3.2 Constitutional Criminal Procedure: Searches, Miranda & Counsel

🎯 Essential Doctrinal Takeaways

• The Fourth Amendment does not protect open fields outside the curtilage, even if police commit a civil trespass (Oliver v. United States).
• Under the automobile exception (United States v. Ross), probable cause permits a warrantless search of the entire vehicle, including the trunk.
• Under Davis v. United States, an invocation of the Miranda right to counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal; police need not clarify ambiguities.
• The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific; attachment for one crime does not bar questioning on separate uncharged offenses (Texas v. Cobb).

The Fourth Amendment guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search occurs when the government infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz) or physically intrudes upon a constitutionally protected area (Jones). Curtilage is protected, but open fields (pastures, woods) enjoy no Fourth Amendment privacy, even if fenced or posted.

Warrant exceptions include search incident to arrest (SITA), plain view, consent, exigent circumstances, and the automobile exception. Under United States v. Ross, if officers have probable cause to believe a readily mobile vehicle contains contraband, they may search any area of the vehicle—including locked trunks and closed containers—capable of concealing it.

The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation (Miranda). Invocations of counsel must be unambiguous under Davis v. United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only upon formal indictment or arraignment and is strictly offense-specific under Texas v. Cobb.

⚠️ NextGen Bar Examination Traps & Pitfalls

• Confusing search incident to arrest limitations (Arizona v. Gant) with the independent automobile exception based on probable cause.
• Believing an equivocal statement like 'Maybe I need a lawyer' requires police to stop questioning under Miranda.
• Assuming that retaining an attorney for a charged crime bars police questioning on completely separate uncharged offenses.