New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I have known Ms. Orr for over a decade and she is an excellent criminal defense attorney with high ethical standards." by Peer Attorney Read More
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More
  • "GGH has no equal in Texas or elsewhere. Cynthia Orr and Gerry Goldstein don't just defend their clients, they make law. I've watched them over the years take impossible cases and win." by Debra I. Read More

Suppression of Evidence (Search & Seizure): Table of Contents

View Full Document

Part V: Suppression of Evidence (Search & Seizure)

  • FOURTH AMENDMENT CASE LAW UPDATE…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
    • THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE, AND PROTECTING THE CITIZENRY FROM ITS PROTECTORS 1
      • THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
      • EXCEPTIONS TO OFFICER’S “GOOD FAITH” RELIANCE UPON WARRANT…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
      • “SUBJECTIVE” GOOD-FAITH INSUFFICIENT: OFFICER’S RELIANCE WAS NOT REASONABLY BASED UPON “OBJECTIVE” STANDARDS 2
      • FRANKS-TYPE MISREPRESENTATIONS IN OBTAINING WARRANT 3
      • MAGISTRATE NOT “NEUTRAL AND DETACHED” 3
      • AFFIDAVIT TOTALLY LACKING IN PROBABLE CAUSE 3
      • FACIALLY DEFICIENT WARRANT 4
      • TIMELINESS 4
      • RELIABILITY OF INFORMANT AND/OR INFORMATION: 4
      • RELIANCE ON PRECEDENT THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 4
      • ANYTIME IT WOULD BE “UNREASONABLE” TO RELY ON THE WARRANT 5
      • COLLECTIVE BAD FAITH (WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE) 5
      • OTHER CASES 5
        • -OVER BREADTH AND GENERAL SEARCH:………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
        • -NO NEXUS BETWEEN PROBABLE CAUSE AND THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED
        • …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
      • ANTICIPATORY WARRANTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
      • BURDEN OF PROOF ON PROSECUTION TO DEMONSTRATE “GOOD FAITH”…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
      • GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON SUMMONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
      • “GOOD FAITH” EXCEPTION APPLIES TO WARRANTLESS ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE LATER FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
      • LEON “GOOD FAITH” EXCEPTION DOES APPLY TO OTHER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
      • “GOOD FAITH” EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO STATUTORY SUPPRESSION REMEDIES………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
      • GOOD FAITH MUST BE OBJECTIVE……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
      • STATES ARE FREE TO PROVIDE GREATER PROTECTIONS FOR THEIR CITIZENRY UNDER STATE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
      • SEVERAL STATES HAVE REJECTED ANY LEON “GOOD FAITH” EXCEPTION……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
        • GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION TO A STOP…………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
      • WARRANTS 16
        • WARRANT SHOULD BE PREFERRED PRACTICE……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
        • WHO MAY ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT?……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
        • REQUIREMENT OF PRESENTING WARRANT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
        • FEDERAL OFFICERS HAVE LIMITED AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
      • Postal Inspectors 18
      • Immigration Officers 18
      • FBI 18
      • S. Marshals 19
      • Double Duty: 19
        • STATE OFFICERS AUTHORITY TO ARREST/SEARCH……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
        • SEARCHES BY PRIVATE PERSONS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
        • AIRLINE EMPLOYEES……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
        • TEST FOR WHETHER GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IS SUFFICIENT TO A WARRANT FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
        • MAIL COURIERS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
        • SCHOOL OFFICIALS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
        • VIOLATION OF STATUTES……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
        • POSSE COMITATUS ACT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
        • VIOLATION OF AGENCY REGULATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
        • PROCEDURAL RULES CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
    • WARRANTLESS SEARCHES: SHIFT IN SUPREME COURT’S PHILOSOPHY (“ONLY A FEW NARROWLY DEFINED EXCEPTIONS”) HAS BEEN TRANSMOGRIFIED INTO “A WIDE RANGE OF DIVERSE …FLEXIBLE COMMON SENSE EXCEPTIONS” 23
    • EXCEPTIONS TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT: 23
      • PLAIN VIEW 23
        • PLACE FROM WHICH ITEM IS OBSERVED (NOT SUCH A PLAIN VIEW)…………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
        • “PLAIN VIEW” NEED NOT BE INADVERTENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
        • “IMMEDIATELY APPARENT” ITEM IN “PLAIN VIEW” IS EVIDENCE OF CRIME
        • …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24
        • AUDIO TAPES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
        • WRITINGS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
        • FIREARMS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
        • STEREO EQUIPMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
        • PLASTIC BAGS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
        • “PLAIN TOUCH” DOCTRINE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
        • “IMMEDIATELY APPARENT” MEANS NO MORE THAN “PROBABLE CAUSE” TO BELIEVE……………………………………………………………………….. 26
        • INVESTIGATION PRECLUDES “IMMEDIATELY APPARENT”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
        • SEARCH OF SEIZED ITEMS MAY STILL REQUIRE A WARRANT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
        • “FIELD TEST”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
      • EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES 29
        • DANGER TO LIVES OF OFFICERS OR OTHERS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
        • DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
        • HOT PURSUIT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
        • GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE ITS OWN EXIGENCY…………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
        • NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 30
      • SAFETY STATUTE MUST BE LIMITED TO ITS SAFETY PURPOSE: 31
        • PUBLIC SAFETY/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT:……………………………………………………………………….. 31
        • EMERGENCY EXCEPTION LIMITED TO SAFETY PURPOSE WARRANTING INITIAL INTRUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 31
        • NO MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
        • NO MEDICAL EMERGENCY BEYOND SCOPE OF MEDICAL NECESSITY: . 32
        • NO FIRE SAFETY EXCEPTION BEYOND FIRE SAFETY NEEDS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
        • DRUG TESTING CONSTITUTES A SEARCH:…………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
        • “…WELL MEANING BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
      • ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES 34
      • NO CIVIL FORFEITURE EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT 36
      • FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO SEARCHES, BY U.S. AGENTS, OF ALIEN’S PROPERTY IN FOREIGN COUNTRY: 36
    • REMEDY FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE IS MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND HEARING 37
      • PRE-INDICTMENT RETURN/SUPPRESSION OF SEIZED PROPERTY…………………………………………………………………………………….. 37
      • NECESSITY TO OBJECT AT TRIAL…………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
    • CHALLENGING THE WARRANT QUOTIENT FOR DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE 38
      • PROBABLE CAUSE IS STILL THE STANDARD……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
      • CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GO BEHIND FOUR CORNERS OF SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WHERE PRIMA FACIA SHOWING OF MISSTATEMENT MADE………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
        • OMISSIONS MAY CONSTITUTE MISREPRESENTATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
        • EVEN LITERAL TRUTHS MAY CONSTITUTE MISREPRESENTATION…………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
        • MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF WIRETAP STATUTE……………………………………………………………………….. 42
      • TO CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF A WARRANT THE DEFENDANT MUST………………………………………………………………………………….. 42
      • GOVERNMENT’S RIGHT TO GO BEHIND THE FOUR CORNERS TO SHORE UP PROBABLE CAUSE………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
      • CANNOT SUPPORT WITH POST-SEARCH TESTIMONY OF INFORMATION KNOWN TO OFFICERS AT TIME OF SEARCH………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
      • SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
      • FIRST AMENDMENT MATERIALS TO BE DESCRIBED WITH “SCRUPULOUS EXACTITUDE”………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
      • “NEW INFORMATION”……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
      • STALENESS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
      • “MOTION TO SUPPRESS” IS THE PROPER VEHICLE TO CHALLENGE THE VERACITY OF THE RECITALS IN A SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
      • EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
      • OFF-SITE SEARCHES, KEEPING ONLY WHAT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
      • SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
      • STATE SEARCH IN FEDERAL COURT……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
    • DIFFERENT TYPES OF SEARCHES 46
    • SEIZURES FROM THE PERSON: 47
      • PROBABLE CAUSE MUST BE INDIVIDUALIZED…………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
      • IMMIGRATION “FACTORY SURVEYS”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
      • CANNOT EVEN “FRISK” FOR WEAPONS WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION DIRECTED AT A PARTICULAR PERSON……………………………………………………………………….. 48
      • INFORMANTS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
      • SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST…………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
      • STRIP SEARCH OF TEMPORARY DETAINEES AND PRISONERS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 51
      • DEMAND THAT VISITORS COMING INTO A JAIL UNDERGO BODY CAVITY SEARCHES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL……………………………………………………………………….. 52
      • PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST OR SEARCH IS SUM OF SHARED INFORMATION
      • ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 52
      • MUST BE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OFFICERS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
      • SEIZURE OF BLOOD…………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
      • DRUG TESTING CONSTITUTES A SEARCH…………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
      • BODY CAVITY SEARCHES IN JAIL……………… Error! Bookmark not
      • BODILY INTRUSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
    • FROM AN AUTOMOBILE 53
      • REQUIREMENT OF A WARRANT FOR CONTAINERS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
      • BRIGHT LINE RULE: SEARCH INCIDENT TO AUTO ARREST…………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
      • NEW YORK BELTON’S “BRIGHT LINE RULE” GETTING DIMMER…………………………………………………………………………………….. 55
      • COURTS RETICENT TO ACCEPT POLICE JUSTIFICATION PRETEXT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 55
      • “CUSTODIAL ARREST” REQUIREMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 55
      • PROTECTIVE TERRY SEARCH OF VEHICLE’S PASSENGER COMPARTMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 57
      • INVESTIGATIVE STOP OF A MOTOR VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 58
      • SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT APPROVED…………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
      • MUST AN “INVENTORY SEARCH” BE LIMITED TO ITS PURPORTED PURPOSE? 59 INVENTORY SEARCH……………………………………………………………………….. 59
      • FROM AUTOMOBILE TO INVENTORY AND BACK AGAIN…………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
      • POLICE REGULATIONS REGARDING IMPOUNDING AND INVENTORYING VEHICLES……………………………………………………………………….. 60
      • MUST BE STANDARD POLICY OR REGULATION…………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
      • INFORMANT’S TIP MAY DISPATCH WITH WARRANT REQUIREMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
      • COMPOUNDING INFERENCES: ANONYMOUS TIP CORROBORATED BY INNOCENT ACTIVITY……………………………………………………………………….. 62
      • CONTAINERS NOT INSIDE A VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 62
      • “STATION HOUSE” INVENTORY…………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
      • RIGHT TO BE ADVISED OF ALTERNATIVES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
      • WHAT TYPE OF CONTAINERS ARE PROTECTED?…………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
    • FROM A MOTORCYCLE 65
    • FROM VESSELS 65
      • VESSELS ON THE HIGH SEAS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 66
      • FOREIGN VESSELS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 66
      • WHEN IS A VEHICLE/VESSEL A HOME…………………………………………………………………………………….. 66
      • AN AIRPLANE IS NOT AN AUTOMOBILE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
    • FROM PREMISES: 67
      • CONTAINERS WITHIN THE HOME…………………………………………………………………………………….. 67
      • STATE STATUTES MAY LIMIT WHAT ITEMS MAY BE SEARCHED FOR…………………………………………………………………………………….. 68
      • WARRANTLESS ENTRY AND SECURING OF HOME…………………………………………………………………………………….. 68
      • FORCIBLE ENTRY OF PREMISES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 70
      • KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE [18 S.C. 3109]…………………………………………………………………………………….. 70
      • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH “KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE” REQUIREMENT NOT EXCLUDED……………………………………………………………………….. 70
    • AT AIRPORTS 71
      • DRUG COURIER PROFILE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 71
      • MERELY APPROACHING INDIVIDUAL IN PUBLIC PLACE NOT FOURTH AMENDMENT “SEIZURE” AND THEREFORE REQUIRES NEITHER “PROBABLE CAUSE” NOR “REASONABLE SUSPICION”……………………………………………………………………….. 72
      • TAKING A JOG…………………………………………………………………………………….. 73
      • EVEN OFFICER’S STATEMENT “I’M A POLICEMAN”, WITHOUT MORE DOES NOT CONVERT THE ENCOUNTER INTO A SEIZURE……………………………………………………………………….. 73
      • NOR DOES BRIEFLY QUESTIONING PASSENGER AND REQUESTING CONSENT TO SEARCH CONVERT THE ENCOUNTER INTO A SEIZURE……………………………………………………………………….. 73
      • ACCUSATORY STATEMENT CONSTITUTES “SEIZURE”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
      • DEFENDANT MUST BE HALTED BEFORE HE IS SEIZED…………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
      • LENGTH OF STOP MUST BE BRIEF…………………………………………………………………………………….. 75
      • DETAINING LUGGAGE FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE……………………………………………………………………….. 76
      • ASKING PASSENGER TO ACCOMPANY OFFICER TO “OFFICE” CONSTITUTES AN ARREST……………………………………………………………………….. 77
      • STOPS AT TWO DIFFERENT AIRPORTS “PRESUMES” AN ARREST REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE……………………………………………………………………….. 77
      • EVEN WHERE INDIVIDUAL TRAVELING UNDER AN “ASSUMED NAME”, DRUG COURIER PROFILE ALONE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “PROBABLE CAUSE”……………………………………………………………………….. 78
      • FLIGHT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 78
      • EXPLOITATION OF AIRPORT SECURITY POINTS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 79
      • THREE LEVELS OF POLICE CITIZEN CONTACT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 79
      • FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO DETAIN INDIVIDUAL ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT……………………………………………………………………….. 79
      • RETURN TO McNABB/MALLORY RULE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 80
      • “DRUG COURIER PROFILE” DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “REASONABLE SUSPICION”
      • ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 80
    • AUTO “DRUG COURIER” STOPS 82
      • ADAPTING THE FACTS SOURCE OF DISTRIBUTION CITY…………………………………………………………………………………….. 83
      • FIRST/LAST OFF AIRCRAFT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 83
      • WALKING FAST OR WALKING SLOW…………………………………………………………………………………….. 83
      • NERVOUSNESS/CALMNESS DURING POLICE ENCOUNTER…………………………………………………………………………………….. 83
      • STARING AT NON-UNIFORMED OFFICERS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 84
      • DAMNED IF YOU DO – DAMNED IF YOU DON’T…………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
      • NERVOUSLY LOOKING AROUND…………………………………………………………………………………….. 85
      • “SUSPICIOUS MINDS” AT THE BORDER…………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
      • SUSPICIOUS TIMES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
      • DAYTIME…………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
      • NIGHTTIME…………………………………………………………………………………….. 86
      • RIDING HIGH OR RIDING LOW…………………………………………………………………………………….. 87
      • OUT-OF-STATE LICENSE PLATES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 87
      • OTHER SUSPICIOUS VEHICLES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 88
      • SUSPICIOUS MODUS OPERANDI…………………………………………………………………………………….. 88
      • SUSPICIOUS DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 88
      • SUSPICIOUS PASSENGERS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 89
      • SUSPICIOUS WAVE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 89
      • SUSPICIOUS ROADS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 89
      • SUSPICIOUS CHICKEN…………………………………………………………………………………….. 91
      • INVESTIGATIVE STOP AMOUNTS TO SEIZURE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 91
      • “DRUG PACKAGE PROFILE”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 91
    • BORDER SEARCHES 92
      • FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF THE BORDER…………………………………………………………………………………….. 92
      • FIXED CHECKPOINTS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 92
      • JUST ROUTINE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 92
      • BORDER PATROL STOP…………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
      • SEIZING DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
      • SPLIT IN CIRCUITS AS TO STANDARD [“REASONABLE SUSPICION” OR “CLEAR INDICATION” REQUIRED……………………………………………………………………….. 94
      • SUSPECT WHO REFUSES X-RAY MAY BE DETAINED UNTIL HE EXCRETES CONTRABAND……………………………………………………………………….. 94
      • BORDER FRISK…………………………………………………………………………………….. 95
      • LAPTOP COMPUTER SEARCHES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 95
      • BORDER EXIT SEARCHES…………………………………………………………………………………….. 95
    • SCHOOL SEARCHES 96
    • ONE’S CASTLE IS PARTICULARLY PROTECTED 96
      • THE “CURTILAGE” SURROUNDING A HOME IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA OF HEIGHTENED PROTECTION……………………………………………………………………….. 97
      • EVEN GREATER EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN ONE’S PERSON THAN ONE’S HOME……………………………………………………………………….. 98
      • REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY…………………………………………………………………………………….. 99
      • NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION…………………………………………………………………………………… 100
      • “NAKED EYE” STANDARD…………………………………………………………………………………… 101
      • “ENHANCED” OBSERVATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………… 101
      • VIDEO CAMERA SEARCH…………………………………………………………………………………… 102
      • GARBAGE…………………………………………………………………………………… 102
    • SEARCHES OF RURAL AREAS AND OPEN FIELDS 102
    • COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 102
    • GOVERNMENT OFFICES 103
      • PERVASIVELY REGULATED INDUSTRIES 103
    • FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS UNDER “SAFETY STATUTES” 103
      • SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT APPROVED:…………………………………………………………………………………… 103
    • CANINE SEARCHES: GOING TO THE DOGS 104
      • SNIFFING SCHOOL DOGS…………………………………………………………………………………… 105
      • THE UNTESTED CANINE NOSE…………………………………………………………………………………… 105
      • MARKONI HAS GONE TO THE DOGS…………………………………………………………………………………… 105
    • SEARCHES IMPLICATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT 106
    • CONSENT 107
      • SCOPE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 108
      • CONSENT OF CUSTODIAL ARRESTEE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 108
      • CONSENT FOLLOWING ILLEGAL ARREST……………………………………………………………………………………………… 109
      • DEMONSTRATION OF ATTENUATION……………………………………………………………………………………………… 109
      • POISONED FRUIT DEEMED PALATABLE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 110
      • CONSENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD OR TRICKERY……………………………………………………………………………………………… 110
      • HANDCUFFS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 110
      • DRAWN GUNS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 111
      • ATTACKING POLICE DOGS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 111
      • THIRD PARTY CONSENT……………………………………………………………………………………………… 111
      • APPARENT AUTHORITY TO CONSENT……………………………………………………………………………………………… 111
      • TODDLER UNAUTHORIZED TO CONSENT TO SEARCH OF PARENT’S BEDROOM
      • ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 112
      • SPOUSAL CONSENT……………………………………………………………………………………………… 112
      • CONSENT OF MINORS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 112
      • CONSENT SOUGHT AFTER REQUEST FOR COUNSEL [EDWARDS V. ARIZONA] 112 CONSENT TO SOBRIETY TEST VS. RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE WITH COUNSEL 113 VIDEOTAPED ANSWERS TO POLICE SOBRIETY QUESTIONS………………………………………………………………………………… 113
    • STANDING 114
    • WHO IS PERSON AGGRIEVED? 115
      • ALIEN…………………………………………………………………………………… 115
      • OWNER OF PREMISES…………………………………………………………………………………… 115
      • OWNERSHIP OF ITEM ENTRUSTED TO ANOTHER…………………………………………………………………………………… 115
      • NO PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN DWELLING…………………………………………………………………………………… 116
      • LESSEE…………………………………………………………………………………… 117
      • FAILURE TO ASSERT INTEREST…………………………………………………………………………………… 117
      • FAILURE TO PAY RENT…………………………………………………………………………………… 117
      • MOTEL ROOMS…………………………………………………………………………………… 118
      • MOTEL GUEST’S EXPECTATIONS AFTER CHECKOUT TIME…………………………………………………………………………………… 118
      • MOTEL ROOMS AND EAVESDROPPING NEIGHBORS…………………………………………………………………………………… 118
      • OVERNIGHT TRAIN BERTHS…………………………………………………………………………………… 119
      • CORPORATE OFFICES…………………………………………………………………………………… 119
      • OWNER OF VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………… 119
      • POSSESSOR OF VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………… 120
      • RESURRECTING STANDING FROM ITS SUPINE POSITION BROWER v. INYO & PENNSYLVANIA BRUDER. (“A WORD MEANS WHAT WE WANT IT TO MEAN”)
      • ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 120
      • RENTAL VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………… 121
      • “JOINT VENTURE” OR “CO-CONSPIRATOR” STANDING…………………………………………………………………………………… 122
      • NON-OWNER OF VEHICLE, NOT PRESENT AT SEARCH…………………………………………………………………………………… 122
      • POSSESSORY INTEREST IN DRUGS WILL CONFER STANDING…………………………………………………………………………………… 122
      • LIEN INTEREST IN PROPERTY…………………………………………………………………………………… 123
      • ADDRESSEE & ADDRESSOR BOTH HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST SEARCH OF PACKAGE IN POSSESSION OF COMMON CARRIER……………………………………………………………………… 123
      • DRIVER OF VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………… 123
      • PASSENGER OF VEHICLE…………………………………………………………………………………… 123
      • TAXI CABS…………………………………………………………………………………… 123
      • LEGITIMATELY ON PREMISES…………………………………………………………………………………… 124
      • PUBLIC PLACES…………………………………………………………………………………… 124
      • POSSESSORY INTEREST IN ITEMS SEIZED…………………………………………………………………………………… 124
      • CHECKED BAGGAGE…………………………………………………………………………………… 125
      • CHARGED WITH “POSSESSORY CRIME”…………………………………………………………………………………… 125
      • “AUTOMATIC STANDING” NOT DEAD, JUST RESTING…………………………………………………………………………………… 125
      • TESTIMONY BY THE ACCUSED…………………………………………………………………………………… 125
      • FAILURE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SIMMONS MAY BE CONSIDERED…………………………………………………………………………………… 126
      • STIPULATION AS TO STANDING…………………………………………………………………………………… 126
      • STANDING MAY NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL…………………………………………………………………………………… 126
      • DETERMINATION OF LEGALITY OF STOP OR SEARCH IN PRIOR PROCEEDING MAY “COLLATERAL ESTOP” RECONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE IN SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION:……………………………………………………………………… 127
      • VICE OF PROSECUTORIAL SELF-CONTRADICTION…………………………………………………………………………………… 127
    • ABANDONMENT 128
      • FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE (AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY REQUIREMENT)……………………………………………………………………… 129
      • EXPLICIT LABEL ON CONTAINER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABANDONMENT OF PRIVACY EXPECTATION……………………………………………………………………… 129
      • SINGLE PURPOSE CONTAINERS…………………………………………………………………………………… 130
      • NO NEED TO MAKE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP…………………………………………………………………………………… 130
    • TAINTED EVIDENCE 130
      • FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 130
      • TANGIBLE EVIDENCE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 131
      • INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 131
      • INDEPENDENT SOURCE DOCTRINE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 131
        • GOVERNMENT HAS BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW “INDEPENDENT SOURCE” OF DISCOVERY OF OTHERWISE TAINTED EVIDENCE……………………………………………………………………… 133
        • DISSIPATION OF “TAINT”…………………………………………………………………………………… 133
        • NO “INEVITABLE DISCOVERY” OR “INDEPENDENT SOURCE” EXCEPTION UNDER TEXAS STATUTE……………………………………………………………………… 133
      • IDENTIFICATION……………………………………………………………………………………………… 133
      • ILLEGAL FRUITS AS PROBABLE CAUSE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 133
    • CONFESSIONS 134
      • CONFESSION OBTAINED BY EXPLOITATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION: 134
        • BURDEN OF PROOF…………………………………………………………………………………… 134
        • WITNESS’ STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY…………………………………………………………………………………… 134
    • “CUSTODIAL” INTERROGATION: 135
      • BADGE BEARING CELLMATE…………………………………………………………………………………… 136
      • OVERHEARD CONVERSATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………… 137
      • SILENCE IS GOLDEN…………………………………………………………………………………… 138
      • DIFFERENT RULE APPLIED TO SILENCE UNDER TEXAS CONSTITUTION…………………………………………………………………………………… 138
      • PROTECTED PLEA NEGOTIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………… 138
      • THE FORMER EXCULPATORY “NO” DOCTRINE…………………………………………………………………………………… 139
      • MIRANDA APPLICABLE TO BORDER PATROL ARRESTS…………………………………………………………………………………… 139
      • COERCED CONFESSIONS TO PRIVATE CITIZENS…………………………………………………………………………………… 139
      • CONGRESS CANNOT CHANGE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR MIRANDA WARNINGS……………………………………………………………………… 139
      • MIRANDA VIOLATION TAINTS PROBABLE CAUSE…………………………………………………………………………………… 140
    • INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY EXPLOITATION OF VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL 141
      • POLICE MUST NOTIFY ATTORNEY ONCE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL HAS ATTACHED……………………………………………………………………… 142
      • STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY VIOLATION OF A DISCIPLINARY RULE…………………………………………………………………………………… 142
      • STATEMENTS INDUCED BY POLICE PROMISES…………………………………………………………………………………… 143
      • FOREIGN CONFESSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………… 144
      • MIRANDA CANNOT GIVETH AND TAKETH AWAY…………………………………………………………………………………… 144
      • REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL…………………………………………………………………………………… 144
      • ONCE INVOKED, FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL CANNOT BE WAIVED WITHOUT COUNSEL’S PRESENCE……………………………………………………………………… 145
      • PRESENCE OF COUNSEL SERVES TO INSURE TRUSTWORTHINESS…………………………………………………………………………………… 146
      • REQUEST BY THIRD PARTY…………………………………………………………………………………… 147
      • AMBIGUOUS REQUEST FOR COUNSEL…………………………………………………………………………………… 147
      • SIXTH AMENDMENT “RIGHT TO COUNSEL” MORE EASILY INVOKED THAN FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT……………………………………………………………………… 148
      • PER SE EXCLUSION OF EDWARDS V. ARIZONA APPLIES WHEN RIGHT TO COUNSEL HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY INVOKED……………………………………………………………………… 149
      • RETROACTIVITY OF EDWARDS…………………………………………………………………………………… 149
      • PER SE RULE BECOMES PRESUMPTIVE…………………………………………………………………………………… 150
      • EVEN VOLUNTEERED STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED…………………………………………………………………………………… 150
      • CANNOT OBTAIN WAIVER FROM ACCUSED “UNDER THE INFLUENCE”…………………………………………………………………………………… 150
      • WAIVER BY MENTALLY RETARDED ACCUSED MUST BE MADE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY……………………………………………………………………… 150
      • SNITCHING CELLMATE…………………………………………………………………………………… 150
      • RESURRECTION OF McNABB/MALLORY RULE…………………………………………………………………………………… 151
    • REMEDY FOR FIFTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED CONFESSION IS MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND HEARING: 151
    • “IMPEACHMENT” USE OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE 152
    • ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE 153
      • FORM OVER SUBSTANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 153
      • PEN REGISTER……………………………………………………………………………………………… 153
      • OTHER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 154
      • BURDEN OF PROOF……………………………………………………………………………………………… 154
      • ELECTRONIC TRACKING DEVICES (“BEEPERS”)……………………………………………………………………………………………… 154
      • INSTALLATION: EXTERIOR OF VEHICLE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 155
      • INSTALLATION: INTERIOR OF VEHICLE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 155
      • INTERIOR OF PARCEL……………………………………………………………………………………………… 155
      • MONITORING: SIGNAL EMITTED FROM INSIDE A “ZONE OF PRIVACY” AND REVEALS FACTS OTHERWISE NOT LEGALLY OBTAINABLE WITHOUT A WARRANT………………………………………………………………………………… 156
      • MONITORING: SIGNAL EMITTED FROM INSIDE A “ZONE OF PRIVACY” BUT REVEALS ONLY FACTS WHICH CAN BE LEGALLY OBTAINED WITHOUT A WARRANT………………………………………………………………………………… 156
      • DURATION OF TRACKING……………………………………………………………………………………………… 157
      • STANDING TO CONTEST INSTALLATION……………………………………………………………………………………………… 158
      • USE OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF WIRETAP APPLICATION………………………………………………………………………………… 158
      • DEFENDANT AS EAVESDROPPER……………………………………………………………………………………………… 159
    • PERSONS ON PROBATION: 160
      • PROBATIONER’S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 160
      • PROBATIONERS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS……………………………………………………………………………………………… 160
(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact