Search & Seizure
Government action, a privacy interest, then the warrant question—and since most searches happen without one, the exceptions are where the exam lives.
The suppression path
Evidence found; defendant moves to suppress
Work the gates in order.
Government action—police or their agent?
No Fourth Amendment problem. Private snooping isn't covered.
Did it invade the defendant's OWN reasonable expectation of privacy?
No standing—can't suppress a search of someone else's stuff, or of what was knowingly exposed.
Valid warrant—or a warrant exception?
Search is good; the evidence comes in.
Does an exclusionary-rule escape hatch save the evidence?
Independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, good faith, impeachment use.
Suppressed—plus its fruits
The poisonous tree drops its apples.
Standing: whose privacy?
A “search” invades a reasonable expectation of privacy—and only the person whose expectation it was may object. Overnight guests have standing in the host's home; a passenger usually has none in someone else's car (though anyone stopped can challenge the stop itself).
- The home and its curtilage—porches, fenced yards
- Hotel rooms, overnight-guest status
- Luggage contents, phone contents (Riley)
- Long-term cell-site location data (Carpenter)
- Open fields—even posted and fenced
- Garbage at the curb; what's visible from public airspace
- Handwriting, voice, paint on the car's exterior
- Most records voluntarily given to third parties (bank records)
Police root through Liv's curbside trash and find the shredded ledgers—no search, no suppression. They read her phone at arrest without a warrant—Riley says suppress.
The warrant—and its cures
A valid warrant needs probable cause (fair probability, totality of the circumstances—informant tips judged as a whole), particularity as to place and things, and a neutral, detached magistrate. Execution: knock-and-announce (though its violation doesn't trigger exclusion), and detain occupants on site during the search.
The warrant exceptions
| Exception | Scope & limits | 🐚 Example |
|---|---|---|
| Search incident to arrest | Lawful custodial arrest → wingspan; cars: only if arrestee is unsecured or evidence of the arrest crime may be inside (Gant); phones need a warrant | Arrested Liv's jacket pockets—yes; her locked phone—no |
| Automobile | Probable cause → the whole car + any container that could hold the item, including passengers' bags | PC that Rosa's trunk holds stolen espresso machines—search it all |
| Plain view | Lawful vantage point + immediately apparent contraband + lawful access | The baggie on Noodle's passenger seat during a valid stop |
| Consent | Voluntary; scope as a reasonable person would read it; co-occupant's consent fails against a present objector | Roommate Lana can consent to the common room—not while Liv stands there saying no |
| Terry stop & frisk | Reasonable suspicion → brief stop; frisk for weapons only, on suspicion of danger; plain-feel contraband OK | The patdown that turns up a pistol—in; manipulating a soft lump to “identify” it—out |
| Exigent circumstances | Hot pursuit, evanescent evidence, emergency aid | Chasing fleeing Noodle into the apartment |
| Inventory | Impounded car or booking search, per standardized policy | The lot inventory that finds the gun in Liv's glovebox |
The exclusionary rule—and its escape hatches
Independent source: the evidence also came through an untainted path. Inevitable discovery: they'd have found it anyway. Attenuation: time, intervening events (a valid arrest warrant discovered mid-stop—Strieff), and less flagrant misconduct dissipate the taint. Good faith: reasonable reliance on a facially valid warrant later held defective (Leon)—but not one so bare-bones no officer could trust it. Impeachment: illegally seized evidence may still contradict the defendant's own testimony. And exclusion doesn't apply in grand jury, civil, or parole proceedings.
An illegal peek into Noodle's garage spots the stolen machines; police then get a warrant based ONLY on an earlier informant tip—independent source, the machines come in. No tip? If a canvass already underway would have reached the garage, inevitable discovery does the same work.
MBE order: government action → standing (the most-skipped step) → warrant or exception → exclusionary escape hatches. Half the wrong answers give a defendant standing to complain about someone else's rights—check WHOSE privacy was invaded before anything else.
Where the points are
The traps examiners actually set.
- Most tested
- Standing (passengers, guests, other people's premises); the automobile exception's container reach; Gant's limits on car searches incident to arrest; good faith and attenuation.
- Classic traps
- Suppressing for a defendant without standing; searching a phone incident to arrest; a frisk exploring for drugs (weapons only); open fields treated as curtilage; co-occupant consent over a present objector; using exclusion in grand jury proceedings.
Keep going: 4th Amendment flowchart Criminal Procedure Attack Sequences Miranda MEE guide