MN v. Dickerson: right on. Terry frisks are for protective purposes and can't be extended to seize evidence. i.e. once you realize it's not a gun, you can't keep groping
Here are my notes on Katz from my Criminal Procedure outline:
- Katz. V. US, 1967 (37)
o Wiretapping/phonebooth case
o Held: it is a search, no warrant, so not admissible
o Harlan?s concurrence (p.40) is what is important
4th applies to people, not places
- Two-Prong test from Katz (Harlan?s concurrence)
o Gov conduct must offend the citizen?s subjective manifestation of a privacy interest
This has to be satisfied for the 4th to apply
o Privacy interest invaded must be on that society accepts as reasonable or legit
- Abandonment of property loses privacy interest (US v. Hoey, 8th Circuit)
o Denial of ownership to cops often = abandonment (US v. McDonald, 7th Cir)
The "society" standard is flexible and as far as I know (and I've dealt extensively with 4th Amendment issues), there is no bright line rule. It simply comes down to something the court regards as reasonable or not.
US v. Dunn expanded on the Open Fields Doctrine dealing with curtilage, creating four factors:
o Four Factors to determine what is curtilage (which is protected by 4th)
Proximity of the claimed area to the home
If the area is included with an enclosure surrounding the home
The nature of uses to which the area is put
The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by
These are additional cases that deal with Katz:
- US v. White, 1971 (49)
o If a friend comes over and wears a wire and records your convo, that is a risk you take when you invite him over
- Financial Records: CA Banks Association v. Schulz, 1974 (50)
o If a bank has access to your information, there isn?t an expectation of privacy
- Pen Registers: Smith v. Maryland, 1979 (51)
o When you dial a number, you voluntarily convey the number to the phone company, so no EofP
- Electronic Pagers
o US v. Meriwether (6th)
Not a search b/c you disclose that info to a member of the public when you page someone
o US v. Chan (ND of CA)
Can?t get numbers from a turned off pager
? Turning it on is a search
? Possessor of pager has control over the stored info
- Trash: CA v. Greenwood
o Trash on the street can be gone through by any member of the public, so no EofP
o US v. White (8th Cir): Not a search when cop looks through gap between bathroom stall wall and door
Design of stall allows cop to make her observations without placing herself in any position that would be unexpected by the stall occupant
- Aerial Surveillance
o CA v. Criaolo
Aerial view of a fenced in backyard that had weed in it
Allowed b/c even though person made an attempt to restrict view, the cop?s vantage point was public and in a place he had a right to be
o Florida v Riley
O'Connor Concurrence
? Possibility v. Probability
o EX is to show whether the public ordinarily had access to that view
o Burden is on party seeking to suppress
o Needs to show on record that public did not ordinarily have access to helicopter view from 400 feet above the land
Minnesota v. Olsen held that overnight guests ARE covered by the fourth amendment b/c they have an expectation of privacy since they are using that place as their domicile for the night. However...
Minnesota v. Carter held that a guest that is a non-overnight guest does NOT have an expectation of privacy. Even if the cops don't find what they are looking for but find other evidence that belongs to the actual dweller.
And yes, Roe was built off the privacy holdings of the birth control case of Griswold.
