It is the search for and taking of persons and property as evidence of crime. It involves the means for the detection and accusation of crime. Searches must be either: based on probable cause, conducted with consent, and either are in Plain Sight, or involve the Sense of Feel, or Sense of Smell.

Warrantless searches of persons entering theUnited Statesat its borders violate the Fourth Amendment. Border Patrol Officers need not have probably cause or a warrant before stopping cars for brief questioning at fixed checkpoints.

is the pursuit of a person for the purpose of arrest when the pursuit continued without substantial delay from the time of the commission or discovery of an offense. Fresh pursuit was the following of a fleeing suspect attempting to avoid capture. Warrantless arrest and search are permissible in situations of fresh pursuits.

prohibiting the use of evidence seized by federal agents in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The doctrine that evidence seized illegally is considered "tainted" and cannot be used against a suspect. From the case Weeks vs.United States.

That anything a police officer sees in plain view, when that officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.

permitted federal prosecutors to use evidence obtained by state agents through unreasonable search and seizure (handed to them on a "silver platter") - provided that the evidence was obtained without federal participation and was turned over to federal officials.

Questioning of a person taken into custody by law enforcement officers. The person needs to hear their Miranda rights. If a confession is obtained, the confession must be made voluntarily, not coerced, or it is inadmissible as evidence.

(totality of circumstances) In 1978, the Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received and anonymous tip that Mr. and Mrs. Gates were illegally transporting drugs from Florida and also had drugs in their basement. The DEA surveillanced Mr. Gates flight and stay to Florida. A search warrant for the Gates residence and automobile were obtained from and Illinois state court judge, based on the police officer's affidavit setting forth the foregoing facts and a copy of the anonymous letter. Prior to the trail all evidence seized from the warrant was ordered suppression by the court because the letter and affidavit were inadequate to sustain a determination of probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. They failed to satisfy the two-prolonged test. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and modified the requirements for probable cause: Allowing more flexible tests for the courts (judges) to make probable-cause determinations. They replaced the Agulair-Spinelli (two-prolonged) test with "totality of circumstances."

(unreasonable search) Chimel had robbed a coin store, when the police arrived at his home they showed his wife the arrest warrant and waited for Chimel to come home from work. They arrested Chimel and asked if they can search the house but Chimel objected, but the cops searched the house anyways. They ordered Chimels wife to open drawers and move things around so they can find evidence. They took some coins with them as evidence and Chimel was convicted. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court that reversed Chimel's conviction on the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure.

·         Police can search the suspect and the “immediate” area around a suspect being arrested.

·         Police cannot walk a handcuffed suspect around a residence or location to expand the “immediate” area.

·         The Court emphasized the importance of warrants and probable cause as necessary bulwarks against government abuse. 

(pat down search) An officer had watched Terry and two other men act suspiciously on a street corner. They looked like they were scoping out a place to rob. The officer confronted the three men and frisked Terry finding a revolver on him. He frisked the other two men and found another gun. He arrested the three men and took them into custody. Terry and Chilton (the other man with the gun) were formally charged and convicted for carrying concealed weapons. There was some debate about this case whether it was an unlawful stop-and-frisk. Chief Justice Warren set new standards for police stop-and-frisk encounters.

(sense of feel search) The officer conducting the frisk admitted that he did not feel anything resembling a weapon but did feel a small lump the suspect's jacket pocket. He found a small bag of cocaine in the pocket. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the cocaine could not be admitted as evidence, because the seizure of the cocaine went beyond the search for a weapon and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. This case then established the “plain feel” doctrine that an object a public officer detects on a suspect’s person during the course of a valid protective frisk under Terry v. Ohio may be seized without a warrant if the officer’s sense of touch makes it immediately apparent to the officer that the object, though not threatening in nature, is contraband (a meth pipe, a bag of powered substance).

(spot checks) A Delaware officer stopped Prouse and smelled marijuana smoke as he approached. He found marijuana on the floor of the automobile, arrested Prouse, and was letter indicted for illegal possession of the drug. At a hearing on Prouse's motion to forbid the use of marijuana as evidence because, the officer pulled Prouse over as "routine." Police may not randomly stop motorists, without any probable cause to suspect crime or illegal activity, to check their driver’s license and auto registration. Sobriety checkpoints are legal – however – as long as the public can see them in time to turn around and those stopped are not detained for an unreasonable time period.

(search and seizure overturned by Mapp v Ohio) A deputy Sherriff seized a physicians appointment book without a warrant, interrogated patients whose names appeared in the book, and thereby obtained evidence needed to charge Wolf with performing illegal abortions. Wolf was convicted. Wolf challenged the evidence arguing that it had been seized illegally. This case prohibited unreasonable search and seizures by the states, but if the evidence was trustworthy ( that is, if it was "material, relevant, and competent" as required by common law), it was admissible regardless of how it was obtained.

(unreasonable search and seizure) This was the first case that the exclusionary rule was extended to the states. Three officers arrived at Mapp's home to search for a bombing suspect they had been informed was hiding there, also been informed there was gambling paraphernalia inside. She would not let them in without a warrant. They later came back and barged into her house bc she took to long to answer the door and when she asked for a warrant they gave her a paper claiming it to be a warrant. She took the paper, then they got into a tussle and they took away the paper and was arrested. They did not find the suspect or the gambling paraphernalia, they did find pornographic literature. Mapp was charged with possession of "lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs." She was convicted in Ohio court with possession of obscene material. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in the favor of Mapp. The Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment.

(“good faith" exemption) was a case about drugs where the Supreme Court created the "goof faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. Burbank police got a tip indentifying a couple drug dealers. The police surveillanced them and their homes. Based on this surveillance and info from a second informant, a detective wrote and affidavit and a judge issued a search warrant. The police conducted the search, but the search warrant was later found to be invalid because the police lacked the probable cause for a warrant to be issued in the first place. The evidence obtained in the search was upheld anyway, because the police performed the search in reliance on the warrant, meaning they acted in good faith. This became known as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

(right against self-incrimination – advised of right to attorney) Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old girl. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda signed a confession. But he had not know of his rights of counsel prior. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. Miranda Rights: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you can and say will be used against you in the court of law. You have a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be obtained for you if you so desire."

Some Key Supreme Court Rulings – 6^th Amendment “Right to Counsel”

Powell v Alabama (1931) :  Indigent charged with “Capital Crime” (facing the death penalty) deserve to be represented by “competent” counsel in state cases. Powell alleged his attorney did not have adequate time to prepare.

Johnson v Zerbst (1937) :  John A. Johnson convicted in federal court of counterfeiting. High Court ruled – 6 to 2  that 6thAmendment “Right to Counsel” applies to all Felony cases in federal courts unless they intelligently waive their rights. Not limited to Capital punishment cases. Fred G. Zerbst was the Warden of the Georgia State Penitentiary.

Betts v Brady (1942) : High Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that in “non-capital” crimes, the 14th Amendment does not require states to supply defense counsel to poor defendants. Brady was associated with the Maryland Department of Corrections.