Del Carmen R V Criminal Procedure Law And Practice 9th Ed Ce

Del Carmen R Vcriminal Procedure Law And Practice 9th Ed Cengag

Assume someone is talking on her cell phone with her parents while standing in the hallway of a university building between classes. She is telling them confidential things she does not want anybody else to hear. Does she have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Justify your answer. What are the four requirements of a valid search warrant? Discuss each. What categories of items are subject to search and seizure? “Police officers executing a search warrant must always knock-and-announce before entry, otherwise the search is invalid.” Is this statement true or false? Justify your answer. Compare and contrast the legal requirements for motor vehicle stops and searches. How are they similar? How are they different? Why is a roadblock set up to catch drunk drivers constitutional whereas a roadblock to catch lawbreakers is not? Give reasons why vehicle stops are based on reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. State four things an officer can do after a vehicle stop based on general law enforcement authority.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario involving an individual speaking on her cell phone in a university hallway raises important questions about the expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals' reasonable expectations of privacy from searches and seizures by law enforcement. According to the landmark case Katz v. United States (1967), a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy if they expect their communication to be private, and society recognizes this expectation as justifiable. In the context of her standing in a public hallway of a university building, her expectation of privacy regarding her conversation is nuanced. While public spaces are generally considered places where privacy expectations are diminished, the content of her conversation—confidential, private matters—might still afford her a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially if she takes steps to ensure privacy, such as moving to a less public area or speaking quietly. Courts have recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations held in public but private settings, suggesting she could argue that her privacy was violated if her conversation was overheard without her consent, especially if law enforcement or third parties intercepted it unlawfully.

Regarding the four requirements of a valid search warrant, these criteria serve to safeguard individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights by ensuring that searches are conducted lawfully and based on probable cause. First, probable cause must exist: a reasonable basis to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. Second, there must be specificity; the warrant must clearly identify the location to be searched and the items to be seized, preventing general, arbitrary searches. Third, the warrant must be supported by oath or affirmation, typically provided by law enforcement officers, establishing the reliability of probable cause. Fourth, the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate who reviews the evidence and authorizes the search, ensuring judicial oversight. These requirements collectively uphold constitutional protections and prevent unwarranted intrusions.

Items subject to search and seizure generally include evidence of a crime, contraband, fruits of crime, illegal drugs, weapons, or items connected to ongoing investigations. Law enforcement officers may also seize items that are evidence of violations of laws and regulations, or items that pose threats to public safety. The scope of search and seizure is dictated by the nature of the warrant issued, the legality of the stop, and applicable laws.

The statement that police officers executing a search warrant must always knock-and-announce before entry is generally true, reflecting the "knock-and-announce" rule rooted in accepted law enforcement practices and constitutional protections. This rule requires officers to announce their presence and intention to search and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a premises unless exigent circumstances exist, such as imminent danger, destruction of evidence, or risk to officers’ safety. Failure to comply with this rule can render the search invalid and any evidence obtained inadmissible in court. The rationale behind this requirement is to respect individuals' privacy and autonomy and to prevent violent or hasty entries.

Turning to the legal requirements for motor vehicle stops and searches, both are governed by Fourth Amendment protections but differ in scope and justifications. Vehicle stops primarily require reasonable suspicion—an articulable suspicion that a law has been or is being broken—while searches generally require probable cause—rooted in a higher standard of evidence indicating that a crime has been committed. For stops, reasonable suspicion is sufficient because of the inherently mobile and transient nature of vehicles, and the potential for quick law enforcement action. In contrast, searches warrant higher probable cause due to the expectation of greater privacy in the home or personal belongings.

The constitutionality of roadblocks hinges on their purpose and method. Roadblocks set up specifically to catch drunk drivers (sobriety checkpoints) are deemed constitutional because they serve a public safety purpose, and their procedures are designed to be minimally intrusive—such as stopping every vehicle without individualized suspicion. Conversely, roadblocks aimed at general law enforcement purposes, like hunting for evidence of specific crimes, are often considered too intrusive and not justified without individualized suspicion. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld sobriety checkpoints (Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 1990) because they promote highway safety and have a limited scope and random nature.

Vehicle stops are based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause because of the need to balance law enforcement interests with individual rights in the context of transient, mobile settings. Reasonable suspicion allows officers to investigate potential violations without infringing on constitutional protections more than necessary. After a vehicle stop, law enforcement officers can perform several actions under their general authority: issuing a citation or ticket if applicable, running a license and registration check, issuing an order for the driver or occupants to exit the vehicle if necessary, and conducting a limited search if there are exigent circumstances or probation or search conditions associated with the individual.

In conclusion, the legal frameworks governing privacy, search and seizure, vehicle stops, and sobriety checkpoints are designed to protect citizens’ rights while allowing law enforcement to effectively enforce laws. The distinctions between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, as well as procedural safeguards like knock-and-announce, reflect the delicate balance between individual liberties and public safety interests. Courts continue to evaluate these standards to adapt to evolving societal norms and technological advancements, ensuring constitutional protections remain a core component of law enforcement practices.

References

• Cheng, R. V. (9th ed.). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. Cengage.
• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
• Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
• Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013).
• United States v. Carraway, 979 F.2d 1140 (8th Cir. 1992).
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
• People v. Latz, 682 N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
• Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493 (1958).
• Summers v. Texas, 457 U.S. 50 (1982).