Understanding Your Fourth Amendment Rights

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This fundamental right ensures that law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant, supported by probable cause, before conducting most searches and seizures. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as the automobile exception, which allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

Grounds for Challenging a Warrant

Challenges to a warrant typically fall into two distinct categories:

1. Police Misconduct: Did police lie or omit enough information to invalidate the warrant?

When police lie or omit information when requesting a warrant, you have the opportunity to demand a Franks hearing.

Franks Hearing: In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that an evidentiary hearing is required when it can be shown that an officer lied or omitted critical information necessary for establishing probable cause.

Presenting Evidence: At a Franks hearing, you are allowed to question the officer and present evidence to challenge the factual statements made in the search warrant affidavit. Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865, 870 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on reh’g, 21 N.E.3d 840 (2014).

Invalidating the Warrant: A warrant is invalid if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence (at least 50.1 percent chance) that the officer’s written affidavits contained lies or demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth, and the remaining affidavit does not contain sufficient material to constitute probable cause. Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1136 (Ind. 2003).

2. Judicial Error: Did the judge make a reversible mistake in granting the warrant due to insufficient evidence linking to probable cause of a crime?

When a judge makes a mistake in granting a warrant without enough evidence, you can file a motion to suppress the evidence.

• Probable Cause Requirement: The Constitution mandates that a judge or magistrate may issue a warrant only with probable cause, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
• Defining Probable Cause: The Indiana Supreme Court explained that probable cause is difficult to define and cannot be “reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Marshall v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1254, 1261 (Ind. 2019).
• Link to Criminal Activity: In the context of overturning a warrant, the Fourth Amendment is violated when the warrant affidavit fails to “link” the object of the search with criminal activity. Heuring v. State, 140 N.E.3d 270, 274 (Ind. 2020).
• Conclusive Statements and Hearsay: Conclusory statements alone cannot support probable cause. Additionally, not all hearsay amounts to probable cause. There must be reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and a factual basis for the information provided. Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(b)(1).
• Totality of Circumstances: A probable cause affidavit must contain information that, under the totality of the circumstances, corroborates the hearsay.
• Reasonable Officer Standard: If a reasonable officer should not have relied on the affidavit, the search violated the Fourth Amendment, and the good faith exception to the warrant requirement would not apply.

Detailed Analysis of Suppression Law

The Fourth Amendment and Its Protections

The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This amendment is a cornerstone of American civil liberties, ensuring that individuals are protected from arbitrary intrusions by the government. The requirement for a warrant, supported by probable cause, is a critical safeguard against abuse of power.

The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy used to deter law enforcement from violating constitutional rights. Under this rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally inadmissible in court. This principle was established in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), and later applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

The exclusionary rule serves two primary purposes:

1. Deterrence: By excluding illegally obtained evidence, the rule discourages law enforcement from engaging in unconstitutional conduct.

2. Judicial Integrity: The rule ensures that courts do not become complicit in constitutional violations by admitting tainted evidence.

The Good Faith Exception

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule was established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Under this exception, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may still be admissible if law enforcement officers acted in good faith, believing their actions were lawful.

The good faith exception applies in several scenarios, including:

• Reliance on a Defective Warrant: If officers rely on a warrant that is later found to be invalid, the evidence may still be admissible if the officers acted in good faith.
• Clerical Errors: Evidence obtained due to clerical errors, such as mistakes in record-keeping, may be admissible if the officers acted in good faith.

However, the good faith exception does not apply if:

• The officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing the warrant affidavit.
• The magistrate abandoned their judicial role.
• The warrant was so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on it.

Franks v. Delaware and the Franks Hearing

In Franks v. Delaware, the Supreme Court established the right to a hearing to challenge the validity of a warrant affidavit. A Franks hearing is warranted if the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that:

1. The affidavit contains false statements or omissions.
2. The false statements or omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth.
3. The false statements or omissions were necessary to the finding of probable cause.

If the defendant meets this burden, the court will hold a Franks hearing to determine whether the warrant should be invalidated and the evidence suppressed.

Case Law and Practical Applications

Heuring v. State

In Heuring v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court emphasized the importance of linking the object of the search with criminal activity. The court held that a warrant affidavit must provide a substantial basis for concluding that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. Conclusory statements and uncorroborated hearsay are insufficient to establish probable cause.

Jones v. State

In Jones v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of police misconduct in obtaining a warrant. The court held that a warrant is invalid if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer’s affidavit contained false statements or omissions made with reckless disregard for the truth, and that the remaining affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause.

Marshall v. State

In Marshall v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court discussed the difficulty of defining probable cause. The court noted that probable cause is a fluid concept that cannot be reduced to a set of legal rules. Instead, it requires a practical, common-sense evaluation of the totality of the circumstances.

Practical Steps for Challenging a Warrant

Filing a Motion to Suppress

To challenge the validity of a warrant and seek suppression of evidence, the defendant must file a motion to suppress. This motion should include:

• A detailed description of the evidence to be suppressed.
• The legal grounds for suppression, including any alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment.
• Supporting evidence, such as affidavits, witness statements, and relevant case law.

Requesting a Franks Hearing

If the defendant believes that the warrant affidavit contains false statements or omissions, they can request a Franks hearing. The request should include:

• A substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contains false statements or omissions.
• Evidence that the false statements or omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth.
• An explanation of how the false statements or omissions were necessary to the finding of probable cause.

Presenting Evidence at the Hearing

At the suppression hearing or Franks hearing, the defendant has the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. This may include:

• Testimony from the officer who prepared the warrant affidavit.
• Evidence challenging the credibility of the officer’s statements.
• Expert testimony on the reliability of the evidence.

Conclusion

Understanding your rights and the legal grounds for challenging a search or seizure is crucial in protecting your Fourth Amendment rights. If you believe that your rights have been violated, it is essential to seek legal advice and explore the options available for challenging the evidence obtained through a potentially unlawful search. For more information or legal assistance, contact Josiah Swinney directly at 317-753-7134 for a free consultation about any criminal matter in Indiana.