Nc court intimidating witness
“[S]uppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.”“In the absence of an allegation that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.” (1979) (144) held that ER req’d suppression of evidence obtained in a search carried out pursuant to a statute subsequently held unconstitutional when the statute, by its own terms, authorized searches under circumstances that didn’t satisfy the traditional warrant and PC req’ts of 4 Notwithstanding the magistrate’s issueance of the warrant, the question is whether a reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner’s position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.s retain an expectation of privacy in the ‘waste heat’ radiated from their home but, rather, whether they possess an expectation of privacy in the heat signatures of the activities, intimate or otherwise, that they pursue within their home.” (1921) (174) held that search warrants may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man’s house solely for purpose of making search to secure evidence; must have a primary right to the property to be seized.
Application didn’t set forth any underlying circumstances on which magistrate could independently judge validity of informant’s conclusion, and officers didn’t attempt to support the credibility or reliability of informant.
Within seven months of Katz, Congress passed Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, granting law enforcement officials extensive powers to conduct wiretapping and electronic surveillance.§ 2518(5) of Title III requires every order to contain a provision that the authorization to intercept “be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception.”An evaluation of compliance w/ the minimization req’t should be based on the objective reasonableness of the actual interceptions, in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the agents, and not on whether the agents’ subjectively intended to minimize their interceptions.
Although Title III had been designed to constitute a blanket prohibition against electronic surveillance, subject to narrowly tailored statutory exceptions, Dalia suggests that the law conferred a general grant of authority subject to narrowly tailored prohibitions.
Students in schools have reduced expectation of privacy, and the expectations of athletes are even less; minimum privacy invasion; fight drug problem by reducing the “role model” effect of athletes’ use.
On the theory that escape was virtually impossible—and that there was no evidence that the suspect was a danger to anyone in the apt—Ct held that police should have waited for warrant; no exigent circumstances.
NY Ct of App held that a “warrantless search of the zippered pockets of an unaccessible jacket may not be upheld as a search incident to a lawful arrest where there is no longer any danger that the arrestee…
might gain access to the article.” Inventory of locked suitcase found in an impounded vehicle was unlawful under Bertine b/c “the Fla.
Highway Patrol had no policy whatever w/ respect to the opening of closed containers encountered during an inventory search.”There must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe he is dealing w/ armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has PC to arrest the individual for a crime.