Kanovitz: Constitutional Law, 13th Edition


Case Studies

Chapter 4: Search and Seizure

Case 1

Someone had been stealing jewelry in Sometown. Both Zazzy Jewelers and Gorgeous Gems had reported thefts, and there had been several home invasions in recent weeks. The jewel thief was clever and left no fingerprints or other traces, but, as if to taunt the police, the thief left a blue-raspberry lollipop ring behind at each crime scene. The last incident had been about a month and a half before, and since no one could solve the case, the police chief assigned it to the best detective, Detective Krupke.
After looking over the evidence, Detective Krupke believed that Sometown’s jewel thief was none other than Sapphire Smith. Sapphire moved to Sometown a few months before the start of the incidents and associated Sometown’s criminal element. Detective Krupke decided to follow up on his hunch. Sooner or later, Sapphire was bound to slip.
Detective Krupke first sent an undercover officer to observe Sapphire’s comings and goings from a parked car across the street from the trendy warehouse loft she lived in at 319 Industrial Street. The officer also took a look through the trash left in the building’s dumpster. There, she found a bag for jewelry lollipops and reported it back to Detective Krupke. Encouraged, Detective Krupke decided to step up his search.
A month later, word traveled through the underworld that Sapphire was planning a New Year’s masquerade ball at her loft for some important guests. Detective Krupke thought that Sapphire might use this opportunity to sell some of her purloined gems. Getting into this party proved too be tricky. Sapphire was known for her security detail, and the guest list was a closely guarded secret. However, Detective Krupke had an informant in the Sometown underworld, and Maria Zayles got herself invited to the party. New Year’s Eve arrived, and Maria went, dressed as Marie Antoinette. As her date, she took along Officer MacGuyver, an undercover detective.
The party, Maria told Detective Krupke New Year’s Day, was dazzling. Sapphire had decked the place out with baubles galore, and she herself was dressed as a radiant blue goddess. She was draped in diamond and sapphire necklaces, but on her ring finger, she had a giant blue-raspberry lollipop. Maria had discretely taken a photo of Sapphire talking to guests, and one of the necklaces matched a description of a missing item from Gorgeous Gems.
“The best part was Sapphire’s found art display,” Maria said breathlessly. She had taken photographs of it. There, right in the center was the unicorn jewelry box reported missing by Sabrina Potter. “She had it wound up, so it played its little song.”
Officer MacGuyver had spent the party looking around the loft. Like everyone else, he admired the found art display. In addition to the unicorn jewelry box, he also noticed a tiny antique Moroccan jewelry case, just like the one Mrs. Hammersmith described as being stolen. He seized it. Just at the stroke of midnight, Officer MacGuyver approached Sapphire, and as everyone cheered, he placed her under arrest for the theft of the jewels of Sometown.

Questions

  1. What investigative activities did Detective Krupke perform that would not be considered search activities, according to the Fourth Amendment?

    Correct Answer

    Because there was no evidence left at the crime scene, Detective Krupke’s suspicion of Sapphire Smith was a hunch. He had no grounds to obtain either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. Instead, he used nonsearch techniques to try to obtain more evidence. He had an undercover officer observe her comings and goings from the street and go through her garbage to find the bag from the blue lollipop rings. That bag was abandoned property, and therefore not an invasion of a suspect’s legal right to privacy.

  2. Detective Krupke did not have grounds to obtain a search warrant. Describe how he overcame this difficulty and obtained enough evidence to arrest Sapphire.

    Correct Answer

    Sapphire’s New Year’s Eve party was held at her residence, and as Detective Krupke still did not have grounds to obtain a search warrant, he needed a way to gain consent to enter the residence. He used an informant, Maria Zayles, to gain access to the party and had her accompanied by an undercover officer, Officer MacGuyver. Maria took pictures of evidence at the party, including Sapphire’s necklaces and the found (stolen) art display of jewelry boxes.
    Officer MacGuyver, meanwhile, identified a tiny jewelry box as one described as stolen by a witness, and seized it, using the principles laid out in Terry v. Ohio. Based on this evidence, he placed Sapphire under arrest for jewelry theft. She went willingly.

  3. Detective Krupke wanted to recover the rest of the jewels. What did he use to obtain a search warrant?

    Correct Answer

    With the photographs, testimony from MacGuyver, anonymous testimony from Zayles, the jewelry box, and the bag from the blue lollipops, Detective Krupke was able to obtain a search warrant to recover the stolen jewels.

Case 2

Officer Simon and his partner Officer Bloom arrested Jimmy Green at his apartment in Sometown Heights on a burglary charge stemming from a break-in that happened two days beforehand. Tommy Doyle had called the police, saying that he had seen Green break into Grace Moon’s home and leave with her television. He then testified that he had seen Green sell the television in a back alley to Dora Copperfield. Police had arrested Copperfield the day before and found the stolen television. Copperfield had told police that she purchased the stolen television from Jimmy Green. 
In addition to this testimony, Green had a record for burglary, and the police thought he was responsible for several unsolved burglaries. This one, however, was the only one they had enough evidence for to get an arrest warrant. The officers knocked and announced their presence before barging in. After subduing Green (who appeared to be under the influence of marijuana) and handcuffing him, Officer Simon patted him down. She found a joint in his shirt pocket and a knife in his boot.
Given the number of unsolved home invasions in Sometown that the police thought Jimmy Green was responsible for, Officer Bloom was convinced that Green was behind them. So he decided to have a look around the apartment. Sure enough, in the next room, Officer Bloom found three more television sets that appeared to be stolen, several sculptures, and in a desk drawer, a gun and a bag of marijuana. “You are going away for a long time now, Jimmy,” Officer Bloom said. “I think we’ve solved most of the burglaries of Sometown.”

Questions

  1. What parts of this incident satisfied constitutional requirements? Why?

    Correct Answer

    The police had a valid arrest warrant for Jimmy Green. They knocked and announced their presence before entering the home. Upon arresting Green, Officer Simon patted him down, and she found a joint and a knife on his person. This was constitutional, as it is a search incident to arrest, which allows for a search for weapons, contraband, and criminal evidence. The intensity of the search was within lawful bounds, because after a lawful arrest, the search can be more intensive than a Terry search. Because the arrest was lawful, the search of Green’s person was lawful, too.

  2. What parts of this incident did not satisfy constitutional requirements? Why? What Supreme Court decision comes into play here?

    Correct Answer

    Absent a valid search warrant, Officer Bloom’s search of the next room was illegal. The police did not have enough evidence against Green for the other home invasions, and so they did not have a search warrant. The lawful search activity ended with Green’s person and the area within Green’s immediate control.
    In Chimel v. California, the Supreme Court announced the immediate control test, and ruled unconstitutional a search very much like the one Officer Bloom performed. Officer Bloom’s search was outside the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest.

  3. Jimmy Green’s lawyer demands an immediate dismissal of all charges. What happens?

    Correct Answer

    The charges stemming from Officer Bloom’s search are dismissed and inadmissible. Unless police can somehow solve the crime without using evidence tainted by the illegal evidence-gathering activity, those charges will be dismissed. However, Green’s arrest for the stolen television set was lawful, and so those charges will stand.

Case 3

Officer Smithwick was out on patrol in Sometown Heights around 11:00 last Tuesday evening, an area where drug-related crime is on the rise. She spotted a white van, and thought to herself as she began to follow it, “Why on earth do people drive white vans through bad parts of town? Haven’t they seen the movies? It’s always the white van.” The van stopped at a red light on Broadway, and Officer Smithwick noted that the brake lights were out. She turned on her siren and pulled the van over. When she got to the driver’s side window to ask for license and registration, she noticed that the driver looked extremely agitated. She instructed the driver to step outside the vehicle.
“What seems to be the problem, Officer?” the driver asked.
“Your brake lights are out. Do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?”
“Of course not.” The driver, a middle-aged woman, was wearing a hooded sweater over jeans. She was fidgety and nervous, and kept looking down. She started to move her hands toward her jeans pockets. Officer Smithwick stopped her.
“Turn around, face the car and put your hands on the roof,” Officer Smithwick instructed the driver, who looked visibly shaken, but complied. Officer Smithwick performed a pat-down search on the driver and while she did not feel anything that could be a weapon, she felt something that she thought might possibly be a vial of cocaine in the pocket of the driver’s sweater. She couldn’t be sure, though. It could have also been lip balm. She continued to probe the object.
Officer Smithwick reached inside the pocket of the sweater anyway and pulled out a small vial. “What do we have here? I think you have drugs on you, too. I’m placing you under arrest.”

Questions

  1. Did Officer Smithwick have grounds to perform the pat-down? Why or why not? What Supreme Court decision comes into play here?

    Correct Answer

    Yes, she did. Police can perform weapons frisks during investigative encounters when they have reasonable concerns for their safety. The driver’s agitation and reaching for her pockets and the late hour provided grounds for Officer Smithwick to perform a pat-down for weapons.
    The Supreme Court decision that allows officers to perform weapons frisks when they have reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed and could be dangerous is Terry v. Ohio.

  2. Did Officer Smithwick have grounds to obtain the vial from the driver’s pocket during this investigative stop?

    Correct Answer

    No, she did not. Officer Smithwick’s plain-feel search did not make it immediately apparent that what she felt was a vial of drugs. Instead, she continued to probe to see if she could figure it out. She then reached in the driver’s pocket and retrieved it. Police are seldom able to develop probable cause to believe that an unseen object is contraband solely from the light touch that is permissible during a pat-down search. It therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.

  3. Could the driver be brought up on drug charges, based on the vial Officer Smithwick found? Why or why not?

    Correct Answer

    No, she could not. The search violated the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence is therefore inadmissible.

Case 4

Officer Webster was patrolling downtown Sometown late Saturday night. Primarily, she was on the lookout for drunk drivers after the bars closed, but violent incidents were on the rise in the area, so she was also looking for suspicious activity. She had just pulled over across the street from the Sometown Pub when a red sports car went speeding by. Officer Webster turned on her siren and pursued the sports car. The car pulled over, and Officer Webster approached the vehicle. When she got to the door, she noticed the driver shoving something under the front seat. She rapped on the window, and the driver, visibly angry, rolled it down.
“What?” he said.
Officer Webster told him to step out of the vehicle. The driver slammed the door and stepped toward Officer Webster. She then ordered him to turn around and place his hands on the roof of the vehicle. The man swore, but he complied. Officer Webster did a weapons pat-down and did not find a weapon.
“OK, Sir, now I need to see some identification.” When the man handed over his license, she saw that his name was Herman Knoxville. Before running his license, she shined her flashlight in the sports car. Sticking out from under the front seat, she saw a revolver. She seized it. In addition, she also saw a small bag containing a white powdery substance next to the revolver. She seized that as well.
“You should see what’s in the trunk” Knoxville asked menacingly.
Officer Webster just placed Herman Knoxville under arrest.

Questions

  1. What are the grounds for a lawful vehicle search after a traffic stop? What Supreme Court decision governs this activity? Did Officer Webster’s actions satisfy this requirement?

    Correct Answer

    Reasonable suspicion that weapons are present is necessary to conduct a vehicular weapons search. The search may be performed even though the driver and passengers have been ordered to step out of the vehicle because they will have access to weapons inside once they are permitted to re-enter.
    The Supreme Court decision that governs this search is Terry v. Ohio.
    Based on Herman Knoxville’s threatening actions, and his attempt to hide his gun under the seat, Officer Webster had reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle for weapons.

  2. Did Officer Webster’s actions satisfy constitutional requirements? Why?

    Correct Answer

    Yes, they did. Officer Webster lawfully pulled Herman Knoxville over and was acting within constitutional guidelines when she asked him to get out of the car. Knoxville’s actions upon doing so were threatening, and this justified the weapons pat-down. When Officer Webster searched the car, she only searched for evidence in plain view. She seized the revolver and the bag containing the white, powdery substance. She did not look in the trunk.

  3. Why did Officer Webster not look in the trunk?

    Correct Answer

    Had Officer Webster searched the trunk, she would have exceeded the scope and intensity of the search permissible for a vehicle search.

Case 5

Let’s revisit the case of Sapphire the Jewelry Thief. Instead of being handled by 10-year veteran Detective Krupke, the case was assigned to a rookie, Detective Doltish. Sometown’s residents and business owners were in an uproar. Editorials in the Sometown Journal demanded justice and expressed outrage that the Sometown Police Department had yet to solve the case.
The problem for Detective Doltish was that while he suspected Sapphire Smith, what with her arrival in town coinciding with the time of the robberies and the trademark blue-raspberry lollipop rings left at the crime scenes, the lack of fingerprint or other evidence left behind made it impossible for him to obtain a search warrant. Detective Doltish had been informed that he needed to crack this case, and soon.
Detective Doltish decided to gather evidence on Sapphire. He assigned an undercover officer to observe Sapphire’s comings and goings from a parked car across the street from the trendy warehouse loft she lived in at 319 Industrial Street. The officer also took a look through the trash left in the building’s dumpster. There, she found a bag for jewelry lollipops and reported it back to Detective Doltish.
“Aha!” Detective Doltish cried. “This is proof that Sapphire Smith is the thief!” Without further ado, he rushed to the warehouse and broke through her door. There, he discovered not only more blue-raspberry lollipop rings in a crystal bowl at the front door, but also the found art display made from jewelry boxes matching the descriptions of those stolen from Sometown residents. In tossing over Sapphire’s dresser, he also discovered necklaces stolen from the jewelry stores. He seized everything.
When Sapphire Smith returned home, he surprised her by placing her under arrest. “The residents of Sometown are going to think I’m a hero!” Detective Doltish said to himself, beaming.

Questions

  1. Sapphire’s attorney, the notorious Slick Rick, demanded that the charges against Sapphire be dropped immediately. Why? What Supreme Court decisions was Slick Rick relying on when demanding his client’s release? What rights did Slick Rick claim that Detective Doltish violated?

    Correct Answer

    Slick Rick demanded Sapphire’s release based on the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a criminal defendant’s remedy for police violations of his or her constitutional (Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment) rights. The rule was first recognized in Weeks v. United States, and was applied to the states after Mapp v. Ohio.
    Detective Doltish did not have a warrant to search Sapphire’s loft for the missing jewels. The bag from the blue-raspberry lollipops and Detective Doltish’s hunch that Sapphire was the thief were not sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant, either. In searching Sapphire’s apartment, Detective Doltish violated Sapphire’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  2. In addition to Sapphire’s immediate release from police custody, Detective Doltish is now at an even further disadvantage to ever arresting Sapphire. Why?

    Correct Answer

    Unless Detective Doltish can somehow solve the crime without using evidence tainted by the illegal evidence-gathering activity, Sapphire will probably walk on these charges because of a doctrine known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” or the Wong Sun doctrine, after the case for which it is named.

  3. What are the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, and how do they apply in this case?

    Correct Answer

    Suppression is not required if:
    The same evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means. As all of the evidence, except for the bag from the lollipop rings, was discovered when Detective Doltish searched Sapphire’s apartment without a warrant, this would not apply.
    The officer acted in objective good faith. This means that the officer believed that he was acting in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. While Detective Doltish believed he was doing the right thing, this would not qualify for the exception, because Detective Doltish should have known that searching Sapphire’s loft without a warrant was unconstitutional.
    The illegality related only to the manner of entering to execute a valid search warrant. Detective Doltish did not have a warrant.
    The evidence offered is for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant’s own testimony. If Sapphire were ever prosecuted for the crimes and got on the stand and perjured herself, then the evidence could be presented to discredit her.
    The evidence is offered in a proceeding other than the defendant’s criminal trial. The Court has limited the exclusionary rule to the criminal trial because it believes that suppression in other contexts has no deterrent effect. This evidence could be presented to a grand jury, or used at a parole hearing, civil trial, or deportation hearing.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.