FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW
CORRECT: At the time the note was found, the officers were no longer lawfully on the premises. The exigency that justified their warrantless entry no longer existed, because the victim and suspect had been removed from the scene. To continue to search at this point, the officers needed to obtain
A warrant
An undercover officer purchased controlled substances from King yesterday and today a warrant was issued for King's arrest. Officers spotted King in his usual place in a high crime area where he had been seen selling drugs the day before from his car. King was arrested on the warrant. After arresting King and placing him in handcuffs, the officer had him sit in the back of the officer's vehicle. The officer then returned to King's vehicle and began to search it. Under the front passenger seat, the officer found a bag containing cocaine. Under the back seat, the officer found rolling papers. The officer then opened the trunk of the vehicle and began to search it. Immediately, 6 bricks of marijuana were discovered. At his trial for possession of controlled substances, King makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence found in his vehicle. According to the law:
All of the evidence is admissible.
The odor of raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant pursuant to the
Carroll doctrine.
Federal agents are investigating Davis for wire and mail fraud. They arrange to interview Davis at his home about the allegations. During the course of the interview, the agents ask Davis if they could search his home office for various documents. When Davis stayed silent, one of the agents responds, "Listen, if you say no, we're going to apply for a search warrant, and, if we get it, we're going to come back and search then." Davis then tells the agents they can search his home office. During the course of the search, documents are discovered linking Davis to the wire and mail fraud allegations. At his trial on these charges, Davis makes a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his office, claiming that his consent was not voluntarily given. According to the law, this motion will be:
Denied, because the agent's statement regarding his intent to apply for a search warrant was permissible.
A law enforcement officer has a hunch that Roberts is trafficking narcotics. After observing Roberts speed through a stop sign, the law enforcement officer decided to pull Roberts over for the traffic violation, so that he could try to discover evidence of narcotics in the vehicle. The officer turned on his overhead lights and performed a traffic stop. Once Roberts' car stopped, the officer approached the car and instructed Roberts to roll down his window. As Roberts did so, the officer was faced with the overwhelming odor of raw marijuana emanating from the car. The officer requested Robert's identification and registration, and Roberts complied. After checking the identification through dispatch, the officer wrote out a citation, had Roberts sign it, and returned the identification and registration documents to Roberts. Before Roberts could leave, however, the officer ordered him to step out of the vehicle. Roberts complied, and the officer began to search various areas within the car. In the trunk of the vehicle, under the spare wheel, the officer discovered what later turned out to be 10 kilos of marijuana. At his trial, Roberts filed a motion to suppress the evidence because of an illegal search of the vehicle. According to the law, this motion will be:
Denied, because the marijuana was found during a valid search of the vehicle's trunk.
Automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant, provided there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains articles that the officers are
Entitle to seize
they conduct the trial in a criminal case, or they hear any appeal by the government or defendant in a case that has already been tried.
Federal criminal courts
Officer safety and evidence preservation have been the long-standing rationales behind the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the
Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Brown is suspected of being involved in a conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Agents learn that Brown has a houseboat docked at a lake 147 miles from his home. While Brown has not been on the boat for more than two years, he has kept up the mooring fees and registration of the vessel. The agents reasonably suspect that evidence of the narcotics conspiracy will be found on the boat. Once the boat is located, three agents board the boat to conduct a search. While no evidence of narcotics trafficking is found, the agents do find evidence of an unrelated murder in the cabin. At his trial for murder, Brown makes a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found on the boat. According to the law, this evidence will be:
Inadmissible, because the mobile conveyance exception to the warrant requirement does not apply in this case.
Based on their investigation, federal agents obtained a search warrant to search Smith's residence. The search warrant did not specifically list any vehicles to be searched, but rather authorized the search of the entire premises for methamphetamine. On the day the search was conducted, Smith's vehicle was parked in the driveway of his residence. During the course of the search, agents discovered numerous items of evidence, including a briefcase containing a vast quantity of methamphetamine. The agents then decided to search the vehicle, although they weren't sure any evidence was inside it. Inside the trunk of the vehicle, several kilos of cocaine were found. At his trial for drug trafficking, Smith made a motion to suppress the cocaine found in the vehicle's trunk. Did the agents violate the Fourth Amendment?
No, because it was found during the lawful execution of a premises search warrant.
Federal agents suspect that Martin is dealing in narcotics from his home, a felony offense, but have not been able to obtain enough evidence to justify issuance of a search or arrest warrant. They take up surveillance from various positions around the neighborhood, while an undercover officer approaches the residence in an attempt to buy narcotics. As the agents observe, the undercover officer approaches Martin, who is sitting on his front porch, and engages in a lengthy discussion. When an object is transferred between Martin and the undercover officer, the officer gives the signal that narcotics have been exchanged. The agents, dressed in raid jackets and marked vehicles, descend on the house to arrest Martin for narcotics distribution. As Martin sees the agents approach, he turns, runs directly into his home, and slams the door behind him. One of the agents breaks through the door, and is able to catch Martin as he is trying to run through the kitchen. Martin has a bag of what appears to be cocaine in his hand when he is arrested, and various other drugs are found on a table next to where the arrest occurred. Did the officers violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (the Federal "knock and announce" statute)?
No, because the agents entered the house to make the arrest under exigent circumstances.
FACTS: ATF agents constructed a search warrant application to seek "any automatic firearms or parts to automatic weapons, destructive devices to include but not limited to grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and any and all receipts pertaining to the purchase or manufacture of automatic weapons or explosive devices or launchers." The warrant itself, however, was less specific. In the section of the warrant that called for a description of the "person or property"to be seized, the agents provided a description of the home to be searched rather than the weapons listed in the application, in an apparent transfer of information error. The magistrate signed the warrant and the following day the agents executed the warrant. ISSUE: Whether a search warrant that does not particularly describe the things to be seized meets the Fourth Amendment's standards? Groh v. Ramirez
No. "[T]he warrant was plainly invalid."
FACTS: The defendant was arrested for DUI. During an inventory search of the car, the officer found a locked suitcase in the trunk. The officer opened the suitcase and found a garbage bag containing marijuana. ISSUE: Whether a container found during an inventory search may be opened where there is no agency policy regarding the opening of containers?
No. A container may not be opened.
FACTS: As part of a drug interdiction effort, police officers routinely boarded passenger buses at scheduled stops and asked travelers for permission to search their luggage. Two officers boarded the bus that the defendant was riding. Without articulable suspicion, the officers questioned the defendant and asked for his consent to search his luggage for drugs. They advised the defendant of his right to refuse and he granted his consent. The officers found cocaine and arrested the defendant. ISSUE: Whether the encounter constituted a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Florida v. Bostick
No. A person is "seized" when freedom of movement is restricted by government action.
FACTS: Officers received an anonymous telephone tip that the defendant was growing marijuana in his backyard. This area was enclosed by two fences, six and ten feet in height, and shielded from view at ground level. Officers trained in marijuana identification secured a private airplane, flew over the defendant's home at an altitude of 1,000 feet, and readily identified marijuana plants growing in his yard. A search warrant was issued based on this information. ISSUE: Whether the naked-eye aerial observation of the defendant's backyard constituted a search?
No. Areas within the curtilage may be observed from public areas.
dispute. The defendant and his wife accused each other of abusing controlled substances. The defendant's wife told the officers that criminal evidence could be found within the premises that would substantiate her claims. An officer asked the defendant for permission to search the house. He refused. The officer then asked the defendant's wife for consent. She readily agreed. The ensuing search revealed evidence of the defendant's criminal activity. ISSUE: Whether the officers may rely on consent obtained in the face of a co-tenant's present refusal to grant that consent?
No. Consent obtained from one co-tenant refuted by another co-tenant who is present destroys the consent.
FACTS: The defendant was stopped for speeding. While the officer wrote the defendant a ticket, a second officer arrived at the scene with a drug-detection dog and walked the dog around the defendant's vehicle. After the dog alerted on the trunk of the car, the officers opened the trunk, discovered a controlled substance, and arrested the defendant. ISSUE: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion to justify the use of a drug-detection dog during a lawful traffic stop?
No. No suspicion is required to use a drug-detecting dog during a traffic stop
FACTS: Officers observed the defendant engage in a drug transaction. They pulled him over, arrested him, searched his car and found cocaine in the trunk. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suppressed the cocaine because the officers could have obtained a search warrant before they searched the defendant's car under the Carroll doctrine. ISSUE: Whether the officers need to establish exigent circumstances before searching a car under the mobile conveyance exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?
No. Once the officers establish probable cause to search a car, they do not need to obtain a warrant.
FACTS: The police received a tip from an anonymous caller, who reported that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, the defendant, was wearing a plaid shirt. The officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct other than the anonymous report. One officer frisked the defendant and seized a gun from his pocket. The officers arrested the defendant for carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. ISSUE: Whether law enforcement officers can base reasonable suspicion solely on an anonymous tip. Florida v. J. L.
No. Reasonable suspicion must be based on something more than an anonymous tip.
FACTS: Officers went to the defendant's home to investigate a domestic dispute. The defendant and his wife accused each other of abusing controlled substances. The defendant's wife told the officers that criminal evidence could be found within the premises that would substantiate her claims. An officer asked the defendant for permission to search the house. He refused. The officer then asked the defendant's wife for consent. She readily agreed. The ensuing search revealed evidence of the defendant's criminal activity. ISSUE: Whether the officers may rely on consent obtained in the face of a co-tenant's present refusal to grant that consent? Georgia v. Randolph
No. Refuted by another co-tenant who is present destroys the consent.
The defendant's wife was murdered by strangulation. Soon thereafter, the defendant and his attorney voluntarily went to the police station for questioning. The officers noticed a dark spot on the defendant's finger. Suspecting the spot might be dried blood and knowing that evidence of strangulation is often found under an assailant's fingernails, an officer asked the defendant if he could take a scraping sample from the defendant's fingernails. The defendant refused, put his hands behind his back and appeared to rub them together. The defendant then put his hands in his pockets and appeared to be cleaning them. Without a warrant, officers forcefully took the samples, which contained traces of skin, blood, and fabric from the victim's nightgown. ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search of the defendant's fingernails was an unreasonable search? Cupp v. Murphy
No. The Court found that the existence of probable cause and the limited intrusion to preserve the destructible evidence was a reasonable search.
Checkpoint program pursuant to advisory committee guidelines. Checkpoints could be set up at selected sites along state roads. During operation of the checkpoints, all vehicles would be briefly stopped and the drivers examined for signs of intoxication. If any signs were detected, the individual would be taken out of the flow of traffic and have his driver's license and registration checked. If necessary, additional sobriety tests would be performed. If officers found the driver to be intoxicated, the driver would be arrested. If not, the driver would be immediately allowed to resume his or her journey. A checkpoint was set up under these guidelines. One hundred twenty six vehicles passed through, with an average delay of approximately 25 seconds per vehicle. Two drivers were detained for additional field sobriety testing, and one of the two was arrested. A third driver drove through the checkpoint and was ultimately stopped and arrested for driving under the influence. ISSUE: Whether the government's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment?
No. The checkpoint inspections were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
FACTS: Police officers set up a highway checkpoint a week after a fatal hit-and-run accident in an effort to garner information about the perpetrator. As each vehicle approached the checkpoint, an officer would stop the vehicle for 10 to 15 seconds, ask the occupants if they had any information about the offense, and hand the driver an informational flyer. The defendant drove his vehicle in an erratic manner toward the checkpoint. When stopped, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on the defendant's person, asked him to perform a field sobriety test, and arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. ISSUE: Whether a checkpoint to gather information from potential witnesses to a crime violates the Fourth Amendment?Illinois v. Lidster
No. Their seizure was reasonable.
FACTS: Federal agents, hiding fifty to one hundred yards from defendant's house, saw a car drive on to the property. They observed the defendant sell moonshine to the driver.ISSUE: Whether the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy in persons, houses, papers, and effects extends to "open fields?"
No. Those observations made from the "open fields" are not subject to Fourth Amendment protections.
FACTS: The defendant was a citizen and resident of Mexico. A federal court issued a warrant for his arrest for narcotic-related offenses. He was arrested by Mexican officials and turned over to U.S. Marshals in California. Following the arrest, a DEA Agent in concert with Mexican law enforcement searched the defendant's residences located in Mexico. The agent believed the searches would reveal evidence of defendant's narcotics trafficking and his involvement in the torture-murder of a DEA Agent. Arrangements were made with appropriate Mexican officials who authorized the searches. One search uncovered a tally sheet that the government believed reflected the quantities of marijuana smuggled by defendant into the United States. ISSUE: Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the search and seizure by U.S. agents of property that is owned by a foreign national and located in a foreign country? United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
No. non-U.S. citizens' homes located in foreign jurisdictions
FACTS: Two officers were on patrol in a high-crime area. They discovered a group of youths huddled around a car. The youths, including the defendant, fled when they observed the approaching unmarked police car. A police officer, wearing a "raid" jacket, left the patrol car to give chase. The officer took a circuitous route that brought him in direct contact with the defendant. The defendant was looking behind as he ran and did not turn to see the officer until the officer was almost upon him, whereupon the defendant tossed away a small rock. The officer tackled him, handcuffed him, and radioed for assistance. Officers recovered the rock, which proved to be crack cocaine. ISSUE: Whether the defendant was "seized" at the time he dropped the controlled substance? California v. Hodari
No. not until the government had engaged in physical contact with him.
Although it had become commonplace for officers to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of one of its occupants regardless of whether the suspect had been secured, the Supreme Court in this case held that such searches when the suspect can no longer access the vehicle-ISSUE: Whether the government may automatically search a vehicle incident to arrest when the arrestee has been secured and no longer has access to weapons or evidence?
No. there is no longer any risk that he will access weapons or evidence.
FACTS: The defendant was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He was handcuffed and locked in the back of a patrol car. There were five officers at the scene and two other suspects who had already been arrested, handcuffed, and locked in patrol cars. The officers searched the defendant's vehicle incident to his arrest and found a gun and cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the back seat. ISSUE: Whether the government may automatically search a vehicle incident to arrest when the arrestee has been secured and no longer has access to weapons or evidence?
No. there is no longer any risk that he will access weapons or evidence.
Two federal agents have been investigating Thomas and have reasonable suspicion to believe that he is selling false identification documents out of the trunk of his vehicle. Upon seeing him parked in a public parking lot, they approach him, identify themselves as federal agents, and ask him to place his hands on top of the vehicle. During the frisk that follows, one of the officers feels what he reasonably believes is a handgun. He retrieves the item and confirms that the object is a .22 caliber pistol. Knowing that Thomas was previously convicted of a felony (theft), the agent places him under arrest for being a felon-in-possession. A search of the vehicle incident to the arrest turns up a bag of false identification documents under the back seat of Thomas' vehicle. At his trial on weapons and false identification documents, Thomas makes a motion to suppress all of the evidence recovered by the agents. According to the law:
None of the evidence will be admitted.
May only be conducted when three requirements have been met. First, there must be a lawful custodial arrest. the search must be "substantially contemporaneous" that the area to be searched has to be currently accessible by the arrestee
Requirements for a Search Incident to Arrest
Law enforcement officers receive notice from their dispatcher that there has been a homicide at a local apartment building. Arriving at the designated apartment, the officers notice that the door to the apartment has what appear to be bullet holes in it, and that the lock on the door is broken. Without first obtaining a search warrant, the officers push open the door and enter the apartment. Inside, they find a deceased male and a female who is unconscious, but appears to have suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. Emergency personnel are called, and both bodies are removed from the scene of the crime. After securing the apartment, two of the officers begin to process the crime scene looking for evidence. In a trashcan near the kitchen, the officers find a crumpled note. Not sure if it's evidence or not, the officers read the note and discover it was written by the woman. The note indicates that she had killed the man (her husband) because of an illicit affair he was having, and that she was going to kill herself. The woman recovers and is charged with her husband's murder. At her trial, she makes a motion to suppress the note found in the trashcan. According to the law, this evidence will be:
Suppressed, because the search was made without a search warrant or an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
A compelled, brief investigatory stop. Reasonable suspicion criminal activity is afoot and this person is involved. Officer must reasonably suspect that a crime is about to be committed, is being committed, or has been committed.
Terry Stop
Federal agents are conducting a surveillance of Johnson's house based on information that the house is being used to process and package cocaine. Agents standing on the public sidewalk look into Johnson's open living room window that is only 5 feet away. On the table in front of the window, agents see scales and bundles of what they immediately recognize as packaged cocaine. Agents knock on the door, Johnson answers, and the agents push their way in - without consent - and seize the cocaine. Concerning the admissibility of the evidence seized:
The cocaine is inadmissible, they had to have a lawful right to access the drugs to lawfully seize it.
Issue. When the criminal conduct of terrorist occurred outside the U.S. which involves its airline, did the U.S. government (D) exceed its authority by trying the alleged terrorist in the United States?
U.S. government did not exceed its authority
In the early morning hours in a high crime neighborhood, a reliable informant told an officer the defendant, who sitting in a nearby car, possessed narcotics and a weapon. The officer approached the car and asked the defendant to get out. The defendant rolled down the window instead. When he did so, the officer reached into the car and removed the gun from the defendant's waistband. While the gun was not visible from outside the car, it was in the specific location identified by the reliable source. The defendant was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. The subsequent search incident to the arrest uncovered a substantial quantity of heroin
Yes, an officer may frisk a suspect when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is armed and dangerous
An officer developed reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in an assault. He approached the defendant, explained he was investigating a crime, and asked to see the defendant's identification. The defendant refused the officer's eleven requests to see his identification. The officer arrested the defendant for violating a state law that prohibited "obstructing a public officer in discharging...any legal duty of his office." The legal duty that the defendant obstructed was a statute that provided "[A]ny person so detained (Terry stop) shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer." ISSUE: Whether the state statute is constitutional in that it requires persons to identify themselves during a Terry stop?
Yes. "Stop and identify" statutes do not change the nature of the seizure itself
At a routine driver's license checkpoint. The officer asked the defendant for his license, and shined his flashlight into the car. He saw an opaque, green party balloon, knotted near the tip, fall from the defendant's hand to the seat beside him. Based on his experience in drug offense arrests, the officer was aware that narcotics were frequently packaged in this way. While the defendant was looking in the glove compartment for his license, the officer shifted his position to obtain a better view and noticed small plastic vials, loose white powder, and an open bag of party balloons in the glove compartment. After the defendant stated that he did not have a driver's license in his possession, he complied with the officer's request to get out of the car. The officer picked up the green balloon, which appeared to contain a powdery substance within its tied-off portion. He placed the defendant under arrest and searched the car. Other items were seized. ISSUE: Whether the evidence was obtained in plain view?
Yes. "he or she has a right to be and observes something in which he or she has probable cause immediately apparent, to believe is evidence of a crime.
FACTS: A woman told officers the defendant had beaten her. She also told the officers the defendant was in "our" apartment, and that she had clothes and furniture located there. Officers went with the woman to the apartment without an arrest or search warrant. The woman opened the door with a key and gave officers consent to enter. Once inside, the officers saw drugs and paraphernalia in plain view. At that time, the defendant was asleep in the apartment. The officers soon discovered the woman no longer lived in the apartment and that she had moved out weeks earlier. ISSUE: Whether a warrantless entry is valid under the Fourth Amendment when it is based upon the consent of a third party that the government reasonably believes possesses authority over the premises, but in fact does not? Illinois v. Rodriguez
Yes. A consent search will be valid if a person whom the government mistakenly believes has the authority to grant consent.
Fernandez v. California 571 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014) FACTS: Officers investigating an assault and robbery saw Fernandez run into an apartment building. Once inside the building, the officers heard screams coming from one of the apartments. The officers knocked on the apartment door and Rojas opened it. Rojas had a bump on her nose, fresh blood on her shirt and appeared to be crying. Rojas told the officers she had been in a fight. When the officers asked her if anyone else was in the apartment, Rojas told them that she and her four-year old son were the only individuals present. When the officers asked Rojas to step outside so they could conduct a protective sweep of the apartment, Fernandez stepped forward and told the officers not to enter. The officers arrested Fernandez for assaulting Rojas. The officers transported Fernandez to the police station for booking. One-hour later, an investigator returned to the apartment and Rojas gave the investigator oral and written consent to search the apartment. The investigator seized evidence that was admitted against Fernandez. ISSUE: Whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting for his refusal to a consent search to be valid.
Yes. A defendant must be present and objecting for his objection to a consent search to be valid.
Officers arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. They called a tow truck, searched the defendant's car and inventoried its contents in accordance with agency procedure. An officer opened a closed backpack in which he found a controlled substance, paraphernalia, and a large amount of cash. ISSUE: Whether the government can enter a closed container during an inventory?
Yes. A warrantless inventory may include closed containers found inside the vehicle.
Officers arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. They called a tow truck, searched the defendant's car and inventoried its contents in accordance with agency procedure. An officer opened a closed backpack in which he found a controlled substance, paraphernalia, and a large amount of cash. ISSUE: Whether the government can enter a closed container during an inventory?
Yes. A warrantless inventory search of an impounded vehicle may include a search of the contents of closed containers found inside the vehicle.
FACTS: The defendant was federally licensed to deal in sporting weapons. An ATF inspector inspected the defendant's books and requested entry into his locked gun storeroom. The defendant asked the inspector if he had a search warrant. The inspector explained that the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921, authorized such searches, known as compliance checks. After the search, the inspector seized two sawed-off rifles that the defendant was not licensed to possess. ISSUE: Whether the search of the business premises was reasonable?
Yes. Compliance checks are reasonable because the defendant chose to engage in "pervasively regulated" business and to accept a federal license.
FACTS: FBI agents overheard conversations of the defendant by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of a public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. The defendant was charged with transmitting wagering information out of state. At the trial, the court permitted the government to introduce evidence of the defendant's end of telephone conversations. ISSUE: Whether the agents' actions amounted to a Fourth Amendment search? Katz v. United States
Yes. The agents conducted a Fourth Amendment search.
Before an officer had the opportunity to stop the defendant for a license plate violation, the defendant pulled into a parking lot, parked, and got out of his vehicle. He was walking away from his vehicle as the officer pulled in behind him. The officer stopped him and asked for his driver's license. During this encounter, the officer obtained the defendant's consent to pat him down for weapons and narcotics. He found a controlled substance and placed the defendant, a convicted felon, under arrest. The officer then opened the defendant's vehicle and searched. There he found a weapon. ISSUE: Whether the officer can search the passenger's compartment of a vehicle the arrestee has walked away from?
Yes. The law enforcement officer has the same safety concerns about a suspect either in or near a motor vehicle
In the early morning hours in a high crime neighborhood, a reliable informant told an officer the defendant, who sitting in a nearby car, possessed narcotics and a weapon. The officer approached the car and asked the defendant to get out. The defendant rolled down the window instead. When he did so, the officer reached into the car and removed the gun from the defendant's waistband. While the gun was not visible from outside the car, it was in the specific location identified by the reliable source. The defendant was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. The subsequent search incident to the arrest uncovered a substantial quantity of heroin. Was the information provided by the reliable informant justify the stop of the defendant and the seizure of the gun?
Yes. The officer reasonably believes that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
FACTS: Officers lawfully stopped the defendant for driving a vehicle with an expired license plate. One of the officers approached and asked the defendant to step out of the car and produce his driver's license and registration. It was the common practice of the officer to order all drivers out of their vehicles whenever they conducted a stop for a traffic violation. As the defendant got out of the car, the officer noticed a large bulge under the defendant's sport jacket. Fearing that the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked the defendant and discovered a loaded handgun. The defendant was immediately arrested for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and for carrying a firearm without a license. ISSUES: 1. Whether the officer's order to get out of the car during a lawful traffic stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? 2. Whether the frisk of the defendant was lawful under the Fourth Amendment?
Yes. The officer's order to get out of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the frisk was lawful.
FACTS: Before an officer had the opportunity to stop the defendant for a license plate violation, the defendant pulled into a parking lot, parked, and got out of his vehicle. He was walking away from his vehicle as the officer pulled in behind him. The officer stopped him and asked for his driver's license. During this encounter, the officer obtained the defendant's consent to pat him down for weapons and narcotics. He found a controlled substance and placed the defendant, a convicted felon, under arrest. The officer then opened the defendant's vehicle and searched. There he found a weapon. ISSUE: Whether the officer can search the passenger's compartment of a vehicle the arrestee has walked away from?
Yes. safety concerns about a suspect either in or near a motor vehicle.
FACTS: An officer stopped a car for speeding in which the defendant and four other men were riding. None of the men owned the car or were related to its owner. The officer smelled marijuana and saw an envelope on the floor of the car that he suspected contained marijuana. The officer picked up the envelope and found marijuana inside. He ordered the men out of the car and arrested them. He searched the men and the passenger compartment of the car. On the back seat of the car the officer found a black jacket that belonged to the defendant. He unzipped one of the pockets of the jacket and discovered cocaine. ISSUE: Whether the scope of a search incident to an arrest includes the containers located in the passenger compartment of the automobile in which the arrestee was riding?
Yes. the officer may examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment.
An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a frisk for weapons of persons engaged in unusual conduct where the officer reasonably suspects the person is-
armed and presently dangerous.
A search warrant authorizing a search of a certain premises includes any vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of the premises searched and located within its curtilage if the objects of the search might be located in those vehicles. In essence, the vehicle is treated as if it were part of the premises covered
by the warrant
The cocaine and rolling papers are admissible because they were lawfully found during a valid search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Based on the recent warrant, the nature of the offenses, and activities observed on the day of arrest, the officers had reasonable to believe that
evidence of the crime of arrest (drug sale) was in the vehicle
Federal agents have an arrest warrant for Moore for failure to appear. At approximately 12:00 a.m. one night, the agents approach Moore's home, reasonably believing that he is inside. As they open the unlocked door and enter, all of the agents clearly announce, "Federal agents!" Immediately inside the door, Moore is found sitting on a sofa in the living room. On coffee table in front of him, the agents see a white powdery substance (later determined to be cocaine), scales, small baggies, and other pieces of drug paraphernalia. Moore is arrested, and is charged with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. IN this case the agents are required to comply with Title 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (knock and announce) and
failed to do so.
When performing a Carroll search, an officer may look anywhere within the vehicle where he reasonably believes he may
find evidence of the crime.
The government may search a vehicle incident to arrest after the arrestee has been secured when it is reasonable to believe that evidence related to the crime of arrest may be
found within
It follows that an officer may examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment. If the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so are containers within it. Such a container may be searched whether it is
open or closed.
The key to all Fourth Amendment issues is whether the officer acted in a
reasonable manner
A federal agent is having dinner in a restaurant located in a federal park (an area of exclusive jurisdiction), when the manager, whom the agent knows, approaches him. The manager states that two young men have just left the restaurant without paying for their dinners (a federal misdemeanor), and asks the agent to arrest them before they can escape. The agent quickly leaves the restaurant and, based upon a detailed physical description given by the manager, is able to locate the two suspects walking down the sidewalk approximately two blocks from the restaurant. To arrest the suspects, an arrest warrant is:
required, because the offense did not occur in the agent's presence.
When Martin turned and ran into the residence, the officers were in "hot pursuit." They had probable cause to arrest for a felony, and a general and continuous knowledge (within reason) of
suspect's whereabouts.
When an officer makes a lawful arrest, the officer may, incident to that arrest, search the arrestee and the immediate surrounding area. Such searches are valid because of the need to remove any weapons the arrestee might access to resist arrest and to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence. However, the scope of the search may not stray beyond the area within
the immediate control of the arrestee.
Once a lawful arrest of an occupant of an automobile is made, and the officer reasonably believes he may find more evidence of the crime in the vehicle, the officer may examine the contents of any containers found within (New York v. Belton)
the passenger compartment.
In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court held that traffic checkpoints designed for general crime control purposes were
unconstitutional.