UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

observe precise limits established in advance by a specific court order. Nor were they directed, after the search had been completed, to notify the authorizing magistrate in detail of all that had been seized. In the absence of such safeguards, this Court has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive *357 means consistent with that end. Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful ‘notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause,’ Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 33, 46 S.Ct. 4, 6, 70 L.Ed. 145, for the Constitution requires ‘that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer * * * be interposed between the citizen and the police * * *.’ Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 481-482, 83 S.Ct. 407, 414, 9 L.Ed.2d 441. ‘Over and again this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the (Fourth) Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment18 -subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.19 [20] [21] [22] It is difficult to imagine how any of those exceptions could ever apply to the sort of search and seizure involved in this case. Even electronic surveillance substantially contemporaneous with an individual’s arrest could hardly be deemed an ‘incident’ of that arrest.20 **515 *358 Nor could the use of electronic surveillance without prior autorization be justified on grounds of ‘hot pursuit.’21 And, of course, the very nature of electronic surveillance precludes its use pursuant to the suspect’s consent.22 The Government does not question these basic principles. Rather, it urges the creation of a new exception to cover this case.23 It argues that surveillance of a telephone booth should be exempted from the usual requirement of advance authorization by a magistrate upon a showing of probable cause. We cannot agree. Omission of such authorization ‘bypasses the safeguards provided by an objective predetermination of probable cause, and substitutes instead the far less reliable procedure of an after-the-event justification for the * * * search, too likely to be subtly influenced by the familiar shortcomings of hindsight judgment.’ Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96, 85S.Ct. 223, 228, 13 L.Ed.2d 142. And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth 36 Amendment *359 violations ‘only in the discretion of the police.’ Id., at 97, 85 S.Ct. at 229. [23] [24] These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored ‘the procedure of antecedent justification * * * that is central to the Fourth Amendment,’24 a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition of the kind of electronic surveillance involved in this case. Because the surveillance here failed to meet that condition, and because it led to the petitioner’s conviction, the judgment must be reversed. It is so ordered. Judgment reversed. Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, concurring. While I join the opinion of the Court, I feel compelled to reply to the separate concurring opinion of my Brother **516 WHITE, which I view as a wholly unwarranted green light for the Executive Branch to resort to electronic eavesdropping without a warrant in cases which the Executive Branch itself labels ‘national security’ matters. Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be. Under the separation of powers created by the Constitution, the Executive Branch is not supposed to be neutral and disinterested. Rather it should vigorously investigate *360 and prevent breaches of national security and prosecute those who violate the pertinent federal laws. The President and Attorney General are properly interested parties, cast in the role of adversary, in national security cases. They may even be the intended victims of subversive action. Since spies and saboteurs are as entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as suspected gamblers like petitioner, I cannot agree that where spies and saboteurs are involved adequate protection of Fourth Amendment rights is assured when
the President and Attorney General assume both the position of adversary-and-prosecutor and disinterested, neutral magistrate. There is, so far as I understand constitutional history, no distinction under the Fourth Amendment between types of crimes. Article III, s 3, gives ‘treason’ a very narrow definition and puts restrictions on its proof. But the Fourth Amendment draws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests on cases of ‘hot pursuit’ and the arrests on visible or other evidence of probable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind of crime. I would respect the present lines of distinction and not improvise because a particular crime seems particularly heinous. When the Framers took that step, as they did with treason, the worst crime of all, they made their purpose manifest. Mr. Justice HARLAN, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court, which I read to hold only (a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, and unlike a field, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment; *361 and (c) that the invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant. As the Court’s opinion states, ‘the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.’ The question, however, is what protection it affords to those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a ‘place.’ My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the ‘plain view’ of outsiders are not ‘protected’ because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable. Cf. Hester v. United States, supra. The critical fact in this case is that ‘(o)ne who occupies it, (a telephone **517 booth) shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume’ that his conversation is not being intercepted. Ante, at 511. The point is not that the booth is ‘accessible to the public’ at other times, ante, at 511, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants’ expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable. Cf. Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688. In Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734, we held that eavesdropping accomplished by means of an electronic device that penetrated the premises occupied by petitioner was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. *362 That case established that interception of conversations reasonably intended to be private could constitute a ‘search and seizure,’ and that the examination or taking of physical property was not required. This view of the Fourth Amendment was followed in Wong Sun v.United States, 371 U.S. 471, at 485, 83 S.Ct. 407, at 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, and Berger v. State of New York, 388 U.S. 41, at 51, 87 S.Ct. 1873, at 1879, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040. Also compare Osborne v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, at 327, 87 S.Ct. 429, at 431, 17 L.Ed.2d 394. In Silverman we found it unnecessary to reexamine Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322, which had held that electronic surveillance accomplished without the physical penetration of petitioner’s premises by a tangible object did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case requires us to reconsider Goldman, and I agree that it should now be overruled.* Its limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion. Finally, I do not read the Court’s opinion to declare that no interception of a conversation one-half of which occurs in a public telephone booth can be reasonable in the absence of a warrant. As elsewhere under the Fourth Amendment, warrants are the general rule, to which the legitimate needs of law enforcement may demand specific exceptios. It will be time enough to consider any such exceptions when an appropriate occasion presents itself, and I agree with the Court that this is not one. Mr. Justice WHITE, concurring. I agree that the official surveillance of petitioner’s telephone conversations in a public booth must be subjected *363 to the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and that on the record now before us 37
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM
Page 3 and 4: article that appeared in the period
Page 5 and 6: incarcerated children in the Distri
Page 7 and 8: Section 3: Writing Exercise Section
Page 9 and 10: Opinion PERRY, J. 73 So.3d 34 Supre
Page 11 and 12: activities, or statements that he e
Page 13 and 14: damaged package and notified federa
Page 15 and 16: B. “Sniff Test” at a Private Ho
Page 17 and 18: was standing in front of the door,
Page 19 and 20: justified on the basis of reasonabl
Page 21 and 22: The probable cause affidavit listed
Page 23 and 24: unwavering expectation that there w
Page 25 and 26: otherwise prompt his dog to alert.
Page 27 and 28: (quoting State v. Morsman, 394 So.2
Page 29 and 30: society recognizes as reasonable. A
Page 31 and 32: obtained through the search is not
Page 33 and 34: without implicating the Fourth Amen
Page 35: [14] The Government contends, howev
Page 39 and 40: nuisance. IV Blackstone, Commentari
Page 41 and 42: The other ‘eroding’ case cited
Page 43 and 44: 11 Jones v. United States, 362 U.S.
Page 45 and 46: 103 S.Ct. 2317 Supreme Court of the
Page 47 and 48: accompanying remedy. Here, for exam
Page 49 and 50: northbound on an interstate frequen
Page 51 and 52: inapplicable to the decision to iss
Page 53 and 54: L.Ed. 1879 (1949). Justice BRENNAN
Page 55 and 56: case. As the Court points out, “I
Page 57 and 58: forcefully suggest that the exclusi
Page 59 and 60: S.Ct., at 3073-3074. (WHITE, J., di
Page 61 and 62: law-enforcement officers have recog
Page 63 and 64: government enforcement agent.” Id
Page 65 and 66: advance an important underlying sub
Page 67 and 68: Americans must be that the Court gi
Page 69 and 70: 3 In Spinelli, police officers obse
Page 71 and 72: The only reference to Hereford’s
Page 73 and 74: v. United States, supra; Sibron v.
Page 75 and 76: susceptible to the interpretation t
Page 77 and 78: 8 Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U
Page 79 and 80: 104 S.Ct. 1652 Supreme Court of the
Page 81 and 82: will not be betrayed.” United Sta
Page 83 and 84: *126 In sum, the federal agents did
Page 85 and 86: and that search has not left incrim
Page 87 and 88:
privacy in the presence or absence
Page 89 and 90:
surrounding the use of the techniqu
Page 91 and 92:
1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960); Henry
Page 93 and 94:
26 See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463
Page 95 and 96:
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S
Page 97 and 98:
how relatively warm—Kyllo was hea
Page 99 and 100:
concurring). To be sure, the homeow
Page 101 and 102:
homeowner would even care if anybod
Page 103 and 104:
4 This view comports with that of a
Page 105 and 106:
unless the dog sniff itself infring
Page 107 and 108:
probable cause to stop the car for
Page 109 and 110:
and, implicitly, the application of
Page 111 and 112:
3 Kyllo was concerned with whether
Page 113 and 114:
(500 grams and an unspecified amoun
Page 115 and 116:
authority to allow police inside th
Page 117 and 118:
AFFIRMED. We retain jurisdiction an
Page 119 and 120:
that “[t]he right of the people t
Page 121 and 122:
field” did not constitute a Fourt
Page 123 and 124:
Government’s unrestrained power t
Page 125 and 126:
y the government upon the privacy o
Page 127 and 128:
own difficulties. It involves a deg
Page 129 and 130:
search unless it is achieved by suc
Page 131 and 132:
88 Or. L. Rev. 829 Oregon Law Revie
Page 133 and 134:
hidden in open locations, such as f
Page 135 and 136:
While the Place Court’s failure t
Page 137 and 138:
location may be important in evalua
Page 139 and 140:
III Framing the Canine Home-Sniff D
Page 141 and 142:
seemingly making impermissible what
Page 143 and 144:
possessions. Without minimizing the
Page 145 and 146:
4. Even Surreptitious Canine Sniffs
Page 147 and 148:
the sniff--to the satisfaction of a
Page 149 and 150:
focused on the routineness of the a
Page 151 and 152:
6 See People v. Dunn, 564 N.E.2d 10
Page 153 and 154:
27 See Robert C. Bird, An Examinati
Page 155 and 156:
323 (Friedrich G. Barth et al. eds.
Page 157 and 158:
pre-Place decisions issued by the U
Page 159 and 160:
97 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.
Page 161 and 162:
121 Id. at 37 n.4 (majority opinion
Page 163 and 164:
147 462 U.S. 696 (1983). 148 See in
Page 165 and 166:
171 Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 2
Page 167 and 168:
199 As Justice Souter explained,
Page 169 and 170:
to school). 219 Cf. Katz & Golembie
Page 171 and 172:
240 See Kyllo v. United States, 533
Page 173 and 174:
263 In 2004, photographs emerged th
Page 175 and 176:
285 Id. at 1362. The story of this
Page 177 and 178:
306 But cf. Fitzgerald v. State, 86
Page 179 and 180:
328 Riley, 488 U.S. at 448 (observi
Page 181 and 182:
1 Search & Seizure § 2.3 (4th ed.)
Page 183 and 184:
establish a right to privacy therei
Page 185 and 186:
were locked and could only be opene
Page 187 and 188:
The Wright rule also should not be
Page 189 and 190:
to investigate. Noting that a metal
Page 191 and 192:
active domestic use. It housed ten
Page 193 and 194:
Ciraolo,191 involving aerial survei
Page 195 and 196:
ackyard of the building was complet
Page 197 and 198:
feet. The viewing from the helicopt
Page 199 and 200:
cases as Ciraolo, Riley and Dow man
Page 201 and 202:
premises were abandoned where all c
Page 203 and 204:
22 Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863
Page 205 and 206:
37.1 McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d
Page 207 and 208:
(1983); State v. Eddy, 519 A.2d 113
Page 209 and 210:
68 Dinkens v. State, 291 So.2d 122
Page 211 and 212:
eceived no answer to knock on front
Page 213 and 214:
870 (1987). In such a case, the fac
Page 215 and 216:
“Second, the agents had a legal r
Page 217 and 218:
131 United States v. Llanes, 398 F.
Page 219 and 220:
167 The reference is to the “open
Page 221 and 222:
however by fact lights were on insi
Page 223 and 224:
properly crossed defendant’s land
Page 225 and 226:
view”); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb
Page 227 and 228:
the area within the ‘curtilage’
Page 229 and 230:
is not to conclude that a search of
Page 231:
265 Such analysis was challenged by
show all

UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?