Crim 6 Ch 5

The plain-view doctrine first emerged from the Supreme Court's decision in which case?

Coolidge v. New Hampshire > The plain-view doctrine first emerged in the Supreme Court's decision in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971).

search incident to arrest

An exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows officers to search a suspect following his or her arrest.

automobile exception

An exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant, so long as they have probable cause to do so.

"plain view" doctrine

An exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that permits police to seize certain items in plain view.

Exigent Circumstances

Emergency circumstances, including hot pursuit, the possibility of escape, or evanescent evidence. When exigent circumstances are present, the police do not need to abide by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

Evanescent Evidence

Evidence that is likely to disappear. An example is alcohol in a person's bloodstream.

Hot Pursuit

An exigent circumstance that permits dispensing with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Hot pursuit applies only when the police have probable cause to believe (1) that the person they are pursuing has committed a serious offense; (2) that the person will be found on the premises the police seek to enter; and (3) that the suspect will escape or harm someone or that evidence will be lost or destroyed. Also, the pursuit must originate from a lawful vantage point and the scope and timing of the search must be reasonable.

Which best explains the rationale behind the automobile exception to warrantless searches?

Automobiles operate on public spaces > In Cardwell v. Lewis (1974), the Court reasoned that people's reasonable expectation of privacy is lowered as vehicles typically operate in public spaces. People have a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile because it serves a transportation function, not a privacy function; a car "seldom serves as one's residence or the repository of personal effects."

In which scenario can an officer justify a warrantless arrest due to an exigent circumstance?

Calvin, a suspect in a murder case, is chased into his house by the police. < Since Calvin is trying to escape the authorities, it would be considered an exigent circumstance. A warrantless arrest, with probable cause, is permissible if any of the following is present: (1) hot pursuit, (2) danger to officers, (3) danger to third parties, (4) escape, and (5) destruction of evidence.

Officer Jackson stopped a car on the freeway as the driver appeared to have fallen asleep while driving. As he approached the vehicle, he saw what appeared to be the butt of a rifle being pushed under the seat by the driver. He asked the driver to step out of the car while he searched the vehicle and found a wooden log under the passenger seat. Which justifies the police officer's actions?

Fear for safety > Based on the levels of justification for automobile searches, a search of the passenger compartment for weapons is justified by reasonable suspicion/fear for safety. As Officer Jackson suspected that a weapon was hidden under the seat, he feared for his own safety. This justifies his decision to search the passenger compartment of the car for weapons.

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

Law enforcement actions that do not require a warrant. Examples include searches incident to arrest, searches based on exigent circumstances, automobile searches, plain view searches, arrests based on exigent circumstances, and arrests in public places.

Lawful access

One of the requirements for a proper plain view seizure. The police must have lawful access to the item seized

immediately apparent

One of the requirements for a proper plain view seizure. The police must have probable cause that the item is subject to seizure

armspan rule

Part of the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows officers to search not only the suspect incident to arrest, but also his or her "grabbing area."

Devon is pulled over for driving 95 mph in a 60 mph zone of an interstate highway. He was arrested and taken into custody, and his car was towed to a county impound lot. The next day, the arresting officers searched Devon's car and found a small amount of marijuana and a knife. Which court decision renders this search unconstitutional?

Preston v. United States (1964) > In Preston v. United States, it was determined that for a search after arrest to be constitutional, it must have taken place soon after the arrest. The decision noted that "justifications are absent where a search is remote in time or place from the arrest." In the scenario described, Devon is already in custody and his car has been impounded, meaning any immediate danger to officers is absent.

Which scenario is legal and constitutional, with respect to the Supreme Court decision in Riley v. California (2014)?

Sam is arrested when he is pulled over for a minor traffic violation due to an outstanding warrant stemming from failure to appear in court for a speeding ticket several years prior. The arresting officer believes that Sam looks like a suspect in an armed robbery case earlier that month. After searching Sam's car and taking Sam into custody, he obtains a search warrant to look through Sam's phone. > As per the decision in Riley v. California, an arresting officer may not search an individual's cell phone without a search warrant. The arresting officer in the scenario described follows the proper protocol and obtains a warrant to search the phone.

Which is true regarding warrantless arrests?

Serious offences committed out of an officer's view permit a public, warrantless arrest. > Serious offenses committed out of the officer's view permit a warrantless, public arrest, provided that probable cause exists.

Which statements is true of the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement?

The police must begin hot pursuit from a lawful starting point. > The police must begin hot pursuit from a lawful starting point. If officers are unlawfully on someone's private property, they will not succeed in claiming hot pursuit to justify any further warrantless action.

racial profiling

The practice of stopping people based on race rather than legitimate criteria.

Which is true of arrests made in public places?

They require probable cause. > Arrests made in public places require probable cause.

Officers Rich and Asa obtained a warrant to arrest Lisa and her accomplice. They arrived at her residence and served the warrant. Officer Asa remained in the living room with Lisa while Officer Rich checked if Lisa's accomplice was hiding in any of the other rooms in the house. Narcotics were found on a desk in another room during the search. This was used as evidence against Lisa when the case went to trial. Which is true of the evidence obtained by Officer Rich?

The evidence is permissible as it was in plain view and obtained while performing a protective sweep. > In Maryland v. Buie (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that the police may, as part of a search incident to arrest, look in areas immediately adjoining the place of arrest for other persons who might attack the officers.

An individual's ________ can be considered as evanescent evidence that permits a warrantless search.

blood-alcohol level > A good example of vanishing or disappearing evidence inside a person is alcohol in the blood.

James, a 20-year-old, was taken into custody for fleeing the scene of an accident. The officers took a sample of his blood to check his blood-alcohol level. They performed the test without a warrant and found his blood-alcohol concentration to be much higher than the permissible limit. The police can perform the test without a warrant because ________.

blood-alcohol level is considered to be evanescent evidence The police's actions are justified due to the nature of the evidence. > Evanescent evidence is evidence that is likely to disappear. An example is alcohol in a person's bloodstream.

A(n) ________ is a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding.

protective sweep > A protective sweep is a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding.

The containers inside a car and the car's trunk can be searched without a warrant when ________.

there is probable cause to search > Search of the entire car, including the containers, is permissible if it is justified by probable cause to search.

Protective Sweep

A cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding.

disparate impact

A method of acting that treats one group in a markedly different fashion than another

They require probable cause. Arrests made in public places require probable cause.

A police officer arresting Tanya after spotting her shoplifting and attempting to escape > A warrantless arrest, with probable cause, is permissible if any of the following is present: (1) hot pursuit, (2) danger to officers, (3) danger to third parties, (4) escape, and (5) destruction of evidence.

Which illustrates a lawful vantage point in regards to the purposes of the plain-view doctrine?

A police officer had a warrant and was searching for a set of clothes in a suspect's house when he found an illegal weapon in a cupboard and seized it. > The police officer was searching for clothes as described in the warrant and is therefore legally permitted to seize the illegal weapon. This illustrates the role of inadvertency in the plain-view doctrine.

Which allows officers to search not only the suspect incident to arrest, but also his or her "grabbing area?"

The armspan rule > The armspan rule is part of the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows officers to search not only the suspect incident to arrest, but also his or her "grabbing area."

Which is true about a search that is incident to an arrest?

The arrest must result in a person being taken into custody > Any arrest justifies a warrantless search incident to that arrest. A key restriction, however, is that the arrest must result in a person being taken into custody.

The police department in Carl's hometown has been on the lookout for the person responsible for the brutal assault of Freddie. Carl is one of the key suspects in the case and was the last person to see Freddie before he was attacked. The police obtained an arrest warrant and arrested Carl at his residence, where he lived alone. They also seized a painting that Carl was reframing when they entered his residence as evidence. On further examination, the police discovered that the painting had belonged to Freddie. Which can Carl's attorney use to have the painting excluded from evidence?

The immediately apparent requirement > For the plain-view doctrine to apply, the immediately apparent requirement must be met. This means that it must be immediately apparent that the object is subject to seizure. As the police did not know that the painting belonged to Freddie when they arrested Carl, the evidence can be excluded.

Preston is pulled over for running a stop sign. The officer arrests him, searches his car, and finds several items that were reported stolen from a retail store earlier that day. While in custody, Preston argues with the officer that his arrest will "never stand up in court" because the officer violated his constitutional rights. Which is most likely to happen once Preston goes to trial?

The judge will rule that Preston's arrest and subsequent warrantless search are permissible, as his arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. > The Supreme Court has declared that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid warrantless arrests for minor criminal offenses, such as misdemeanor traffic violations. In the given scenario, the police officer did not violate Preston's Fourth Amendment rights and it is most likely that the arrest and search will be permissible.

Officer Ray was patrolling a neighborhood when he saw Damien, a member of a crime syndicate, enter his residence with what appeared to be an assault rifle. Officer Ray did not see anyone else enter the house with Damien and believed that Damien had not spotted him. He entered the house after Damien and seized the illegal weapon. Officer Ray claims that the seizure was constitutional as the weapon was in plain view. Which of the following is Damien's attorney likely to use as a basis to have the evidence excluded?

The lawful access requirement > For the plain-view doctrine to apply, the police must have lawful access to the object to be seized. As Officer Ray had probable cause but cannot show exigent circumstances, he did not have lawful access to Damien's residence.

What does it mean to say that it must be "immediately apparent" that an object in plain view is subject to seizure?

The officer has probable cause to seize the object > Immediately apparent means that the officer has probable cause to seize the object.

________ is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that permits police to seize evidence that is visible without a search warrant.

The plain-view doctrine > The plain-view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that permits police to seize certain items in plain view.

Justin lives in a rowhome on a busy street. One evening, a police officer on patrol drives by Justin's home and sees Justin making a drug deal on his front stoop. The officer pulls over and gets out of his car. When Justin sees the police officer coming towards him, he runs into his home. Which court decision permits the police officer to enter Justin's home and arrest him without a warrant?

United States v. Santana > In United States v. Santana (1976), it was determined that if police have probable cause—in this case, viewing an illegal activity taking place in a public area—they are permitted to enter a private residence and arrest an individual without a warrant. This is because the illegal activity took place an in an area where there was no expectation of privacy (i.e., on the front stoop of a home on a busy street).