Fourth Amendment

Kentucky v. King

Issues

In emergency circumstances, police may enter and search a private residence without a warrant. Does this exception apply when police create the emergency circumstances through their own lawful action, such as knocking on a door?

 

While pursuing a known drug felon, police officers smelled burning marijuana emanating from behind a closed apartment door. After knocking and announcing themselves, the police heard shuffling within the apartment. Believing that valuable evidence was being destroyed inside, they entered the apartment, found a variety of drugs and drug paraphernalia and arrested Respondent Hollis Deshaun King. King claims that this entry and search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because there was no exigent circumstance which permitted the officers to enter his apartment without a warrant. The Commonwealth of Kentucky asserts that the smell of burning marijuana, in addition to the sounds of shuffling and movement within the apartment, validated the police's warrantless entry. To decide this case, the Supreme Court will have to weigh privacy interests against the need for police officers to safely and effectively perform their duties.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

When does lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances which preclude warrantless entry; and which of the five tests currently being used by the United States Courts of Appeals is proper to determine when impermissibly created exigent circumstances exist?

In October 2005, the police of Lexington-Fayette Urban County, Kentucky performed a “buy bust” operation in which a confidential informant attempted to buy crack cocaine from a suspected drug dealer. See King v. Kentucky, 302 S.W.3d 649, 651 (Ky.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

knock-and-announce rule

Under common law knock-and-announce rule, a police officer executing a search warrant generally should not immediately force their way into a residence. Instead, the officer must first knock, identify themselves and their intent, and wait a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let them into the residence.

Lange v. California

Issues

May police officers always enter a home without a warrant when they are pursuing a suspect whom they believe committed a misdemeanor?

This case asks the Supreme Court to weigh the privacy interests of individuals under the Fourth Amendment against the government’s interest in enforcing the law. Petitioner Arthur Lange (“Lange”) was arrested in his garage by a police officer who pursued him for violating traffic laws. Though a police officer with probable cause may generally only enter a home after obtaining a warrant, certain exigent circumstances may justify warrantless home entry, including the pursuit of a felony suspect. The United States, in support of affirmance, argues that this warrantless exception should extend to the pursuit of misdemeanor suspects as a category. Lange and Respondent California, both in support of vacatur, counter that a case-by-case exception is more appropriate given the wide variety of misdemeanor offenses. This case has broad implications for individual privacy interests, public safety, and policing.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant.

In the late evening of October 7, 2016, California Highway Patrol Officer Aaron Weikert observed Petitioner Arthur Gregory Lange (“Lange”) playing music loudly and honking repeatedly while driving. People v. Lange at 2. Officer Weikert began to tail Lange and approached within 500 feet of Lange with no cars in between them. Id. Officer Weikert turned on his overhead lights, signaling his intent to conduct a traffic stop.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Manuel v. City of Joliet

Issues

Can an individual sue a city for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment as a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? 

This case will address a circuit split between the Seventh Circuit and nine other circuits concerning a individual’s ability to file a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged infringement on that individual’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures or an infringement of an individual’s due process rights. On April 10, 2013, Elijah Manuel sued the city of Joliet, Illinois for injuries suffered as a result of a forty-seven day detention following his unlawful arrest on March 18, 2011. Manuel emphasizes that the Seventh Circuit is alone in explicitly barring malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment and therefore its lower court holding should be overturned. The City of Joliet advocates for continued adherence to the Seventh Circuit’s precedent, which rejects the contention that legal process extends to claims of malicious prosecution, and also contends that Manuel’s claims are time barred by state tort law, which provides adequate remedy for alleged due process violations. Manuel argues that his malicious prosecution claim is a Fourth Amendment claim and falls within the purview of federal and not state law. The case will impact the availability of recovery for post-process detentions as well as the applicability of state restrictions on §1983 claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continue beyond legal process so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim based upon the Fourth Amendment?

Petitioner Elijah Manuel was arrested on March 18, 2011 for possession with intent to distribute ecstasy. See Manuel v. City of Joliet, 590 F. App’x 641, 642. Manuel was a passenger in his brother’s car. See id. Police officers stopped the Manuel brothers for failing to signal.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Missouri v. McNeely

Tyler G. McNeely was arrested for drunk driving on October 3, 2010. After McNeely refused a breathalyzer and blood tests, Officer Mark Winder, acting without a warrant, directed hospital personnel to remove blood from McNeely. McNeely asserts that this action violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The State of Missouri responds that Winder’s action was constitutional because it fell into the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because the blood evidence was likely to be destroyed during the time it would take to obtain a warrant. McNeely also argues that bodily integrity is the core of the Fourth Amendment, that warrantless blood draws are unnecessary because other states have required warrants for blood draws and have not encountered difficulties enforcing DUI laws, and that judges and prosecutors overwhelmingly support warrants for blood draws. Missouri responds that blood testing is the best method of obtaining probative, relevant evidence of drunk driving, that blood draws typically involve little risk and pain, and that because alcohol naturally dissipates in a person’s bloodstream, evidence of drunk driving is continually destroyed.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.

Issue

Is there an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for forcibly drawing bl

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
Submit for publication

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

Issues

Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before drawing blood from an unconscious motorist when, under state law, intoxicated motorists have given their implied consent for blood draws?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to draw blood from unconscious drivers under a theory of implied consent in lieu of a warrant. Gerard Mitchell, a driver from whom police drew blood while he was unconscious, contends that the Fourth Amendment’s consent exception should not apply because a blood draw is a serious intrusion that calls for a warrant. Wisconsin argues that it has a great interest in addressing intoxicated driving, and it fairly uses an implied-consent statute that allows it to draw blood from unconscious drivers. Mitchell suggests that permitting these warrantless blood draws may seriously threaten privacy rights and open the door to additional forms of warrantless intrusions. Wisconsin warns of the dangers posed by impeding police efforts to remove intoxicated drivers from the road.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In a state with an implied-consent statute for intoxicated motorists, is a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious driver for whom police have probable cause of operating under the influence an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment?

In 2013, the City of Sheboygan Police Department received a report that a neighbor saw Gerald Mitchell, who appeared intoxicated, drive away in a van. State v. Mitchell at 3. The police officers responding to the report found Mitchell walking near a beach. Id. Mitchell was wet, shirtless, covered in sand, unbalanced, and had slurred speech.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Navarette v. California

Issues

  1. Does the Fourth Amendment require that an officer who receives an anonymous tip about a drunken or reckless driver corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle? 
  2. Does an anonymous, uncorroborated tip that a vehicle ran someone off the road create reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle? 

In August 2008, a Mendocino County 911 dispatcher received a call from another county dispatcher reporting that a silver Ford truck had run another car off the road. The car occupants had anonymously reported that the truck ran them off the road. A police officer saw the truck, pulled it over, searched it, and found four large bags of marijuana, and arrested Jose and Lorenzo Navarette for marijuana transportation, possession, and sale. The Navarettes filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana, arguing that the anonymous tip was not sufficient to justify the stop because the officer did not independently corroborate the alleged illegal activity. The magistrate judge denied the motion to suppress, and on appeal, the California Court of Appeal held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an anonymous tip must be corroborated in order to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This case will impact the continuing development of Fourth Amendment law. The Navarettes argue that the Fourth Amendment requires independent corroboration of reckless driving in order for an anonymous tip to justify stopping a vehicle. California responds that because of the state’s interest in protecting the public, an anonymous tip can supply reasonable suspicion absent police corroboration. 

 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Does the Fourth Amendment require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle?
  2. Does an anonymous tip that a specific vehicle ran someone off the road provide reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, where the detaining officer was only advised to be on the lookout for a reckless driver, and the officer could not corroborate dangerous driving despite following the suspect vehicle for several miles?

top

Facts

On August 23, 2008, Mendocino County 911 dispatchers received a call from the Humboldt County dispatcher reporting that a silver Ford F150 pickup truck with an identified license-plate number had run another car off the road at mile marker 88 on southbound Highway 1. See People v. Navarette, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. at 2–3, 2012 BL 268067 (Oct.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0

Pearson v. Callahan

Issues

1. Whether police officers’ warrantless entry into a suspect’s home violates the Fourth Amendment, where the confidential informant, who was invited into the suspect’s home, established probable cause and signaled the officers to enter and make an arrest?

2. Does case law from other jurisdiction upholding such entries allow the police officers to assert a qualified immunity defense?

3. Should the Supreme Court overrule its decision in Saucier v. Katz, where it formulated a two-pronged test for determining whether qualified immunity applies?

 

The Utah police, without obtaining a warrant, arrested Afton Callahan and searched his home after Callahan was caught selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant. Callahan brought a civil suit alleging that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless and unreasonable searches. The officers assert that Callahan waived his privacy right when he invited a confidential informant into his home because he assumed the risk that the informant would divulge illegal activity to the police. They also argue that the “consent once removed” doctrine allows a warrantless search once a confidential informant is invited into the home and establishes probable cause. In the alternative, the officers raise a “qualified immunity” defense, which protects government officials from liability where a constitutional right is not clearly established and they could reasonably believe their conduct is constitutional. Callahan claims that the officers’ reasoning is unfounded; inviting the confidential informant into his home does not mean that officers can subsequently enter and search his home without a warrant. Furthermore, the consent once removed doctrine, as applied to confidential informants, has not been accepted by the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment; whether they are entitled to the qualified immunity; and whether the two-pronged qualified immunity test as articulated in Saucier v. Katz, should be overruled.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Several lower courts have recognized a “consent once removed” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Does this exception authorize police officers to enter a home without a warrant immediately after an undercover informant buys drugs inside (as the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have held), or does the warrantless entry in such circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment (as the Tenth Circuit held below)?

2. Did the Tenth Circuit properly deny qualified immunity when the only decisions directly on point had all upheld similar warrantless entries?

3. In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the Parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: “Whether the court's decision in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) should be overruled?”

On March 19, 2002, Brian Bartholomew entered the home of Afton Callahan under the pretense of wanting to purchase methamphetamine. See Brief for Petitioners, Pearson at 4. In reality, Bartholomew was a confidential informant working with the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force (“Task Force”) to catch Callahan dealing narcotics. See Callahan v.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

personal autonomy

The Supreme Court does not use the phrase "personal autonomy" very often. Unlike privacy, it is not a fundamental right. As such, it is still a very limited concept regarding its impact on legal jurisprudence.

Plumhoff v. Rickard

Issues

  1. Did the Sixth Circuit wrongly deny qualified immunity to police officers by basing its decision on subsequent case law rather than clearly established law at the time the police officers used force?
  2. Did the Sixth Circuit err in denying qualified immunity by finding the use of force was not reasonable as a matter of law when police officers were involved in a high-speed pursuit of a suspect who, when surrounded, tried to escape by nearly hitting some of the officers?

Around midnight on July 18, 1994, West Memphis police officer Joseph Forthman stopped a white Honda Accord for a broken headlight. Donald Rickard was the driver of the Honda and Kelly Allen, the passenger. After noticing an indentation in the windshield and Rickard’s erratic behavior, Forthman requested that Rickard step out of the vehicle. Rickard instead fled, leading to a high-speed pursuit by several officers across state lines into Memphis, Tennessee. After crashing into several vehicles, Rickard’s Honda was shot at fifteen times as he was driving away from the officers in a final attempt to escape. Rickard lost control and hit a building resulting in fatal injuries to both driver and passenger. The District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied the police officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.  The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court will consider whether the Sixth Circuit correctly relied upon case law decided subsequent to the officer’s actions or whether the court was required to consider only case law clearly prohibiting the use of lethal force at the time the event occurred. The Supreme Court will also decide whether the Sixth Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity as a matter of law. The Court’s decision will implicate the limits on the use of force by peace officers as they carry out their duties and the rights of suspects to be free from excessive force.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether the Sixth Circuit wrongly denied qualified immunity to the petitioners by analyzing whether the force used in 2004 was distinguishable from factually similar force ruled permissible three years later in Scott v. Harris. Stated otherwise, the question presented is whether, for qualified immunity purposes, the Sixth Circuit erred in analyzing whether the force was supported by subsequent case decisions as opposed to prohibited by clearly established law at the time the force was used.
  2. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity by finding the use of force was not reasonable as a matter of law when, under the respondent's own facts, the suspect led police officers on a high-speed pursuit that began in Arkansas and ended in Tennessee, the suspect weaved through traffic on an interstate at a high rate of speed and made contact with the police vehicles twice, and the suspect used his vehicle in a final attempt to escape after he was surrounded by police officers, nearly hitting at least one police officer in the process. 

top

Facts

Around midnight on July 18, 1994, West Memphis Police Officer Joseph Forthman initiated a traffic stop of a white Honda because it had an inoperable headlight. See Allen v. City of W. Memphis, 509 Fed. Appx. 388, *389 (6th Cir. 2012). Donald Rickard and Kelly Allen were driver and passenger, respectively.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Fourth Amendment