizure. 4 - Operations 03C -

Privacy and the Fourth Amendment: Basics of Criminal Procedural Analysis for Government Searches and Seizures

What Were They Smoking: The Supreme Court's Latest Step in a Long, Strange Trip through the Fourth Amendment

Conducting surveillance in a public place

2:08-cv PDB-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 04/14/10 Pg 1 of 17 Pg ID 279 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Kyllo v. United States: Something Old, Nothing New; Mostly Borrowed, What To Do?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

l11e Defendant presented a Motion to Suppress which was heard before the The Defendant's motion contends that the search of the Defendant's

Chapter 10 WHERE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES NOT APPLY

COVINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

Why They Can Watch You: Assessing the Constitutionality of Warrantless Unmanned Aerial Surveillance by Law Enforcement

Warrantless Search Problems and Answers

El1l. 0 3!s;t. JUL 0 3 ton8 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COUR10F OHIO CLERK OF COURT SUPREME CUURT OF OHIO COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, KEVIN PETERSON

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Tate: Role of the Courts, Criminal Trials, and the Fourth Amendment (Grades 8 and 9)

Home on the Range: The Vitality of the Open Fields Doctrine under the Nebraska Constitution: State v. Havlat, 222 Neb. 554, 385 N.W.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

CASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Satellites and Municipalities: One Town s Use of Google Earth for Residential Surveillance

Law Enforcement Use of High Technology: Does Closing the Door Matter Anymore?

In The Supreme Court of the United States

Driver: Excuse me? What did you say? Officer: Would you mind getting out of your car so I could talk with you? Driver: Sure, OK.

\\server05\productn\o\oel\22-2\oel201.txt unknown Seq: 1 27-DEC-07 14:48

DRAFT [8-4-15] TUFTS UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENTAL COLLEGE FALL 2015

Thermal Imaging and the Fourth Amendment: Pushing the Katz Test Towards Terminal Velocity, 13 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Fordham Environmental Law Review

TRAINING OBJECTIVES. Review Search & Seizure Law Relating To Probation/Parole. Describe the Plain View Doctrine

The Fourth Amendment Rights of the Homeless

Translating Justice Brandeis s Views on Privacy for the 21st Century

NOTE. Unmanned and Unchecked: Confronting the Unmanned Aircraft System Privacy Threat Through Interagency Coordination. Patrice Hendriksen* ABSTRACT

Adapting Search and Seizure Jurisprudence to the Digital Age: Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Appellate Division, Third Department - People v. Mabeus

The New Canadian Tort of Invasion of Privacy DAVID DEBENHAM

Kyllo v. United States: A Temporary Reprieve from Technology-Enhanced Surveillance of the Home

Policing: Legal Aspects

OLIVER v. UNITED STATES 466 U.S. 170 (1984)

The Fourth Amendment in the Age of Persistent Aerial Surveillance

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Supreme Court of the United States

Transcription:

Interests Protected by the Fourth Amendment National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law The University of Mississippi School of Law Presented By Joe Troy Textual Basis for Protected Interest 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 Fourth Amendment Applicability A. Is there government Activity? i.e. Did Police Search or Seize B. Did that Activity Intrude Upon a Protected Interest C. Does the Defendant Have a Protected Interest in Object Searched or Seized 1

Does the Fourth Amendment Apply to Police Search or Seizure of: Prison cells Trash on curb Contraband Records of your financial affairs in possession of bank Privately owned real property Illegal Aliens or Escaped Prisoner Protected Interests 1. Personal Liberty The Right to be Free from Government Control Government Activity: Seizure of Person Arrest or Temporary Detention 2. Possession of Papers and Effects Government activity: Seizure meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests to property Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) 2

3. Privacy: Security of person, houses Government Activity-Search or Seizure Fourth Amendment Analysis 1. Does the 4th Apply? A. Gov't activity: Search or Seizure B. Protected interest in object searched or seized: Liberty, possession, privacy C. Standing of defendant 2. Are 4 th Amd. Requirements Satisfied? A. Is Warrantless search Reasonable (only unreasonable searches prohibited) B. Warrant Clause requirements satisfied 3. Remedies for Violation? Open Fields/Curtilage: Application of Fourth Amendment On Private Property 3

Hester (1924) On a tip revenue officers investigated Hester and others for violating liquor laws. U.S. revenue officers hid behind trees on Hester ss property on a tip that he was operating a still. After Hester exited house and handed 5 gallon jug to another, officers pursued and arrested Hester. Open Fields Doctrine [T]he special protection accorded by the 4 th A. to the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, is not extended to the open fields. The distinction between the latter and the house is as old as the common law. Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) U.S. v Katz (1967) FBI attached listening device and recorder to Outside of phone booth Katz used to call in bets 4

U.S. v Katz (1967) Fourth Amendment protects people, not places there is a two fold requirement, (1). an actual expectation of privacy (2). one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable Oliver v. U.S (1984) The Open Fields Doctrine in the Modern Era Oliver v U.S. Anonymous tip to KY State Police that Oliver had pot plants growing on his farm Officers had No: Probable Cause, Warrant, Exigency Drove onto farm property past trailor (residence) Walked around fence w/no TRESPASSING signs Ignored statemet by someone in trailer: Hey No Hunting get out Found plants growing in fields surrounded by other crops 5

open field need be neither open nor a field as those terms are used in common speech. For example... a thickly wooded area nonetheless may be an open field.... For most homes, the boundaries of the curtilage will be clearly marked; and the conception defining the curtilage as the area around the home to which the activity of home life extends is a familiar one easily understood from our daily experience. It is clear that the term open fields may include any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage. Curtilage The area to which h extends the intimate t activity associated with sanctity of the home and the privacies of life. Curtilage: Area for Regular Activities of Family 6

Curtilage: Area for Regular Activities of Family Open fields doctrine in Hester consistent with the right to privacy doctrine of Katz. No societal interest in protecting the privacy of activities that generally take place in fields. Trespass laws have little or no relevance to applicability of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v Dunn (1987) 200 acres encircled by rail fence Ranch enclosed by another fence 7

Additional interior barbed wire fences Barn had wooden fence and waist-high gates Four Factors for Curtilage 1. Proximity of area to home 2. Whether area is included within enclosure surrounding home 3. Nature of uses to which area is put 4. Steps taken by resident to protect area from observation by passersby 8

We do not suggest that combining these factors produces a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a correct answer to all curtilage questions. these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's "umbrella" of Fourth Amendment protection. Applying these factors to respondent's barn and to the area immediately surrounding it, we have little difficulty in concluding that this area lay outside the curtilage of the ranch house. Curtilage Determinations May Depend on Geographic or Cultural Differences 9

Gated Communities? 10

Fly-Over Cases California v. Ciraolo (1986) Ciraolo lived in home with 6 wall around property and 10 wall extending around patio 11

On tip that he was growing pot in backyard, police attempt to view Ciraolo s property Unable to see over walls, officers leased a plane Flew over the next day at 1000 observe and took 45mm photos of 73 welltended plants C.J. Burger: The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in public airways to obtain a warrant to observe what is visible to the naked eye. J.Powell, dis. Majority failed to apply Katz test: Whether the surveillance in question had invaded a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. Florida v. Riley (1989) 12

Helicopter surveillance at 400 Close enough to see marijuana through missing panels Florida v Riley (1989) J.White, majority: any member of the public could have been flying over Riley s property in a helicopter at 400. JO C J.O Connor, concurrence: FAA regulations are for air safety, not for purpose of Fourth Amendment analysis: It s not legality of flight, it s whether it s unreasonable for person to expect to be observed from air at that altitude. Inspection / Search of Commercial Property Traditionally, commercial property, closed to public access, is generally protected under the Fourth Amendment concerning criminal investigations by the government. 13

Common Law Protection People commonly worked from home Shops, farms, blacksmith, doctor, lawyer Regulatory Inspections The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches applies to administrative inspections of private commercial property. However, unlike searches of private homes, legislative schemes authorizing warrantless administrative searches of commercial property do not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., (1978); See v. City of Seattle, (1967). Donovan v Dewey (1981) the expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individual's home. This privacy interest may, in certain circumstances, be adequately protected by regulatory schemes authorizing warrantless inspections. 14

Dow Chemical v U.S. (1986) Dow Chemical Complex Dow took extensive security measures to protect complex from public view. EPA investigating air emissions EPA conducted fly-over and used sophisticated cameras to capture views that can not be seen by naked eye Dow obtained injunction against further surveillance as 4 th A. violation. Burger: Open areas of this complex not analogous to curtilage of home. Cautions against more sophisticated satellite imagery or building penetrating surveillance. Physical entry to property would raise significantly different questions. 15

Structure of 4th Amendment Analysis 1. Does the 4th Apply? A. Gov't activity: Search or Seizure B. Protected interest in object searched or seized: Liberty, possession, privacy C. Standing of defendant 2. Are 4 th Amd. Requirements Satisfied? A. Is Warrantless search Reasonable (only unreasonable searches prohibited) B. Warrant Clause requirements satisfied 3. Remedies for Violation? 16