Arrest Search & Seizure

Payton v New York

was a United States Supreme Court case concerning warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant. The court, however, did specify that an arrest warrant (as opposed to a search warrant) would have sufficed for entry into the suspect's residence if there had been reason to believe that the suspect was within the home.

Brinegar v United States

was a United States Supreme Court case employing the "reasonableness test" in warrantless searches. The Court held that while the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.

Maryland v Shatzer

was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under Edwards v. Arizona ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody. The ruling distinguished Edwards, which had not specified a limit.

US v Mendenhall

was a United States Supreme Court case that determined "seizure" occurs when an officer uses displays of authority to detain a person.

Arizona v Gant

was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Carroll v United States

was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of warrantless search.

Creager v State 1997

No written statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is admissible as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the face of the statement that he received Miranda warnings.

Miranda V Arizona

Requires peace officers to advise persons in custody prior to interrogation that they have a right to an attorney and if they can't afford an attorney one will be appointed to represent them

Terry v Ohio

Stop and frisk

Dyar v. State

The courts will analyze the issue of whether or not the place is suspicious for CCP 14.03 on a case by case basis. It is "highly fact-specific analysis". The time frame between the crime and the apprehension of the suspect in a suspicious place is short

Brigham city, Utah v. Smart

is a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is or is about to be seriously injured.

Steagald v. United States

is a United States Supreme Court case which held that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not conduct a warrantless search of a third party's home in an attempt to apprehend the subject of an arrest warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances.[1]

Kentucky v. King

peace officers cannot create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the fourth amendment

Beck v. Ohio

"If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protection of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate.... people would be secure in their persons, houses....only at discretion of the police. The probable cause test, then, is the objective one; for there to be probable cause, the facts must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable man". [U.S. Supreme Court ruling

Florida v Royer

was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with issues involving the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the case establishes a firm line in cases where police conduct search and seizure without a warrant. The court ruled that, while it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their behavior, absent more, they cannot detain or search such individual without a warrant.