dem co print m14,a14

8/17/2019 Dem Co Print M14,A14

1/33

DEM. CO. — (March 16 – April 13)

Dem Co – March 16

His book—(talk on Apr 7)• In class, we focs on !"#$%!• His book focses otsi&e of fe&eral corts an& !"#$%!• #n 'arios isses, he ares that &ri'in factor was citien oraniin o'er lon

hal, sin strateies to &e'elop conter*nor+s an& then brin those nor+s to bear in cort

Last time—“war on terror” cases• !inificance of these cases the- reflect a shift in "t.s attit&es on /0ec power on

+atters of war in a ti+e of crisis• aw-er who broht first 2it+o cases thoht the- were hopeless, i'en past

practices of the "t an& contr- an& tenor of the ti+es

• Rasul , Hamdi, an& Boumediene —all show "t reectin 4res 5sh.s +ost e0tre+eassertions• Rasul —assertion that forein nationals ha'e no riht to challene lealit- of their

&etention at all—"t sa-s -es• Hamdi —/'en A+erican citien has no riht to challene factal &eter+ination

that he was fihtin for the ene+-—"t sa-s -es, he has a &e process riht to that• Boumediene —assertion that "on an& 4res acte& toether to sa- onl- re'iew

2it+o &etainees shol& et is +ilitar- fact*fin&in process—"t sa-s no, 'iolateshabes corps which reires in&i'i&als riht to ha'e those facts trie& beforeArt III &e

• "t reecte& nchecke& /0ec power an& insiste& on &icial8 leal check—9a stateof war is not a blank check for the e0ecti'e: ( Hamdi, #."onnor)

• !oter there.s a tension b8t libert- an& secrit- (what col& be +ore i++e&iate a

challene than a citien bein &etaine& w8o trial on chares he.s fihtin forene+-;)

• ast branch -o.& want to resol'e this tension is /0ec branch• b8c /0ec branch.s principal responsibilit- is national secrit-—so, the-.re likel-

to o'er*weih secrit- as aainst libert-•


2/33

• @e.& like to release +an- people hel& there, bt we can.t sen& the+ back b8c ofrisk the-.& be tortre& there the- ha'e a riht epblicans in'este& a lot of EE in state races an&achie'e& bi ains

• $hen G1 censs happene& an& re&istrictin epblican +aorities re&rew+an- of the +aps

• In .s were sprea&

ot +ore


3/33

• Maorit- +iht be self*perpetatin, bt not &e+ocratic• In


4/33

• Jor free&o+ to throw a pnch en&s at the tip of +- nose—that.s the point atwhich societ- can +ake so+ethin illeal, bt not short of that

• $his is an instance of rule utilitarianism • Act utilitarianism wol& instea& +ake each &ecision b- sin so+e he tilit-

+a0i+iin +achine—if an- instance of self*rear&in con&ct (like sin &rs)increases tilit-, then it.s ok

• Mill sa-s no—he sa-s -o shol& follow this rle Jo shol& not inter'enenless that person enaes in so+e har+fl other*rear&in con&ct• /'en if the &r a&&iction ren&ers that person nfit to work (an& other social

costs), these can.t be a basis for legal inter'ention b- societ-( Mi!! *ustifies his ru!e on uti!itarian groun"s• He.s not arin fro+ so+e Lantian absolte principle that it.s st wron to

inter'ene in so+eone.s pri'ate affairs• Instea&, he.s sa-in that as a matter of maximizing utility, -o shol& not leall-

inter'ene in self*rear&in con&ct• @h- shol& we let a person &o so+ethin that e'er-one reconies is not in her

best interest an& which will lea& to +ore pain than pleasre; ike, shootin pheroin Bifferent answers to this estion—&ifferent ar+ents for Mill.s rle

• Slippery slope —societ- col&n.t &raw a line at which con&ct to prohibit

• In response, wh- can.t we sa- this @hene'er societ- &eter+ines that certaincon&ct n&er+ines social tilit-, societ- can prohibit it

• $here.s utility in individual freedom to choose pri'ate beha'ior I+portant to takethis atono+os &ecision into accont ree&o+ to +ake a choice necessaril-i+plies free&o+ to +ake a ba& choice Mill incl&es this free&o+ in his tilitariancalcls

• In response, tilitarian +iht sa- fine, so let.s st pl this free&o+*tilit- intothe calclation of in&i'i&al cases $his wol& see+ to stif- a th+b on thescale towar&s allowin people to +ake self*rear&in &ecisions, bt wol&n.tnecessaril- +ean that all self*rear&in beha'ior wol& be free fro+ socialinter'ention Kst +eans there.s a sphere of self*rear&in beha'ior that is tilit-*calclation*stifie&

• $his is like what parents &o 4arents want to i'e their chil&ren free&o+8atono+-, nless the costs of a certain &ecision otweih its benefits (incl&inthe benefit of atono+os choice)

• Mill !ch a parental approach is not ok for societ-, not ok for a&lts @e nee& toallow a&lts to o &own e'en 'er- ba& roa&s as lon as it.s onl- self*rear&incon&ct

• Mill &iscsses social rights as ostensible stification for inter'enin in self*rear&in con&ct

• N slippery slope againO He sa-s it.s 'er- har& to &raw an- line once we let societ- prohibit an- con&ct that it concl&es n&er+ines social tilit-

( )wo other uti!itarian arguments Mi!! ma/es&• "onter*pro&cti'e character of +an- of these rles• /, prohibition (aainst alcohol) (#r, +ore recentl-, the war on &rs)

@hene'er societ- tries to li+it self*rear&in beha'ior, it is likel- to lea& to wasteof resorces an& people probabl- won.t abi&e b- it A&+inistration proble+s• Maybe most fundamental reason he gives& In&i'i&als are best sitate& to know

what.s best for the+sel'es, as co+pare& to so+eone else• I.+ +- own best &e of what +a0i+ies +- tilit-• @e &on.t actall- ha'e a tilit-*+a0i+iin +achine @e ha'e to rel- on h+an

&+ent !o, we shol& fa'or the in&i'i&al.s own &+ent( Mi!!$s arguments are a!! arguments for a 'ersion of rule utilitarianism• >le 4eople shol& be free to enae in self*rear&in con&ct w8o societal leal

inter'ention, e'en if in so+e easil- i+aine& instances it will lea& to a re&ction


5/33

in o'erall tilit-• In lon rn, o'er eneral rn of cases, this rle will lea& to +ore tilit-, as

co+pare& to act utilitarianism (case b- case) approach• $o&a-, one +iht are that rights are a set of instances where we.'e &eci&e& that

the costs of allowin &e+ocrac-8 +aorit- to &eci&e are so sbstantial that we.rewillin to allow in&i'i&als to insist pon the riht to enae in this con&ct, e'en

where in that instance &oin so will re&ce o'erall tilit-• $his is one wa- of n&erstan&in warrant and probable cause requirement ,which pres+pti'el- applies to searches an& seires

• /'en tho in so+e instances, this reire+ent n&er+ines o'erall tilit-—perhaps b8c cri+inals et awa-, or police costs are hih—eneral notion is that beforestate inter'enes in people.s pri'ac- or &epri'es the+ of libert- thr a seire, state+st obtain warrant base& on probable case In lon rn, we think societ- will be better off if we stick to that rle

E0am!e of constitutiona! ru!e uti!itarianism— Skokey +%ai march case,• Bi'isi'e case in 1D7.s where


6/33

—to prohibit people fro+ e0pressin certain 'iews• !ecret infor+ation is an e0a+ple


7/33

• $his is constitutiona! forma!ism• Very little constitutional law uses constitutional formalism• irst a+en&+ent &oes etire+ent sa'ins• 4a-in to o to law school +a-be encoraes -o not to &rop ot• @e pre*co++it to not &oin later what we know we.ll want to &o then, bt which

we &on.t think we shol& &o now /'en pieons can learn to pre*co++it• Alcoholics can take a &r that will +ake the+ naseos if the- &rink alcohol• In a way, Constitution is a collective act to precommit ourselves to a set of rles

that are bin&in on the collecti'e an& can.t be chane& b- a +aorit- 'ote• @e belie'e we.ll be te+pte& in certain wa-s as a +aorit- to &o certain thins that

are aainst or lon*ter+ interests @e know we.ll want to &o those thins, bt weknow the-.re ba& for s• $heor- is it.s in or lon*ter+ best interest to &o so• !hellin• $here are +an- proble+s w8 this pre*co++it+ent strate-• How &o we know &ecision we +a&e in a&'ance is actall- better;• @hat if circ+stances chane; @hat if ba& thins trn ot to be health-;• @hat if -or &esires chane; Ma-be -o pre*co++itte& to bein shot if -o et

cancer 5t later when -o et cancer, -o &on.t want that• "onstittion How &o we know &ecisions +a&e G= -ears ao are better than


8/33

&ecisions to&a-; @e &on.t know that• @hen we think abot rihts Nlater in corseO, we.ll &iscss rihts of cri+inall-

accse&—these are para&i+atic rihts that societ- is likel- to be incline& to&isrear& in the +o+ent

• After a cri+e, we +iht want to se'erel- pnish a sspect @e +iht treat rleswe +a&e in a&'ance as technicalities that we no loner nee& to co+pl- with

• @e can +ake &ecisions that cri+inal &efen&ants ha'e these rihts, b8c we belie'ethat it.s in societ-.s best interests in the lon rn

Dem Co 8-816

ots of rea&in for ne0t ti+e

@e&nes&a- 383 at =p+ Hart lectre b- Kack >epo'e (;;), one of +ost e+inentconstittional historians, fro+ !tanfor& aw, will talk abot oriinalis+

Last time• !"#$%! incorporate& bill of rihts to appl- to states 'ia 1=th A+en&+ent a'e

itself challene of relatin policin across the contr-• Most powerfl tool to relate policin is orth A+en&+ent +94,• Most co++on seire C arrest of a person• "t has rle& there is an e0cetion to warrant re:uirement when o!ice arrest

someone in ub!ic on robab!e cause• $here is


9/33

• $his is sfficientl- relar concern that "t a&opts briht*line rle• >le applies e'en when no possibilit- of fin&in e'i&ence relate& to the cri+e an&

no fear of arrest• 5enefits of briht*line rle stif- its broa& application, e'en when its

stifications &on.t appl-• "t e0pan&e& arrest inci&ent to arrest

• Rabinowitz (one*roo+ office) an& Harris (for*roo+ apart+ent)—can search person A


10/33

arrest e0ception is another ato+atic8pres+pti'e reasonableness &eter+ination!o, no restriction on this automatic e0cetion

• /, w8 ciarette packet—-o ato+aticall- want to rle ot that there +iht be aweapon there

• Jes—in that, if -o o be-on& a&oinin roo+s, -o nee& so+e reason ike, -ohear& a toilet flsh

Riley v! California• !hol& Robinson hol&in (search*inci&ent*to*arrest is ato+aticall- ok) appl-

eall- to searches of cell phones;• 2o' ar+ent -es After arrest, it.s per se reasonable to search person an& an-

obect w8in arrestee.s control "ell phone is st another obect, so sa+e rleshol& appl-

• 5- nani+os &ecision, "t reects o'.s ar+ent• $his case an& +,S, v, -ones both ask sa+e estion !hol& analo*era 1Uth

centr- rles appl- in +o&ern, &iital ae;• !pecific isses of cell phones—on both si&es of balance—arrestee an& police• Increase& pri'ac- interests b8c of +ore &ata• !o+e &ata isn.t e'en on the phone, it.s in the c!ou" an& si+pl- accesse& b- -or

phone ike sa-in if police fin& a ke- on arrestee, police shol& be able to sethe ke- to access other thins not on the person


11/33

triere&;), an& also the rane of A• • $ransfor+ational &ecision• 4re*Lat, estion whether a tactic is a search was estion of whether police

ph-sicall- in'a&e& a protecte& area• $hat.s wh- the parties phrase& estion as whether phone booth is a protecte&

area• !eries of cases ha& &efine& searches as in'asion of persons, hoses, obects, etc

• .oldman —police place& Bictaphone p to a wall of an apart+ent to hear whatwas happenin in neihborin apart+ent

• "t sai& that was


12/33

• ile- ha'e a >/4 in the

reenhose;• "t &oes G*part Lat test—nee& both sbect e0pectation of pri'ac- an& >/4• "ort.s reasonin• An- +e+ber of pblic col& occp- this na'iable airspace, b8c it.s allowe& b-

AA relation, an& an-one col& look &own w8 nake& e-e an& see insi&e thereenhose

• "onter to "ort.s reasonin•


13/33

• B ares police 'iolate& his A rihts b8c police &i&n.t ha'e probable case or awarrant to search his close&, arbae ba

• 4olice sa- it.s not a search• Maorit-.s reasonin• B pt the arbae on the si&ewalk—a pblic place !o+eone col& co+e alon

an& tear open the ba B has ass+e& that risk B &oes not ha'e a >/4 aainst

that risk• How to respon& to this;• ocal or&inance reire& hi+ to pt the trash on the si&ewalk• He &i& what he col& to keep it secre—he pt it in a close&, opae ba• Maorit-.s other ar+ent—which is an in&epen&ent ron&—is that B

relinishe& his arbae to a thir& part-, so he no loner has >/4 in it• )hir" art# "isc!osure ru!e If -o 'olntaril- relinish pri'ate thins to 3r&

part-, then -o ass+e risk that 3r& part- will trn those thins o'er to the police• !i+ilarl-, whene'er -o talk to a 3 r& part-, -o ass+e risk that 3r& part- will tell

police• /, in 0atz , either b- +akin bookie an infor+ant (e, plea barain), or b8c 3r&

part- st wants to• $hir& part- rle applies to ph-sical obects as well as other thins like phone call

los• Smith v, *aryland —"t hel& that ettin the call los fro+ phone co+pan- &oes


14/33

• In +o&ern ae, thir& part- &isclosre rle e0plo&es pri'ac- concerns• /'er-thin -o share on the clo& is fair a+e for bein share& b- clo& operator• 4rof "ole thinks a bi pco+in constittional estion is whether thir& part-

&isclosre rle nee&s to be a&ste& in &iital ae, a la +,S, v, -ones or )aliforniav, Riley

"!S! v! #ones< . 111• 2o' attache& 24! &e'ice to n&ercarriae of eep an& tracke& eep.s +o'e+entsfor GU &a-s

• 2o'.s ar+ent• >elies on +,S, v, 0notts, where o' pt a beeper in a packae that Lnotts

acire& He takes the packae to a cabin in the woo&s, an& o' ets a warrant tosearch that cabin

• $here, "t sai& that was not a search n&er A b8c Lnotts was on pblic roa&s $he beeper st +a&e it easier to track Lnotts as he tra'ele& on a pblic roa&

• Also relie& on 0aro Rer- si+ilar facts e0cept beeper oes into the cabin 5eeperis e+ittin sinals fro+ insi&e the hose, which is how o' establishe& sspect.slocation there

• Bifference is obtainin infor+ation fro+ within a pri'ate ho+e that @A! a

search• 2o' sa-s its 24! &ata was all athere& while Kones was on pblic roa&s, therefore

as in 0notts this acti'it- was constittional• "oncrrence reecte& this ar+ent 4ointe& ot the lon &ration of the trackin

/'en if a person +iht e0pect that so+eone +iht see her tra'elin fro+ A to 5— one &iscrete trip—people still ha'e a >/4 that straners won.t follow -o aron&for se'eral &a-s in a row

• irst, b8c enerall- there.s an e0pectation that -or tra'el &ata for lon perio&s isnot a'ailable to an-one bt -orself

• /'en thoh it.s har& to sa- at which point a >/4 kicks in, Alito sa-s GU &a-s istoo +ch

• !econ&, b8c trackin one &iscrete trip fro+ A to 5 pro'i&es 'er- li+ite& &ata 5t, b- trackin tra'el for +an- &a-s, -o can et a lot +ore infor+ation abot a person "onlo+eration of &ata increases the pri'ac- costs

• $his is criticall- affecte& b- +o&ern ae 58c Alito probabl- wol&n.t reire awarrant to ph-sicall- follow so+eone for GU &a-s $wo hn&re& -ears ao, thatwas prohibiti'el- e0pensi'e

• $o&a-, technolo- has +a&e it &ra+aticall- less e0pensi'e• !o, if we.re oin to protect the le'el of pri'ac- A was +eant to protect at ti+e

of fra+in, we nee& to a&st or &octrine as technolo- chanes, st as wasnecessar- in 0atz

• !calia.s +aorit- &ecision• He &oesn.t like >/4 b8c it.s too f- Instea&, this is an eas- case fro+

tra&itional propert- perspecti'e• @hen police pt 24! on Kones. car, that was a search b8c it was an in'asion of his

propert- for prposes of atherin infor+ation• He sa-s propert-*base& approach was not reecte& b- 0atz • 2o' was 'er- confi&ent abot this case on its wa- to !"#$%!• b8c of the 'ali&it- of each instance of trackin fro+ A to 5


15/33

Dem Co 88@16

Conte0t for 94 cases +94 fourth amen"ment,• ?estions to ask abot an- police acti'it- that.s arabl- a search( +1, s it a search or seiure3 +thresho!" :uestion,• Most of the ti+e, this is prett- clear—e, police went in the hose• 5t, police &o a lot of other thins that are less ob'iosl- searches or seires( $wo ways police activity can constitute a search&• (1) tresass for urose of gathering information (re'i'e& in +,S, v, -ones)• (G) in'asion of a ?E7 (reasonable e0pectation of pri'ac-)• >/4 in'ol'es larel- an e+pirical estion of what people e0pect wol& re+ain

pri'ate 'is a 'is other pri'ate citiens• If state intr&es pon that set of acti'it-, that.s a search• 0atz &e'elope& this rle b8c trespass approach was ina&eate i'en +o&ern

technolo-, which allowe& police to inspect people w8o ph-sicall- intr&in on

propert-• >/4 is &ifficlt to appl-—no pri'ac- +eter ot there—bt "t i'es it so+e

i&ance• Sub1ective —focses on what the in&i'i&al &i&—has person taken action

&e+onstratin that she soht to keep her acti'it- fro+ pblic 'iew;• /b1ective —is it obecti'el- reasonable;• 4laintiff in .reenwood &i& what he col& to protect pri'ac- of his arbae, bt his

e0pectation was not obecti'el- reasonable—b8c b- sharin info w8 3r& part-, heass+e& risk that 3r& part- wol& share that info w8 police

•


16/33

the search was reasonable• Jo col& ha'e an nreasonable search &espite a >/4• /0istence of >/4 +eans that o'ern+ent has to stif- its action as reasonable,

&espite >/4• /, in h-po 1 below, arabl- Kones has an >/4 w8 respect to his tra'el &ata, bt

still the #n*!tar +etho& is arabl- reasonable

( +H, Ghat$s the reme"#3• 4rincipal re+e&- is e%clusionary rule —sppress e'i&ence• If e'i&ence obtaine& in 'iolation of A, then e'i&ence is /4 that the- will not be followe& G=*7 for an e0ten&e& perio& of ti+e, e0ceptfor the +ost e0traor&inar- cri+e

• $wo h-potheticals illstratin these two approaches to the threshol& estion


17/33

• I#o 1• sppose police athere& info on Kones b- contactin #n*!tar for GU &a-s• co+pan- that +onitors 24!.s installe& in new cars, so that in case of acci&ent,

#n*!tar is i++e&iatel- notifie& of -or location so the- can notif- D11• @ol& Kones ha'e a clai+ n&er the A;• %n&er trespass anal-sis /4 that the &ata wol& be share& for sch an e0ten&e& perio&• Kones &oes /4 anal-sis, this is basicall- 0notts, where police se& a beeper to trackcar fro+ airport to cabin in the woo&s

• 4olice potentiall- "#%B HAR/ followe& the person, bt these& technolo-to &o so +ore easil-

• $respass approach still a search, sa+e reasonin as -ones itself • "ritical fact is that state has trespasse& on -or propert- for prposes of atherin

infor+ation—that.s a briht line rle• How lon the police tracke& the person +iht +atter to >/4, bt


18/33

• Ho+eowner &i& not i'e a license to people to co+e p to their ho+es w8 a &rsniffin &o an& snoop aron&

• /4 in contraban& in lae, then wh- >/4 in obects in the hose;• >easonin fro+ prior cases abot &os reslts fro+ (a) all the &o is ettin is

presence of contraban& an& (b) -o &o not ha'e a >/4 in presence of contraban&• !he st &rops a footnote—in a car, -o ha'e a lower >/4 5t, the reasonin of

prior cases trne& on the A5!//4• #r, what if the police officer walke& b- the hose an& s+elle& +ariana, sin

nor+al nasal technolo-;• or Laan, it.s ke- that police se& a &r*sniffin &o—the hih*tech &e'ice• H-po @hat if police officer walks p to &oor to solicit &onations, an& officer

happens to ha'e &r*sniffin &o (b8c that officer is takin care of the &o off*&t-);

• %n&er !calia8 trespass approach, the prpose*to*search is +issin, 4%! it.s not atrespass b8c there is an i+plie& license for straners to &o this kin& of thin

• 5t if person ha& a 9no solicitation: sin, it wol& be a trespass b8c no i+plie&

license Spinelli &ates

• $hese cases elci&ate what probable case reires• @hat &oes a +aistrate nee& to know to +ake the prob case &eter+ination;•


19/33

of a car in which there are 3 people 4olice search the car an& fin& &rs $he- ask 9@hose &rs are these;: All 3 &en- 4olice arrest all of the+

• ?estion @ere these arrests reasonable; @as there probable case;• Jes, bt not base& on the 33 chance Abot other factors, like reasonable

sspicion of collsion a+on the three• $hese cases re'ol'e aron& tension b8t rles an& stan&ar&s

• In +an- areas, "t prefers rles• 5t in this area, Spinelli set briht line rles, which are reecte& b- .ates in fa'orof totalit- of the circ+stances stan&ar&

( Spinelli $s bright !ine ru!e•


20/33

belie'e the sorce was cre&ible• "orroboration abot sch &etails abot the ftre +akes police think infor+ant

ot the info in a reliable wa- (2oes to Spinelli (G))•


21/33

to what police can &o to search for contraban&• $his is a 9bootstrappin: ar+ent• More fn&a+entall-, what &o e0pectations of pri'ac- ha'e to &o w8 reirin a

warrant;• @e sall- create e0ceptions to warrant reire+ent for sitations where it.s

i+practical to et the warrant

• !o, +obilit- is +ost rele'ant to this estion 5t, lots of thins are +obile—whatabot briefcases;• )hadwic4 —if police ha'e prob case to belie'e that an effect has contraban&,

the- can seie it (to i++obilie it) bt the- "A


22/33

• Another cateorical e0ception—in this case, both to probable case an& warrantreire+ent—bt this e0ception is itself sbect to a set of cateorical rles

• 4olice can con&ct a brief stop where the- ha'e reasonable, articulable,individuali(ed suspicion that cri+e is afoot or that person has co++itte& a pastfelon-, in or&er to take +ini+al +easres to confir+ or &ispel sspicion (sall- b- askin estions)

• If police also ha'e reasonable sspicion that person is ar+e&, police can &o a frisk • If police &o a pat &own an& feel an obect that "#%B be a weapon, the- ha'eathorit- to pll it ot an& see if it.s a weapon

• If police &o a pat &own an& feel so+ethin that col& be &rs, the- &o nnin awa-—state are& this in itself actall- is enoh, bt "t sai& no, not


23/33

enoh• Befen&ant sai& fact of rnnin awa- shol& not enter into &eci&in reasonable

sspicion at all—"t reecte& this briht line test too• Instea&, "t sai& it.s a tota!it# of the circum$s test• 1—i!!ustrates "ifference bt )err# sto an" arreste:ui'a!ent• B (&efen&ant) was fl-in n&er a fake na+e, one*wa- trip, etc—police sai& these

circ+.s a'e rise to reasonable sspicion as he ot off the plane, as to whether hewas transportin &rs

• "t concl&es that the enconter escalate& fro+ a $err- stop to the ei'alent of an


24/33

arrest• Altho the- ha& reasonable sspicion to +ake the $err- stop, the- &i&


25/33

earl- in +ornin, in afternoonV:• 4oint bein all these factors &o obert @ilkins is one of the &es on B" "ir (stor- abot hi+ in to&a-.srea&ins fro+ "ole.s book))

• @h- &oes the "ort take this nreal approach;• 58c, it wol& reall- ha+per police effecti'eness if the- col&n.t talk to people—

"ole +entione& i&ea of 9co++nit- policin: which relies on police*citieninteractions

• !o, there.s a non*tri'ial reason wh- corts reire le'el of coercion hiher thanthe +ere fact of bein a police officer

• If it.s a consensal enconter, -o.re free to walk awa- An& police col& prse-o onl- if -o create reasonable sspicion—obecti'e reasons

• /'en sin cort.s rationale (9free to ter+inate the enconter:), -o col& stillare 3rayton sitation is 'er- &ifferent—that there was a hiher le'el ofcoercion an& assertion of athorit-

• Jo col& are that police e0ploite& sitation to heihten the coercion be-on&le'el of 9nor+al: kin& of interaction

• In response, ar+ent col& be that Bra-ton chose to o on the bs—so, policenot accontable for that choice

• !oter sa-s this is cra-, in &issent, b8c police are e0ploitin the person.s bein onthe bs

( Court$s )ES) in rayton& Gou!" reasonab!e erson fee! free to terminate the


26/33

encounter3( ES consensua! encounter• %O at !east a )err# sto< an" cou!" be an arrest• "ole conseence of this test police are per+itte& to se their &iscretion, an&

constrainin circ+.s (like bein on a bs), to approach whoe'er the- want—b8cno in&i'i&alie& sspicion is reire&—to sbect these people to 9consensal

enconters:• Jet another &octrine that creates &iscretion that allows police to enae thecitienr- w8o ha'in in&i'i&alie& sspicion

• !ch nfettere& &iscretion often lea&s police to taret -on people of color • !t&ent ? !ee+s to be a natral &ifference b8t 9co++nit- enae+ent: 's

in'estiati'e line of estionin to confir+8 &ispel sspicion—can.t we&istinish b8t the two;

• "ort (an& societ-;) thinks police.s ob is to in'estiate cri+e an& to et intel onsspicios actors—not st to +ake witt- repartee w8 people

• @e nee& to i'e police so+e leewa- to &e'elop reasonable, individuali(ed sspicion

-hren +. 1>1,—rete0tua! sto

• $wo -on +en stop for G secon&s at stop liht, in new 4athfin&er (car), thentrn w8o sinalin an& spee& (a bit) $hen police pll p ne0t to the+

• 4olice ha& probable case for B.s 'iolation of traffic laws 2i'es the+ riht tostop car

• If police were traffic enforce+ent officers who eninel- plle& B.s o'er solel- becase of traffic 'iolation, an& then police happene& to see &rs in plain 'iew,then that col& be per+issible

• 5t, these officers were plainclothes officers who, per B" police relation, werenot sppose& to pll the+ o'er—the- were not athorie& to +ake this stopActall-, it.s &aneros to &o so !o, i+per+issible e0cept for ra'e sitations

• B.s law-ers are• $his was a prete0tal stop, aainst the B" police relations• "ort &oesn.t enerall- see prete0tal law enforce+ent as a proble+ It happens

freentl-• /, Al "apone was a +ass +r&er, bt no one willin to testif- aainst hi+

$he- lti+atel- ot hi+ on ta0 e'asion—&i&n.t nee& an- witnesses for that• $he- &i&n.t o after hi+ for ta0 'iolations 58" of those ta0 'iolations—bt that

was a prete0t for arrestin hi+ for +r&er• !o, the prete0t isn.t proble+atic in itself 5t, traffic 'iolations are particlarl-

proble+atic b8c -o col& fin& a traffic 'iolation co++itte& b- al+ost an-one atan- ti+e

• So< much !i/e w e0ansi'e "rug courier rofi!e< or w “reasonab!e erson”stan"ar"< concern is that traffic 'io!ations "on$t effecti'e!# i"entif# eo!ewho shou!" tru!# be sub*ect to a sto. It +akes e'er-one sbect to stop it.s pto police.s &iscretion, an& plent- of e'i&ence shows the- rel- on stereot-pes an&

racial profilin• /'i&ence that officers of all races &o racial profilin• 5t, prpose of 9reasonable in&i'i&alie& sspicion: is to restrain police.s

&iscretion to people as to who+ it has &e'elope& in&i'i&alie& bases forsspicion, rather than rel- on eneralie& bases for sspicion

• !o, traffic 'iolations &on.t &o sfficient narrowin work • $herefore, B.s are, "t shol& ask whether a reasonable officer wol& ha'e, in

practice, actall- stoppe& the car—an& if so, that.s a constittional stop—if not,an& if onl- reason to stop the car is to fin& so+e non*traffic 'iolation, then that.snconstittional


27/33

• "ort.s response to B.s propose& rle• It.s an nworkable stan&ar&• How col& we appl- this rle; How wol& corts know what reasonable officer is

likel- to &o;• If &ata shows police t-picall- stop people for spee&in onl- when the-.re D +ph

abo'e li+it—+a-be police t-picall- think it.s enoh to stop some people,

enoh to &eter—so who B#eslt is the kin& of police enforce+ent &escribe& in chapter of "ole.s book • 4olice &on.t ha'e to i'e in&i'i&alie& reasons for 'iolation the-.re actall-

taretin• ea&s to &oble stan&ar& whereb- police taret people of color


28/33

Dem Co %otes F1816

Last time& ?eme"ies to 9ourth 4men"ment +94, 'io!ations• 5olf —e'en thoh A prohibition aainst nreasonable search an& seire is

fn&a+ental an& applies to the states, the /0clsionar- >le +E?, re+e&- &oesnot• >ationale b8c states ha& alternati'e re+e&ies• !o, "t &i'i&e& constittionall- reire& >I2H$ fro+ the >/M/BJ, which it sai&

was 9&iciall- i+plie&: an& reire& for fe&eral officials n&er 5ee4s• *app re'erse& 5olf • "t sa-s right an" reme"# must be seen as one• !ince 5olf , we.'e learne& that alternati'e re+e&ies (tort8 trespass actions) were

not a&eate, an& +an- states ha& a&opte& /> • /> is a clear, specific, an& constittionall- reire&, e'en if &iciall- i+plie&,

safear&—w8o which A wol& be a for+ of wor&s• An& the- sa- /> is an essential part of the riht of pri'ac-—contrar- to @olf.s

&istinction b8t riht an& re+e&-

• "ole8 A+ar • /> is an o&& re+e&- in that it onl- co+pensates those w8 e'i&ence of cri+inal

ilt• In *app, "t analoie& Fth A+&t to A—bt that analo- isn.t tiht, b8c ifth

A+&t prohibits the %!/ of certain e'i&ence (&efen&ant.s wor&s) in trial• A has nothin to &o w8 incri+ination—sbstanti'e riht relates to the search

itself analo- is not a stron stification for /> • /> stifie& as a &eterrent8 safear&• In later cases, &eterrence is the pri+ar- lens thr which "t sees /> • /> is not an in&i'i&al riht—/> &oesn.t reslt fro+ riht inherent in the

&efen&ant, bt as a &eterrent to 'iolation of A 9across the boar&:• !tnt• /> is a perfect +echanis+ for &eterrence in that it a'oi&s proble+ of o'er*

&eterrence b- not o'er*penaliin officers for A 'iolations• #'er*&eterrence wol& be proble+atic to e0tent• /> si+pl- takes awa- precise benefit state reape& b- nconstittional search• Also, /> illstrates the costs of 'iolatin A• 9"ost of the />: (that ilt- o free) is actall- cost of the A itself • If police co+plie& w8 A in first place, e'i&ence wol& ne'er ha'e been otten• $his is inherentl- a cost of pri'ac- protections for societ- at lareT pri'ac-

protections +st co'er ilt- as well as innocent• A+ar • /> is


29/33

warrant, bt trns ot +aistrate ne'er shol& ha'e isse& the warrant for lack of probable case;

• $he 9wron: was +aistrate.s +istake in treatin affi&a'it that &i& reslts in non*prosection or non*

con'iction of between 6 an& G3F of people arreste& for felonies• !till, "t sa-s it.s a lare absolte n+ber

• 5t, +aor point /'en if the costs are s+all (of ilt- people oin free), ifthere.s


30/33

• $his is not abot probable case It.s abot other reire+ents for warrants—e,that warrant &escribe w8 particlarit- the places an& thins to be searche&

• @arrant was i+properl- e0ecte&• /, warrant allows search on Mon&a-, an& officer oes on $es&a-• (Howe'er, after Hudson, nclear whether this will appl-)• @hen +aistrate aban&ons her &icial role an& beco+es part of police operation

• /, case where +aistrate oes w8 police to con&ct a search• !t&ent estion abot rbber sta+p proble+• "ole thinks it wol& be 'er- &ifficlt to show• Most +aistrates ha'e a 'er- hih rant rate• /, for warrants to tap phone, fro+ 1D6D to 1D73, n&er this statte (applie&

across contr-)—3,U3U applications for warrants, an& onl- G were &enie&• or I!A taps (not cri+ law enforce+ent, bt tappin phones for intellience

atherin), in GF -ears the cort trne& &own G applications• K&es sa- these Ss are +islea&in $here are internal +echanis+s to ensre

probable case e0ists b- the ti+e the for+al rlin to rant the warrant happens• $his 2*e0ception is +ore abot larin 'iolations like +aistrate enae& in

police acti'it- with the police• HJ4# !ppose police officer sspects P is cri+inal, an& P is atherin

e'i&ence P oes to J +aistrate knowin that J is lenient w8 issin warrants• !ppose P a&+its he &i&n.t not ha'e probable case an& onl- went to J b8c +ore

likel- she.& et a warrant• %n&er 2 e0ception to />;• Bepen&s on whether the officer was actin in obecti'e ba& faith( 4rguments against B9 e0cetion&• @e B# want to &eter +aistrates An& not ha'in 2 wol& at least trickle &own

to +aistrates, in ter+s of &eterrence


31/33

• "t sai& police officers can be &eterre&, an& /> can keep the+ in check• eislators, on other han&, are not &irectl- enae& in law enforce+ent $he-

&on.t nee& to be &eterre& !ince police officer &i&n.t &o an-thin wron, officerobe-e& the law, so no nee& for /> 5/"A%!/ no &eterrent effects

• XXXXXXXXX ("ole col&n.t re+e+ber)• @hen officer e0ectes arrest base& on warrant isse& &e to clerical error

• /> &oes


32/33

officers. safet-, that e'i&ence wol& be &estro-e&, or that knockin wol& beftile

• $his reasonable sspicion can be &e'elope& in the +o+ent, or in a&'ance 'ia no*knock warrants (if allowe& b- that state, an& if officers can show one of the threecateories of reasonable sspicion)

• "t has an oriinalist stification for this—/nlish co++on law reire& that

warrants be e0ecte& in this wa- incorporate& b- ra+ers into the "onstittion• In this case, n&ispte& that officers 'iolate& knock*an&*annonce reire+ent, b- failin to take enoh ti+e

( Sca!ia ma*orit# reasoning• (1) reires bt*for casation (bt*for the A 'iolation, officers wol& not ha'e

fon& the e'i&ence)• #fficers ha& a warrant !o, e'en if the- waite& 3 secon&s rather than 3 secon&s,

the- still wol& ha'e e0ecte& the warrant an& fon& the e'i&ence' 123 .ttenuation• /'en if it.s a bt*for case, /> &oes / shol& e0cl&e

confession b8c broht abot b- nconstittional arrest• "t sai& it was attenate& b8c warrant reire+ent is to protect pri'ac- at the

ho+e• 5t, once B is at the station, pri'ac- of the ho+e is no loner bein e0ploite&' 143 Costs outweigh the benefits• In so+e wa-s, this is the lti+ate cateorical assess+ent that stifie& all the prior

e0ceptions to />, for those specific cateories of circ+stances• "osts• "osts of litiation /'er- &efen&ant in e'er- warrant search wol& raise this

e0ception• #'er*&eterrence #fficers +iht hesitate to &o the search at all for fear of beinaccse& of not waitin lon enoh #r, the- +iht be incenti'ie& to wait toolon, which can ha'e neati'e conseences

• ess nee& for &eterrence for 'iolation of this rle, b8c police &on.t et +ch for'iolatin it #nce alrea&- athorie& b- warrant to enter the ho+e, the- ha'eaccess to the ho+e either wa-

• Bissent• $his hol&in +eans that knock an& annonce reire+ent is +eaninless• In *app, "t sai& that a riht w8o a re+e&- is +erel- a for+ of wor&s


33/33

• $o &issent, !calia sa-s there.s the option of ci'il &a+ae actions—lots +oreoptions now

• (He.s not +akin the A+ar ar+ent—that wol& o'ertrn lots of prece&ent)• Y 1DU3 i'es in&i'i&als case of action aainst states for &a+aes for states.

'iolations of ci'il rihts• #r plaintiffs can file &irectl- n&er the "onstittion if sin fe&eral officials

• Jo can se +nicipalities to&a-• Jo can et &a+aes Aoberts fin& that costs otweih the benefits in this sitation;• How e0pansi'e is this e0ception to />;• Also we.ll &iscss other wa-s to enforce other wa-s to enforce constittional

rihts• Mc"leske- is challene to capital pnish+ent on racial lines• !pple+ent looks at other wa-s of a&&ressin constittional 'iolations

dem co print m14,a14

Documents