Introduction to the U.S. criminal procedure WP-MON-U2-IUSCP

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Professor Melanie Reid
• Email: melanie.reid@lmunet.edu

COURSE PLAN

No. Topic Planned amount in hours
1. Introduction to U.S. Criminal Procedure 1 hour
2. What is a U.S. “search”? Open fields and Curtilage 2 hours
3. Aerial surveillance, thermal imaging, and trash searches 2 hours
4. Tracking devices, pen registers and electronic surveillance 2 hours
5. Dog sniffs and criminal informants 2 hours
6. What is “probable cause”? 2 hours
7. The warrant requirement and the knock and announce rule 2 hours

COURSE CONTENT

Monday – May 30th – read pages 22-26, 39-55
• Introduction to U.S. Criminal Procedure.
The development of numerous limitations upon the manner in which a criminal suspect may be arrested, convicted, and punished has rendered most of criminal procedure an inquiry into constitutional law. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).
• What is a U.S. “search”?
Students will read about the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. A search can be defined as a governmental intrusion into an area where a person has a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
• What constitutes a “search”:
o Tracking devices
Tracking devices that monitor a person’s movement may violate a reasonable expectation of privacy or may be considered a trespass and constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).

Tuesday – May 31st – read pages 57-69, 82-100
• What constitutes a “search”:
o Trash searches
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of the home. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
o Thermal imaging
Obtaining by sense enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of a home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion constitutes a search, at least where the technology in question is not in general public use. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
o Open fields and curtilage
Areas outside the curtilage (dwelling house and outbuildings) are subject to police entry and search as these are held out to the public and not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984); United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
o Aerial searches
Aerial surveillance has been deemed to not be a “search” as long as the aircraft remains in FAA airspace and a similar flight could be taken by an ordinary citizen. But will the same be true of drones operated by local police departments? California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986); Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).

Wednesday – June 1st – read pages 74-80, 102-110, 112-118
• What constitutes a “search”:
o Metadata/pen registers – third party doctrine
A pen register records only the numbers dialled from a certain phone, and the Fourth Amendment does not require prior judicial approval for installation and use of pen registers. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
o Cell site location information. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018).
o Dog sniffs
As long as the police have lawfully stopped a car and do not extend the stop beyond the time necessary to issue a ticket and conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, a dog sniff of the car does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
o False friends
Criminal informants that record targets do not trigger the Fourth Amendment. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966).

Thursday – June 2nd – read pages 127-147
• What is probable cause?
An arrest must be based on probable cause. Probable cause is present when at the time of arrest, the officer has within his knowledge reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983); Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996); District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577 (2018).

Friday – June 3rd – read pages 150-167
• The warrant requirement
To be valid, a warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, be based on probable cause, and particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976); Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004); Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995); Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987).

Wednesday – June 8th at noon – email your response/court order to melanie.reid@lmunet.edu