Con Crim Pro Investigative Final Exam
What was the rule from Cabales?
-Cabales was pulled over for speeding. And he did admit to speeding. Another officer came with a drug sniffing dog, sniffed the outside of his trunk, and found marijuana -Because the dog didn't prolong the search, it was proper.
How does Katz define a search?
(1) that the Amendment is concerned only with the search or seizure of tangible property; and (2) that the Amendment only applies to surveillance techniques involving the physical penetration of protected spaces.
What did Florida v. Harris overturn? What is the new rule about dog sniffs?
, the Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court decision that imposed strict rules for determining whether dog sniffs were sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause. The Florida court said, among other things, that before a judge could base probable cause on a dog sniff, the prosecutor must introduce field performance records that provide "comprehensive documentation of the dog's prior 'hits' and 'misses' in the field." The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the requirement, finding it inconsistent with the flexible, commonsense determination required by Gates and subsequent cases. Instead, said the Court, "If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search."
What are the different holdings for Wong Sun? (3 fruit of the poisonous tree holdings and 1 standing holding)
-1 fruit holding: you's verbal statements are fruits -2. Fruits holding: Yee's heroin can be used against Toy (fruits of unlawful arrest of Toy) -3. Wong Sun's confession was not the fruit of his arrest- taint has been attenuated, -Key standing holding: Yee's heroin is admissible against Wong sun
What are the pre-Acevedo container rules?
-1. Container out of car. Chadwick -2. Container in car; police have PC for container. -3. Container in car; police have PC for car. Robbins (same as Sanders) Ross (overruled Robbins, no need for warrant to open container)
What are the purposes of the particularity requirement?
-1. Supports PC -2. Limits spatial scope of searches Ex: where in a car they can look -3. Limits the temporal scope of searches The language in the amendment doesn't include a requirement that you specify a time. Might cause temporal limitations too. Don't get to continue to poke through the rest of the house either. -4. Property protections.
What is the physical intrustion test's elements (from the Jones majority)?
-1. The trespass occurs, -2. The trespass is onto an enumerated item listed in the 4th amendment ("persons, houses, papers and effects"), and -3. It occurs with the intent "to find something or to obtain into"
What are the Miranda custody rules?
-1. There can be custody outside the police interrogation room. Miranda violation when police interrogated suspect "under arrest" in the bedroom- Orozco v. TX -2. Miranda not required when suspects/ Ds voluntarily go to police to give statement. -3. Miranda not required during Terry stop. Ordinary traffic stop/ on the scene questioning (Berkemer)
What were the 3 tests for the 4th amendment analysis
-1. Was there a "search Katz two part reop test Jones/Jardines trespass test. -2. If yes, did it comply with the 4th amendment? -3. Remedies.
What were the 3 takeaways from Tennessee v. Garner?
-1.Is the statute in Tennessee allowing the fleeing suspect who does not pose harm or threat constitutional? When is it necessary to prevent escape? Rules that were enacted to allow for the use of deadly force -2.Officer has PC to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Dangerousness of crime allegedly committed Armed Suspect otherwise poses immediate threat to the officer or others. -3. Where feasible a warning should be given. -Trying to resist in Scott that Tenneessee v. Garner set these rules. A lot of common law felonies are not misdemeanors.
What are the Terry Court's 3 opinions?
-1.McFadden approaches them and stops and frisks them. A stop<an arrest. A frisk< a search. ^Given this, using a reasonable suspicion standard for probable cause. -2.Could've also said it was an unreasonable search or seizure because it lacked probable cause. stop=Arrest Frisk=Search Probable cause is required. -3.Stop and frisk does not equal Arrest and search and the 4th amendment doesn't apply at all.
What is the Kats two part REOP test found in the Harlan concurrence?
-1.Subjective actual expectation of privacy -2.Reasonable expectation of privacy If there was a search did it comply with the 4th Amendment?
How well does the rule in Maryland v. King advance the govt's interest without overburdening the individual's interest?
-Accuracy of DNA -Limited population. -Limited to arestees who have reduced rights -Testing those for probable cause who may have committed certain violent crimes.
Defendant worked at a rare coin shop where the owner found that some of the coins were missing. D. was suspected of stealing the coings, but the officers lacked PC. The police folloed him home one day, and as D. entered his apt., the police entered before he could shit the door and found a set of coins on the table. D. was arrested and taken to the police station where, after being advised of his rights, he waived his rights and confessed to stealing the coins. The confession should be: A. Admitted because the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances to prevent the destruction of evidence. Therefore, the confession is admissible. B. Suppressed because the warrantless entry was a violation of the 4A, and the confession is inadmissible as fruit of poisonous tree. C. Admitted because a confession cannot be the fruit of the 4A violation.
-Answer: B. Taken pretty quickly to the station so Wong Sun could suppress it but Toy couldnt. C. is not a statement of law that is true all the time.
What did Sotomayor add in her opinion of Jones?
-As the gps technology becomes more advanced, she doesn't disagree but her opinion would be treated as holdings from this case. --Joines majority and agrees with alito's concurrence, viewed as 5th vote so Jones is routinely cited for both "holdings." Also flagging that it may be necessary to reconsider the aspect that you may have no reasonable expectation of privacy to information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. Tabled for another day.
When does a 5th Amendment violation occur?
-At the moment the confession is used against you in court.
Andresden v. Maryland
-Authorizing police officers to take evidence they see in the course of a search for other specified things like crimes (plain view doctrine)
What is the automobile exception to the warrant requirement?
-Basic rule: no warrant needed to search car -Must have PC -applies even if time to get a warrant; even after taken to station (Chambers). -Justifications: Mobility of car/exigency; Lower expectation of privacy.
What are some categories for special needs cases? Beyond ordinary law enforcement?
-Checkpoint stops -International border searches/customs -Administrative searches -Inventor searches -Jail searches -Community caretaking cases -Other special needs cases -Jail Searches: Florence v. Board of Freeholders of Burlington County (2012) -International border searches/customs -Purposes beyond ordinary law enforcement: 1. To detect injuries or diseases such as lice, that might spread in confinement 2. To identify gan tattoos 3.To detect contrband Suspicionless drug testing programs -Suspicionless searches -Based upon special needs (H &S)
What do the cases about ordering people out of stopped cars say?
-Drivers: Pennsylvania v. Mimms Police are super concerned with officer safety. -Passengers: Maryland v. Wilson -Can those passengers be frisked, if no reasonable suspicion to stop them? Arizona v. Mimms
What is the overrarching gov't argument in favor of the rule in carpenter?
-Even if deemed a "search," govt sought court order pursuant to store communications act under the 4a. Requiring warrant and probable cause would undermine investigations.
How can we justify the stop turned murder of Daunte Wright?
-Expired registration tags, something hanging from his rearview basis. -Justifying the stop-Ren. For any traffic offense. We allow stops in cars even on reasonable suspicion. She was with a trainee officer and wanted to show how it was done. Gonna be allowed to take him into custody for an outstanding warrant. It was a gun charge. He's driving away. -Atwater-probable cause. Custodial arrest is ok.
What is the rule and facts from Caniglia v. Strom?
-Facts: During an argument with his wife, Caniglia told his wife to shoot him. She spent the night in a motel and had officers do a welfare check the next day because he wasn't answering his phone. Caniglia agreed to the officer's request to go to the office for a psych eval on the condition that the officers not confiscate his firearms. But once he left, the officers located and seized the weapons. -He sued saying that the officers entered his home and seized him and his weapons wihtout a warrant violating the 4th amendment. -Rule:"Police officers may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential suicide or to help an elderl person who has been out of contact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury,"
What was the difference in opinion on when the search occurred in U.S. v. Jones between Alito, Scalia, and Sotomayor?
-For Justice Alito, the search occurred after some period of monitoring -For Justice Scalia, the search occurred at the moment the device was installed. -For Justice Sotomayor, a search occurred at the moment the device was installed and after some period of monitoring.
What were the three rules about 4th amendment seizures from Brower and Hodari? (what are the three types of seizures)
-Fourth amendment seizure is found where "there is a governmental termination of movement through means intentionally applied." -Physical force seizure: when officer touches suspect. -Show of authority seizure: when suspect submits to officer's authority.
What are the two parts of Gant?
-Gant part 1: For police to search incident, D must have been in position to reach area searched (reaffirmation of the Chimel test); destruction of evidence/safety Or -Gant part 2:Police have reason to believe evidence to crime of arrest will be located there (Gant test); evidence gathering
What was the good faith exception in Evans?
-Good faith exception extends to mistakes by court clerk. -We don't have a reason to be concerned about court misconduct.
What happened in Greenwood? What was the rule?
-Greenwood had put his trash out, police had asked the collector to set aside his garbage bags, and they wanted to know if that constituted a search. Rule: You don't have reasonable expectation of privacy in your trash.They say its exposed to the community. They may not view a line between police and community intrusions. If you put your garbage out and someone goes through it, you would chase them off.
What is the application of Miranda?
-If custody and interrogation, police must read 4-fold warnings. Must be "custody" Must be "interrogation." -Suspect must voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive Miranda rights. -Right to invoke Miranda rights lasts throughout interrogation. How do you invoke your Miranda rights? a.Just not speaking b.Ask for a lawyer or c.say you don't want to talk. -Burden of demonstration waiver belongs to prosecution.
What were the scope of limitations for searches in a car?
-Includes glove compartment and trunk area (trunk extends beyond SITA) depending on evidence (again, spatial constraints). -Includes containers (again, if large to hold evidence for which there is PC) (Acevedo); regardless of owner (Houghton).
What are the exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
-Independent source: The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine will not apply if the evidence was found from another independent and untainted source. -Inevitable discovery: If, despite the tainted source, the evidence would have been discovered anyway, then the evidence will be admissible. -Good faith: The evidence will be admissible if law enforcement, in good faith, believed the search was legal. -Attenuated taint: This occurs if there is an interruption between the illegal search and the discovery of the evidence. For instance, let's say a police officer stops a person without a legitimate reason but discovers there is an outstanding warrant for that person. He then arrests and searches the person. In this case, the evidence obtained will likely be admissible
Does officer intent matter when eliciting a confession?
-Is the test objective or subjective? Objective: focused on what police "should know" is "reasonably likely" to elicit incriminating response. -Subjective elements: If intended to elicit response, Ct more likely to finds that they should have known (note 7) If police had particular knowledge of this suspect's vulnerability, more likely that they should have known (904 & note 8)
Why is Jones not good law?
-Jones talks about the target theory- the idea that if someone is the subject of the investigation, then they should have standing. Also "Anyone legitimately on the premises where a search occurs may challenge its illegality." -Both later rejected in Alderman and Rakas
What is the purpose of the 4th amendment? Besides protecting personal rights?
-Keeps the police at bay- it's a restrain on the government.
What are the factors to analyze to determine if the police conduct attenuated the search?
-Length of time between illegal act and obtaining evidence (Qong Sun;Ceccolini) -Flagrancy of illegal act. (Strieff) -Physical distance? -Presence of intervening causes. (Strieff) Break in the chain. -Presence of absence of coercion and free will in obtaining evidence
What are the relevant factors for custody determination based on the cases?
-Location: public or encloses (Berkemer) -Duration of stop (Berkemer) -Number of officers (Berkemer) -Voluntariness of encounter (Murphy) -Familiarity of surrounding (Murphy) -Freedom to believe (Murphy) -Officer's behavior (were threats made/ implied?) -Age of person being interrogated (JDB)
What was the rule in US v. miller?
-No reasonable expectation in the information you share with your bank.
In order to conduct a routine search incident to arrest, the officer must have:
-No suspicion that the arrestee is armed or likely to destroy evidence. (Key Holding from robinson)
Standards of arrests for seizures and non-seizures?
-Non-seizures-R/S (no suspicion or inarticulable hunches -Seizures-Terry stop (R/S)-> arrest (P/C)
What are the Mendenhall factors?
-Number of officers -Threatening presence. -Weapon -Physical touching -Language used -Tone of voice.
What is the level of suspicion needed for border searches?
-Permanent borders Airports, San Ysidro Routine searches (no suspicion) Non-routine (reasonable suspicion) -Roving border patrols: Stop car (reasonable suspicion) Search car (probable cause) -Border searches don't require warrants or PC (Ramsay v. U.S.) -Suspicionless border checkpoint searches are okay (Martinez-Fuerte)
Why is Justice kennedy dissenting in Carpenter over intrusive info?
-Property rights- not to articulate 4th amendment protection -Intrusive information the govt has access to.
What is the level of suspicion needed for checkpoints?
-Prouse: must constrain officer discretion. -Sitz: emphasis on ensuring roadway safety plus regularized procedures -Edmond: primary programmatic purpose wasn't ok because it was about investigating drug trafficking offsenses. -Lidster: those stopped were not targets of investigation. Witnesses from these other types of checkpoint stops.
What does the Stored Communications Act 18 USC 2703d say?
-Requires the govt to show "specific and articuable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that.. The records... are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
What was justice alito saying in Florida v. Jardines about trespass?
-Says the police has a license to come up to the front door. But the license to trespass is not in american jurisprudence. No restriction on the ability for police to walk up. No citation to specific trespass or property laws.
What are the steps to be taken for the Miranda analysis?
-Step 1: Custody cases + interrogation cases -Step 2: warnings don't have to be approximate. Suspect might invoke right to silence "Hey I don't want to talk to you." "I don't know if I should talk to you." Suspect might invoke right to counsel Waiver "I understand my rights and am willing to talk to you." Be silent; stay silent Waiver v. invocation of rights -Waiver: -Right to silence:
How do we analyze special needs cases?
-Step one: Has the govt articulated a "special need" beyond traditional law enforcement (i.e. investigation; evidence gathering)? -Step two: Balancing the interests. How important is the govt/public interest? (Highly important to solve homicides) Fit: how well does the program/search at issue advance the government's interest? The hit rate- how successful the stop is. Managing an active safety threat on the road. Analyze the degree of the individual's interest. (short, less intrusion on the individuals)
In Mincey v. Arizona, what is the difference between the first and the second search and why does this distinction matter?
-The 4 days of search in Mincey violated the 4th amendment because the initial exigency expires Why this statute in the arizona court, no per se muder scene rule -They had probable cause for the second search. -The exigencies was over by the time of the second search; they had time! When there are circumstances that make it.
Based on Carpenter how do we treat cell phone records? (does the gov't have access)
-The majority doesn't give guidance on where to draw that line.
What is the traditional model of warrants and the reasonableness model?
-Traditional model: Warrant plus probable cause required Exceptions to the warrant requirement -Reasonableness model. Exs: Terry stops, regulatory searches (not supported by probable cause).
Per Innis, what (other than direct questioning) qualifies as interrogation?
-Tricks. Some are ok some are not. Fake lineup where someone is prompted to go and pick the suspect out. Reverse lineup where D. would be identified as a perpetrator of a false crime. Intent of the officer. -Trying to bring these techniques under the umbrella of Miranda. How are officers eliciting incriminating info from people? Examples other than direct questioning. Convos between the officers is open to interrogation.
What are the contours of a 6th amendment claim?
-Turn on the timing -Turn on the standard of whethat the govt deliberately elicited the confession from Massiah after indictment. They're focused on the officer's deliberate strategy. -Deliberately eliciting the information
What were the main issues in the breonna taylor case?
-Validity of the warrant: probable cause Was there pc? Stale information False statements; (Franks v. Delaware). Reasonable mistakes. -Validity of the No-Knock warrant General legitimacy of procedure Application in this case -Execution of the warrant. Concern of it being at night -Use of force. Breaking down the door is separate from the no-knock warrant. Destruction of property. Legitimate questions about ways departments train officers?
What are the key interrogation rules?
-Voluntary statements are not interrogations; limited follow up also permitted -Routine booking questions not interrgoations (ie name, address, height, weight, DOB, age) (Muniz); but result different if question spolce has clear investigatory puspose/ designed to elicit statements. (not sate of 4th bday) -Routine scripted questioning during street encounter traffic stop don to amount to interrogation (Hiibel-asking for ID; Muniz- asking someone to recite the alphabet during a field sobriety test is probably ok) Not required to get an express waiver for miranda warnings No magic words required -California v. Prusock/ Duckworth v. Eagan Exact language is nor required for valiz miranda warnings -Flordia v. Powell Warnings unclear about right to counsel during questioning. "Warnings not the clearest possible formulation of Miranda's right to counsel advisement , but were sufficiently comprehensive and comprehensible.
During a police use of force incident, when does the totality of the circumstances test apply?
-When there is a lower expectation of privacy- probationer/arestees.
What are the two elements of due process voluntariness?
1. Coercion by the government. 2. Defendant's "will is overborne"-totality of the circumstances test
What are the three elements of the 5A privilege against self-incrimination?
1. Compulsion: "No person... shall be compelled" 2.Incrimination: "in a criminal case" 3.Testimony: "to be a witness against himself"
What were the two prongs of the Spinelli test for establishing probable cause? Is it good law?
1. Establish the informant was reliable. 2. Basis of knowledge? How do they know what they know? It is no longer good law and instead of a two prong test they implemented a totality of the circumstances test in Gates.
What are some of the problems with the voluntariness test?
1. Very few bright lines except for 36 hours being too much, and you can't threaten to hand over the D. to a lynch mob. 2. Test is vague, metaphysical, and indeterminate (how can we know whether a confession was "voluntary") 3. Gives trial judges tremendous discretion (problems of inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictability) 4. Gives little guidance to police interrogators.
What are the 5 elements of Alito's critique of the majority in U.S. v. jones?
1. Incompatible with the Katz privacy test. Comes out of the opinion. Katz test rests on the flaws, decades of understanding the katz test about physical penetration of protected spaces. 2. Evolving technology is an issue for the legislature to address and not the court. Technology can change reasonable expectation. Pre-computer age, privacy was only given because it was just too hard to keep track of people. Only divert a team of officers to watch a person for more serious crimes. Technology is so cheap and so readily available. 3. If time wasn't part of the element, where would they be? Volume of information and amount of time. Doesn't cite a precise amount of time, but 4 weeks of 24/7 surveillance is too much. Issue is over the course of the monitoring. 4. Challenges with using property as the basis for the test. Variation on 4th amendment privacy protections. 5. Practical privacy that we enjoy. (p. 389-390). Ex: If I run the police department and assign 10 agents to follow people 24/7 for a week, does that violate reasonable expectation of privacy on public roadways? No. Because mere visual observances isn't a search. Having a team of officers with visual observances and no special technology, we don't view it as the same privacy concern.
What is the 2 step analysis under Terry?
1.Police can stop (seize) person if they have reasonable suspicion tjat "criminal activity may be afoot." 2.Police can frisk ("search) person if have reasonable suspicion that person is "armed and presently dangerous."
-What are the 4 categories of closely/pervasively regulated businesses and why is there debate on whether hotels count?
1.Liquor sales 2.Firearms dealing 3.Mining 4.Automobile junkyard -Are hotels and motels a closely regulated business? Justice Scalia-the harms are bad like child sezual abuse -Justice sotomayor- in a hotel mostly people just stay the night and the things Scalia brings up are not the only thing people go to hotels for mostly.
What are the plain view requirements?
1.Police must have a lawful vantage point. Items must be in "plain view while officers are within the confines of the originally authorized search." Warrants A warrant- particularly described the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized. If you know that it's contraband, can take those items too. And warrant exceptions. 2. Police must have access to the object; i.e officer must be in a place where they can gain physical control over the item. On exam-someone outside a space that they aren't lawfully allowed to enter. 3. The right to seize was "immediately apparent," i.e., probable cause that it is evidence of a crime or contraband.
What justifies the departure from stare decisis in the move to Gant from Belton?
1.Reliance 2.Changed circumstances -Nothing has changed; no new circumstances 3.Workability -Belton has been applied for an easier test. 4.Consistency with later cases -One of them has a reasonable standard. -Belton's bright line was extended by thornton. 5.Bad reasoning Chimel has applied at the time of the arrest Officers can secure a suspect and go back and search where they previously were. Not brining this doctrine to be more consistent with Chimel; it's actually more inconsistent how it was applied.
What was the main rule from Mendenhall/Drayton?
1.Seizure occurs if/when reasonable person would not feel free to leave or to terminate the encounter, 2. No advice of rights requirement 3. Mendenhall factors
What are the fruits in Wong Sun?
1.Toy's arrest statement Is someone's statement the product of an unlawful arrest? So close in time to the unlawful arrest No attenuation here. Toy's arrest statement is the product/fruit of the unlawful arrest Fruit 2.Heroin from Yee Would not have found the Heroin from Yee with Toy's arrest statement. No attenuation here either so also a fruit 3.Toy's police statement Not the fruit. 4.Wong Sun's police statement
What happened in the binghamton case?
4 girls strip searched with very little evidence in a binghamton school. Reasonable under the totality of the circumstances
In the course of executing a validly obtained search warrant, police find a pile of incriminating notes written by the D. about a massive fraud that he had been running. A. At trial, the D. can assert his 5A privilege to bar the govt from introducing the documents. B. The privilege against self-incrimination is not applicable here.
A.
Megan Hotwheels, on 4A grounds, moves to suppress the discovery of her car's vehicle identification number and other evidence acquired as the fruits of that discovery. The undisputed evidence is that an officer, on routine night patrol, indiscriminately shined his flashlight through the windshields of the parked cars in order to view the vehicle identification numbers and compare them to a list of such stolen cars. The car driven by Hotwheels produced a match with this list. A. Denied because no 4A search took place, B Denied because no warrant is required to search a car, C. Granted because the officer lacked required probable cause, or D. Granted because the officer lacked the required reasonable suspicion.
A.
Officer Joy has a hunch that Melvin Oldman, an elderly resident of her neighborhood, is operating a meth lab in his home. But Joy's got no proof - not enough for probable cause.One afternoon, Joy receives a call from Melvin's daughter Farrah Way who lives out of state. Farrah is concerned that her father has not called her in two weeks (which is very unusual for him). He's not responding to her phone calls and has not answered the door when neighbors have knocked.Officer Joy goes to Melvin's house and when she gets no response, she breaks down the door. She discovers a meth lab inside. Assume that the Court finds that the entry to check on Melvin was reasonable. Can Joy seize the evidence that she sees? A. Yes B. No
A.
Police searching suspect's apartment pursuant to a warrant that only lists stolen guns. Officer opens a small pouch (2 inches x 2 inches) that he finds on suspect's nightstand. He opens the pouch, finds a substance he believes to be cocaine, and seizes it as evidence. Does the officer's conduct: A. Violates 4A. B. Does not violate 4A.
A.
An experienced police officer observed three men in flashy clothes conversing on a street corner. Acting on a hunch that a drug transaction was occurring, the officer approached the men and addressed a question to them about their activities. They immediately turned away and began to quickly depart. May the officer stop and frisk them at this point? A. Yes B. No
A. Yes B. No Shouldn't be able to frisk tho.
At approximately 8:39 am on April 12, 2015, Freddie Gray was standing on a street corner with another male when he made eye contact with Lieutenant Brian Rice, a uniformed police officer who was on bicycle patrol in BPD's Western District. After making eye contact with Lieutenant Rice, Gray ran. In response, Rice chased Gray and radioed that he was pursuing a suspect. Did Rice have reasonable suspicion to stop Gray? A. Yes B. No
A. Yes We know he knows a police officer and he is fleeing from that police officer. Affects Elijah mclain case. Don't need to have reasonable suspicion to approach McLain and stop him.
Syracuse Police Department received a phone call from Katherine Smith at 150 Henry Street. Ms. Smith said her roommate, Felix Davis, had a gun and was a convicted felon. Syracuse PD responded to 150 Henry Street. Upon entering the residence, Officer Parker asked Ms. Smith where Mr. Davis was, and she said "he's in his bedroom" and pointed to a closed door. Officer Parker entered the bedroom and saw Felix Davis sitting on the floor. On a dresser in the room, under a pair of shorts, Officer Parker found a handgun. Officer Parker handcuffed Davis and put him in the back of his patrol car. He then asked Davis whether the gun was his. Davis admitted being a convicted felon but denied that the gun belonged to him. Please outline the potential 4A issues presented here and come to class prepared to discuss them. Did the Police have Probable Cause to search? To arrest? A. Yes, to search She is a known informant. B. Yes, to arrest C. No, neither
A. Yes, to search She is a known informant. The court presumes that someone who calls 911 is trustworthy.
Plain View Doctrine - Case #2: Suspect #2 is not home. Officers go to his neighbor's house, and look into Suspect #2's upstairs bedroom window with binoculars. Officers see a ski mask, jacket, and gun described in robbery. Officers enter Suspect #2's house and seize evidence. A. The seizure is invalid because the officers unlawfully entered the defendant's home. B. The seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine because the officers observed the evidence from a lawful vantage point.
A. Just seeing the evidence and having probable cause is not enough to get the police in the house.
What is the rule from Payton v. NY?
Absent exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a person's home to make an arrest without a warrant.
What happened in Cady?
Allowed a seizure based on the community caretaking of firearms.
What was the rule in Aguilar v. Texas?
An officer's statement that "[a]ffiants have received reliable information from a credible person and do believe" that heroin is stored in a home, is likewise inadequate.
Police officer comes upon a group of men she believes are selling and buying drugs, including Dan, who runs as officer approaches; officer chases Dan down alley, Dan stops. Police: "why did you run? You need to stay here and answer my questions." Dan: "I'm not who you want, I just take the orders, I don't deliver the drugs." Which of the following is/ are true? A. Dan was seized (from the start of the problem). B.Dan was seized (by the end of the problem). C.Dan was in custody. D. Dan was being interrogated. E. Dan should have been read Miranda. F. The officer was deliberately eliciting information from Dan in violation of Massiah. G. This interaction violated Dan's due process rights. H. None of the above.
Ans: B. While fleeing, Dan was not seized. (Hodari) Seized at the end of the problem because he stopped and was submitting to the officers (Hodari, Drayton, Mendenhall) Did she have reasonable suspicion to seize Dan? Reasonable suspicion he is engaged in criminal activity and the fact that Dan started to run. (more suspicion of Dan than in Wardlow) Would like to Is Dan in custody? No. Berkhemer says Dan is in custody. Only one police officer. Slightly different calculation. Was Dan being interrogated? Yes. Police never got a chance to ask any questions besides "Why did you run?" Free questions like your name and address. Probably enough. Don't have the Massiah standard.
If an inmate is questioned while in prison, must the interrogators give Miranda Warnings first? A. Yes, of course, prison= custody. B. Maybe. It depends on the context/ surrounding circumstances. C. No, never. Prisoners are so accustomed to their environment- it is so familiar- that Miranda is never necessary.
Ans: B. -Holding in Howes v. Fields. Because the inmate was told he was free to leave, interrogation did not occur in a manner where miranda warnings are necessary. Have to focus on all of the features of interrogation. Casebook authors critical of Alito. Clining to the bright line flag. The critique they have here.
True or false: If you ask for an attorney, an attorney must be provided to you promptly. Why or why not?
Ans: B. False Why not? Attorney has to be there when you're questioning you after you ask for an attorney. -When are the warnings required? Must be "custody" Freedom of action deprived "in any significant way" Must be "interrogation."
Why did the court find that Massiah's rights had been violated? A. The surrepitious recording of the conversation violated Massiah's 4A rights. B. Colson's custodial interrogation of Massiah compelled his confession in violation of 5A. C. It was improper for the agents to deliberately elicit the confession from Massiah after indictment. D. Massiah's confession to Colson was not voluntary. E. Massiah's confession to Colson was not reliable.
Ans: C. Violation if the govt deliberately maintains incriminating statements after D. has indicted. Right to counsel has attached?
A police officer patrolling a public park stopped a group of three young men, frisked them and found.a weapon on one of the suspects. The officer arrested the person carrying the weapon. The defense moved to suppress. The officer testified that he did not have RS for the stop or frisk but he genuinely believed it was lawful to frisk all persons on public recreation grounds. The evidence would be: A. Admitted if the trial court finds that the officer acted in good faith reliance on his mistake belief about the law. B. Admitted because people in a public park have no reasonable expectation of privacy. C. Suppressed because the officer's belief as to the law was unreasonable and would not support and objective's reasonable reliance.
Answer: C. So clearly against Terry and its progeny.
When does a 4th amendment violation occur?
At the moment of the search or seizure.
When do you not need a warrant and just need P/C?
Automobile Community caretaking Plain view Hot pursuit Intervening cause Emergency aid
What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?
Automobile, SITA, inventory searches, Terry "frisks" of cars, etc.
Handcuffing exceeds the bounds of a Terry stop.(True or Fals) A. True B. False
B.
What is the search that is at issue in Patel? A. The collection of information about the hotel guests by the hotel employees. B. The inspection of the hotel register by the LAPD. C. Both of the above.
B.
What happened to Carpenter on remand? A. Conviction overturned because 4A violation. B. B. Conviction upheld despite 4A violation.
B. Can't used a stored communications act order to get that kind of evidence. Lower suspicion standard. Carpenter won at supreme court and said it was an unlawful search. Have to think about the application of good faith. Unconstitutionality of the govt search was not clear.
Officer Raquelle obtains a search warrant for Rob's house. However, the search warrant turns out to be defective because it misstates the statutory number for the crime the officers are investigating. It also is short of probable cause because it provides no corroboration of an anonymous tip by an informant. When the defense moves to suppress evidence found in the search of Rob's home, the prosecutor argues the good faith exception. How should the court rule? A. Admit the evidence (the good faith exception applied). B. Suppress the evidence (the good faith exception does not apply).
B. Misstates the statutory number for the crime Not the kind of thing the Court would suppress for. Overtime Court relaxed the particularity requirement. Provides no corroboration Might fall into one of the exceptions- why the good faith exception would not apply here. Lack of probable cause causes it to be suppressed.
PPolice search Leonard's home illegally. They find no evidence of crime there, but they do find, on a slip of paper, the address to Joan's home. Joan was not previously a suspect. Police go immediately to Joan's home, and search it illegally as well. There they find drugs and documents that Joan and Leonard are engaged in a narcotics conspiracy. Which is true? A. At Joan's trial, the court will suppress the slip of paper. B. At Leonard's trial, the court will suppress the drugs and documents.
B. -How can Leonard move to suppress evidence at Joans' house? The problem is that evidence is found as a product of search of Joans' home. The reason he can supress the evidence is because Toy can suppress the evidence at Ye's apartment.
Michael conducts a warrantless arrest of Avi for gambling without PC. Avi then tells Officer Michael that he has cocaine in a storage locker at the bus station. Using this information, Officer Michael gets a warrant to search the storage locker. BUT: At the same time, Officer Josh is also investigating Avi. Officer Josh and Officer Michael are each unaware of the other's investigation. Officer Josh obtains a valid warrant based on PC to search the locker. The evidence should be: A. Admitted, but only if Officer Josh got there first. B. Admitted, even if Office Michael got there first. C. Suppressed under both scenarios.
B. Because of the inevitable discovery exception. Independent source: A or B could be correct. But in Nyx, even if officer didn't get there first, would have a clean path to the evidence independent of the tainted work officer Michael had done.
Acting on unsupported hunch that he was involved in gambling activites, officers arrested clyde as he left his downtown office. A search of his briefcase turned up documents linking his friend, Bonnie, to a major bookmaking ring, and the prosecution now proposes to use the evidence against Bonnie at trial. Bonnie challenges the search. How will the court rule? A. Suppressed because the police illegally searched the briefcase. B. Admitted because bonnie is not the owner of the briefcase. C. Admitted because Bonnie was not present during the illegal search. D. Suppressed because Bonnie's 4A rights were violated.
B. Bonnie is not the owner of the briefcase so she lacks standing to the investigation of the brief case. No probable cause for the arrest but none of them are bonnie problems. Assume no connection unless there's a reason to think there was a connection in the problem. -If the briefcase was found in her house, she can object to the search of her house. She still lacks standing to object to obtaining evidence in the briefcase. No standing to object to that unlawful search. Wong Sun is a powerful decision.
Syracuse Police Department received a phone call from Katherine Smith at 150 Henry Street. Ms. Smith said her roommate, Felix Davis, had a gun and was a convicted felon. Syracuse PD responded to 150 Henry Street. Upon entering the residence, Officer Parker asked Ms. Smith where Mr. Davis was, and she said "he's in his bedroom" and pointed to a closed door. Officer Parker entered the bedroom and saw Felix Davis sitting on the floor. On a dresser in the room, under a pair of shorts, Officer Parker found a handgun. Officer Parker handcuffed Davis and put him in the back of his patrol car. He then asked Davis whether the gun was his. Davis admitted being a convicted felon but denied that the gun belonged to him. Please outline the potential 4A issues presented here and come to class prepared to discuss them.Was it Lawful for the officers to enter Felix's bedroom? A.Yes, under the consent search doctrine. B.No, a consent argument would not permit this.
B. No, a consent argument would not permit this. Would cite Matlock.
What is Gorsuch's concern in Carpenter?
Bailment: giving someone control of something with expectation that it will come back to you.
In Terry, the Court held that: A. When Officer McFadden frisked Terry, that was a search that required probable cause; the gun was suppressed. B. When Officer McFadden frisked Terry, that was not a search, so there was no Fourth Amendment violation. C. When Officer McFadden frisked Terry with reasonable suspicion that Terry might be armed, that frisk was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; no suppression.
C.
Officer Michael conducts a warrantless arrest of Avi for gambling. Avi then tells Officer Michael that he has cocaine in a storage locker at the bus station. Using this information, Officer Michael gets a warrant to search the storage locker and seizes the cocaine. As it turns out, Officer Michael did not have probable cause for the initial arrest. Avi moves to suppress the cocaine found in the storage locker. How should the court rule? A. Admit the evidence; Avi consented to the search. B. Admit the evidence; Avi had no REOP in the locker so there was no 4A "search." C. Suppress the evidence.
C.
Which do you believe are true? A. Compelling a suspect to open his phone using his fingerprint would not violate 5A. B. Compelling a suspect to open phone using faceprint would not violate 5A. C. Compelling suspect to provide password to phone would not violate 5A. D. Compelling suspect to enter password on phone would not violate 5A.
C.
The Schmerber 5A holding: A. The blood draw was not compelled. B. The blood test was not incriminating C. The blood test was not testimonial. D. All three elements (compulsory, incrimination, testimony) were present and his rights were violated.
C. It wasn't testimonial- quitung the Holt decision looking for compelling communications Drawing blood from him is not the same as getting him to communicate, drawing something from his mind.
What level of suspicion must police have to conduct an inventory search? A. Probable Cause B. Reasonable Suspicion C. No Suspicion
C. No Suspicion Officer safety. Nothing dangerous inside the car. No suspicion is required for these searches Applies to cars in berntine case And bags in Lafayette
Should massiah's statements have been suppressed on 4A grounds? A. Yes, because Colson was a govt agent. B. Yes, because Massiah had a REOP. C. No.
C. U.S. v. White He is a govt agent but you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy
What was the rule in Carpenter about reasonable expectation of privacy in cell tower locations?
Compelling wireless carriers to turn over data that tracks users' movements for long periods of time requires a warrant, absent exigent circumstances.
What happened in Florida v. Jardines?
Cops came with a canine, dog finds drugs in a suspect's house and the officers come with a search warrant and arrest Jardines. Curtilage of the home is a problem. A trespass to walk up to someones door and knock on their door.
Troy is co-president of East High School's Student Council. Unaware of any drug issue at the school, the principal orders a random drug test of all members of Student Council to ensure its student reps are drug free. Troy tests positive for cocaine, was kicked off Student Council, suspended for a week, and required to engage in drug counseling with the school's guidance counselor. Troy argues that the testing violated the 4A. He will likely: A. Prevail, because the school's justification for the policy was inadequate. B. Prevail, because the school used the results to punish him. C. Prevail, because there is no history of drug use by members of the club. D. Lose because a school can drug test any extracurricular activity for any reason.
D. Lose because a school can drug test any extracurricular activity for any reason. This court has not required a particularized or pervasive drug problem before allowing the govt to conduct suspicionless drug testing Don't want school officials selecting which students to test Should be testing everyone in this program. The school's power to search students is pretty broad!
Sophie was pulled over and arrested by Officer Don for texting while driving. Officer Don searched Sophie, found and secured her cell phone, and then put Sophie in the back of his patrol car. Then he went back to search her car, incident to the arrest.After Gant, what parts of Sophie's car can Officer Don search? Please choose the best answer(Once you've entered your answer, consider this: where could he have searched under Belton/Thornton?) A. Officer Don can search everywhere in the car. B.Officer Don can only search in the passenger compartment. C. Officer Don cannot search anywhere in Sophie's car; SITA of cars is never permitted after a suspect is secured in the police car. D. Officer Don cannot search anywhere in Sophie's car; the SITA of her car is not permitted on these facts.
D. A. is not right under Grant. B. Is not right under Grant part 2. Gant part 1- where is the suspect? Gant part 2- what is the crime of arrest? C. Forgets the part 2 of Gant. Can be permitted based on the crime of arrest and where she is located.
What are the relevant factors of the totality circumstances test for whether a confession was made voluntarily?
D's characteristics: age, mental stability, educational level, familiarity with the criminal justice system. Police action: Length of detention, duration and intensity of questioning, use of trickery or promises of leniency, deprivation of food, water, access to friends/family, whether advised of rights, physical or psychological mistreatment..
Laval arrested for driving with an expired license. (He stopped for DWI but passed sobriety tests). MJ found during search of trunk. Laval's lawyer moved to suppress. Is the marijuana admissible at Laval's trial? A. The marijuana is admissible because it was found incident to a lawful custodial arrest. B. The MJ is admissible because it was found during a search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. C. The MJ is inadmissible because the arrest of an unimpaired driver for a traffic offense is unlawful under the 4A, and the subsequent search is tainted by the illegal arrest. D. The MJ is inadmissible because the search of the trunk was unlawful.
D. -We can't uphold this. Gant part 2-failure to renew driver's license -B. Is not it because it's potentially relevant; automobile exception (Carol Cahmbers v. Acevedo-need probable cause) Don't have probable cause here. -C is wrong because atwater is the law. Improper to arrest him? No atwater says no. Did officer Nico's stop violate 4A? The rules With RS that criminal activity is afoot an officer may stop a suspect.
What are the arguments for the exclusionary rule?
Deter bad police behavior Consistency between state and federal law Imperative of judicial integrity
What are the questions to ask for the fruits analysis?
Did the illegality cause police to find the evidence that the claimant seeks to suppress? Has the taint attenuated? Is there an independent source argument? Can police argue for inevitable discovery?
In Murray -Police illegally enter D's warehouse, see MJ evidence, then leave. -8 hours later, now with warrant, police reenter warehouse and seize 270 bales of MJ. What key fact have I omitted?
Discovery of marijuana- the car he was driving previously- can connect him to the warehouse and this vehicle.
What are the arguments against the exclusionary rule?
Does Not actually deter Letting guilty defendants of free is too costly; undermines truth-seeking function of the system. No textual support
What are the key factors for why the Court believed Berkemer is not in custody?
Duration: temporary/brief Public Usually 1-2 officers Conclusion: "substantially less 'police dominated' than interrogation at station-house so we won't find a 4A seizure is automatic custody for Miranda purposes.
I steal a bunch of clothes from somewhere cool that I shop and hide the bag of stolen clothes in my neighbors' garage. Police conduct a warrantless search of the neighbor's garage, find the clothes, and trace it all back to me. At my suppression hearing, the evidence will be: A. Suppressed. My REAOP was violated B. Suppressed. My neighbor's REOP was violated. C. Suppressed because the officers' entry into the garage violated Jones/Jardines. D. Suppressed if I can show that I was the target of the search. E. Admitted.
E. Admitted. No expectation of privacy to go into the neighbor's home or anything.
Assume that Officer Nico had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of the car. Did Officer Nico's conduct during the stop violate the 4A? A. Yes, because Officer Nico ordered Lyla and Henry out of the car. B. Yes, because using hnadcuffs always exceeds the scope of a terry stop. C. Yes, the search of the backseat was unlawful. D. Yes, the seizure of the gun was unlawful. E. All of the above. F. No, Officer Nico's actions were reasonable.
F. He can order the passenger out of the car-Mimms. Plain view doctrine
What are the facts and rule in Maryland v. Buie?
Facts: -2 guys were seen robbing a Godfather's pizza. -They arrested Buie in his house. Once he emerged from the basis they found his red running suit so they could seize it. Rule: -1. Officers can conduct a cursory sweep of the home when they have an arrest warrant. Looking of a person; plain view comes in when they see some evidence they can seize it under plain view doctrine. To looking in adjoining areas, need to have a person If there was a one-room ranch house they can search those immediate areas and could not go into a garage. -2.-Limits on the spaces you can look.
What are the facts and rule from United States v. Knights?
Facts: -A probationer suspected of involvement in incidents of arson and vandalism -LE tracked knight's accomplice, saw him dumb objects like pipe bombs in a river -Based on reasonable suspicion they searched Knight's apartment. Rule: A probationer's home may be searched if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
What are the facts and rule from New Jersey v. TLO?
Facts: A 14-year-old freshman high school student, T.L.O. (defendant), was discovered smoking in the bathroom at the high school with a friend. The two girls were caught by a teacher at the school. The assistant vice principal, Theodore Choplick, questioned T.L.O. about the smoking, and T.L.O. denied smoking. Choplick searched T.L.O.'s purse as part of his investigation, and he found a pack of cigarettes. Choplick also noticed cigarette rolling papers, which are often used to smoke marijuana. Choplick continued searching T.L.O.'s purse and discovered a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a substantial number of one-dollar bills, a list of students, and two letters that indicated T.L.O. was dealing marijuana. The matter was turned over to the police, and the state (plaintiff) brought juvenile-delinquency charges against T.L.O. T.L.O. then moved to suppress the evidence found in the purse, claiming that the search violated T.L.O's rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County held that the school district did not violate the Fourth Amendment. T.L.O. appealed. Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, a school official is permitted to search a student if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will result in evidence of the student's violation of law or school rules.
What are the facts and rule from Florida v. Jimeno?
Facts: A Florida police officer stopped a car driven by Enio Jimeno (defendant) after Jimeno ran a red light. The officer suspected Jimeno of transporting illegal drugs and asked Jimeno for permission to search the car for drugs. Jimeno consented. Next to passenger Luz Jimeno's (defendant) seat, the officer found a closed paper bag, the contents of which were not visible. The officer opened the bag and found drugs inside. Florida (plaintiff) prosecuted the couple on drug charges. Rule: The Fourth Amendment allows a law enforcement officer to open a closed container within a suspect's vehicle if, under the circumstances, it is objectively reasonable to believe the scope of the suspect's consent permits the officer to do so
What are the facts and rule from
Facts: A border-patrol agent working in an area of Arizona often travelled by smugglers received an alert that a traffic sensor had been triggered. The agent went to investigate. Based upon his experience, the agent became suspicious that Ralph Arvizu (defendant) might be smuggling contraband. The agent based this suspicion on numerous facts including the van occupants' behavior, Arvizu's effort to avoid checkpoints, the peculiar elevation of the back passenger's knees, the fact that the van's registered address was in an area populated by smugglers, and the fact that minivans are commonly used for smuggling. The agent pulled Arvizu over, and Arvizu consented to a search of the vehicle. The agent found over 100 pounds of marijuana in the van. Arvizu was arrested for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. Arvizu moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop on the basis that the stop was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Rule: An officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based upon the totality of the circumstances may stop a car.
What are the facts and rule from Navarette v. California?
Facts: A person called 9-1-1 reporting that a truck driver was driving dangerously and had just run the person off the road. The person gave the make, model, color, and license plate number of the truck to the State of California (plaintiff) highway patrol. A police officer saw the truck, driven by Lorenzo Navarette (defendant), on the highway and followed it for five minutes before pulling it over. The officer did not note any reckless driving in the time he was following the truck. Upon approaching the truck, the officer smelled marijuana. The officer searched the truck and found 30 pounds of marijuana. Navarette challenged the constitutionality of the traffic stop and incident search. Rule: An anonymous tip of reckless driving can support the reasonable suspicion necessary for a traffic stop if the tip is accompanied by adequate indicia of reliability.
What were the facts and rule from Dunaway?
Facts: A police detective received information that Dunaway (defendant) was responsible for an armed robbery that resulted in the death of one person. The information was insufficient to get a warrant but the detective found Dunaway at a friend's apartment and requested that he come to the police station for questioning. Dunaway complied. Dunaway was not under arrest but he was read his Miranda warnings and would have been restrained had he tried to leave. Eventually, Dunaway made incriminating statements and drew incriminating sketches. Rule: Except in the case of temporary stops on the street where the police need only have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the police may only seize a citizen based upon probable cause.
What are the facts and rule from schneckloth v. Busamonte?
Facts: A police officer made a routine traffic stop, lacking any probable cause, and asked for permission to search the car. The brother of the car's owner gave consent. Upon searching the vehicle, the officer discovered three stolen checks, which were later linked to Robert Bustamonte (defendant), one of the six passengers riding in the car. Over Bustamonte's objections, the state trial court allowed the evidence of the checks to be admitted at trial, and Bustamonte was convicted of theft. The state appellate court upheld the conviction. Bustamonte petitioned the federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, but the district court denied Bustamonte's petition. Rule: when a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he or she has the burden to establish that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.The court must look at the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether consent to a warrantless search absent probable cause was freely and voluntarily given.
What was the facts and rule from Florida v. Riley?
Facts: An officer with the Pasco County Sheriff's Office visited the rural mobile home of Riley (defendant) to investigate an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on the property. A partially enclosed greenhouse was located 10 to 20 feet away from the home inside a wire fence, but the officer could not see the contents from the road. The officer then flew over the property in a helicopter at a height of 400 feet, which allowed him to see marijuana plants through the open sides and missing panels of the greenhouse roof. As a result, a warrant was issued and marijuana was found growing in the greenhouse. Riley was arrested for possession of marijuana under Florida law. The lower court certified the question of whether the aerial observation in this case constituted a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to the Florida Supreme Court. The court held that it did. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a plurality opinion on the issue. Rule: Aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home from a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet is not a search requiring a warrant under the terms of the Fourth Amendment.
What are the facts and rule from Berkemer?
Facts: A police officer suspected that McCarty (defendant) was driving while intoxicated and pulled him over. The officer asked McCarty to step out of the car and, when McCarty could not stand up straight, the officer decided he would be charged with a traffic offense. While McCarty was not yet told he would be taken into custody, at that moment he was no longer free to leave. The officer then asked McCarty whether he had been using intoxicants. McCarty answered in the affirmative. McCarty was then arrested and brought to the police station. At the station, McCarty was again questioned. At no point was McCarty read his Miranda warnings. McCarty moved to exclude both his statements made during the traffic stop and his statements made at the station house. Rule: Police must issue Miranda warnings prior to all custodial interrogations, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense. However, a motorist is not subject to custodial interrogation for the purpose of Miranda when he is questioned on the side of the road during a routine traffic stop. It is undisputed that a traffic stop significantly infringes on a motorist's freedom, but the concerns that the Miranda decision intended to alleviate are not present in a routine traffic stop. Primarily, a routine traffic stop does not create an environment where a person would feel compelled to speak and incriminate himself. First, a roadside stop is generally temporary and brief. In contrast, questioning at a stationhouse can go on for hours. Second, during a routine traffic stop, the police officers' aura of authority and ability to intimidate is less than would be at the police station. Traffic stops generally take place where others can see, whereas questioning at a stationhouse takes place in private. Also, a motorist is likely to encounter only one or two officers, not a group of officers as is possible when questioned at the police station. In these respects, a traffic stop is akin to a Terry stop where no Miranda warnings are required either. In this case, McCarty was not in custody when he was questioned on the side of the road, and his statement is therefore admissible. Although the officer knew McCarty was not free to leave once he stepped out of the car, the officer never conveyed this information to McCarty. Therefore, because a reasonable person in McCarty's situation would believe he was still free to leave at the end of the encounter, McCarty was not yet in custody for the purpose of Miranda. However, once the officer brought McCarty to the police station, McCarty knew he was no longer free to leave and the police should have read him his Miranda warnings.
What are the facts and rule in Scott v. Harris?
Facts: A sheriff's deputy in Georgia observed Harris (plaintiff) speeding on a highway. When the deputy attempted to pull Harris over, Harris fled. The original deputy and several others gave chase. The chase took place over ten miles at significant speeds. A camera in Deputy Timothy Scott's (defendant) cruiser captured the chase. The video showed Harris driving at high speeds and swerving on the motorway as well as driving through red lights. During the chase, Scott asked his supervisor to allow him to perform a maneuver to Harris' car that would force it to spin to a stop. The request was approved, but instead of performing the maneuver, Scott hit Harris' back bumper, causing Harris' car to leave the roadway and hit a tree in a nearby embankment. As a result of the crash, Harris became a quadriplegic. Harris sued Scott for violating Harris' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. Both parties agree that Scott's actions constituted a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Scott filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he enjoyed qualified immunity as a police officer. Rule: (2) The use of deadly force to terminate a high-speed vehicle chase does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Reasonableness is judged by a totality of the circumstances which includes the seriousness of the harm (Tennessee v. Garner)/
What was the facts and rule from illinois rodriguez?
Facts: A woman called the police because she had been beaten by Rodriguez (defendant). The woman agreed to accompany the police to Rodriguez's home and unlock the door with her key so the police could arrest him. The woman had lived in the apartment with Rodriguez but had moved out a few weeks prior to this incident. She had kept the key without Rodriguez's knowledge. Upon entering Rodriguez's apartment, the police found drugs and drug paraphernalia lying in plain view. Rodriquez was arrested and charged with drug possession and intent to deliver. Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, the police may enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe the person who consents to their presence has the authority to do so.
What were the facts and rule from Arizona v. Grant?
Facts: After Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Rule: Police may search a vehicle after a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that crime-related evidence is located in the vehicle.
What was the fact and rule from Alderman v. US?
Facts: Alderman (defendant) and others were prosecuted for various crimes using evidence obtained through allegedly unlawful wiretapping. The United States (plaintiff) conceded that one of the challenged acts of wiretapping was illegal. The United States argued that the defendants lacked standing to demand exclusion of the wiretap evidence. Rule: A defendant in criminal proceedings does not have standing to demand exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of another person's constitutional rights.
What were the facts and rule from Knowles v. Iowa
Facts: An Iowa police officer pulled Knowles (defendant) over for speeding. The officer issued Knowles a citation and then searched the car. The officer did not have probable cause or a warrant, and Knowles did not consent to the search. After finding drugs and drug paraphernalia in the car, the officer arrested Knowles. Knowles moved to suppress the evidence found during the search. Rule: The "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment does not authorize the full search of a car after the issuance of a citation.
What were the facts and rule from Draper?
Facts: An informant told police that James Draper (defendant) was a drug dealer who would be carrying narcotics through a train station within a particular date range. The informant gave police a detailed physical description of Draper including the clothing he would be wearing and told police that Draper would be carrying a tan zipper bag and that Draper was a fast walker. The police had received reliable information from this informant in the past. Police surveilled the train station on the dates provided to them by the informant. On the second day of surveillance, police observed Draper, who matched the physical description provided by the informant and was carrying a tan zipper bag, walking quickly through the train station. Police stopped Draper and arrested him. After arresting Draper, police searched him and found heroin and a syringe. Draper was charged with knowingly concealing and transporting narcotics, and he moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search, arguing that police did not have probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. The trial court denied Draper's motion, and he was convicted. The court of appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Rule: Police have probable cause to make a warrantless arrest based solely on an accurate description of the accused by a reliable police informant.
What are the facts and rule from United States v. Sokolow?
Facts: Andrew Sokolow (defendant) fit the profile of a drug smuggler. Sokolow purchased expensive airline tickets from Honolulu to Miami in cash, used his mother's last name, gave the ticket agent a phone number listed under the name of another man (Sokolow's roommate), did not check any luggage, and spent 20 hours travelling and only 48 hours in Miami. Sokolow was young, dressed in a black jumpsuit and gold jewelry, and appeared nervous. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Agents stopped Sokolow in front of the airport on his return to Honolulu. A drug dog hit on one of Sokolow's bags, and agents secured a search warrant for the bag. Agents found suspicious documents but no drugs. The drug dog tested the bags again and hit on another bag. The next day, agents secured a warrant for the second bag and found over 1,000 grams of cocaine. Sokolow was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Sokolow moved to suppress the evidence found in the bags. Rule: The fact that an individual fits the profile of a drug courier does give rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop.
What were the facts and rule from Schmerber?
Facts: Armando Schmerber (defendant) crashed his car into a tree and injured both himself and his passenger. The police officer who responded to the scene smelled alcohol on Schmerber's breath and noticed that Schmerber's eyes looked bloodshot and glassy. Schmerber and his passenger were transported to the hospital for treatment. At the hospital, within two hours after the accident, the same officer saw Schmerber again and saw similar signs that Schermber was drunk. Schmerber refused to give a blood sample for chemical analysis, so the officer directed a doctor to take one anyway. The analysis showed that Schmerber was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Schmerber was tried for driving while under the influence of alcohol, and the analysis was entered into evidence. Schmerber objected, claiming that the forced withdrawal of his blood violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. Schmerber was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Rule: (1) The admission of evidence gathered by forcing a suspect to submit to a blood test does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (2) The exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement allows officers to withdraw a suspect's blood for testing without a warrant if officers reasonably believe that delaying the test to obtain a warrant could lead to the destruction of evidence.
What is the rule and facts from Brigam City?
Facts: At 3:00 a.m. on July 23, 2000, police in Brigham City, Utah were called to a home for a loud party. The officers saw teens drinking alcohol in the backyard and a fight taking place inside the home. Several people were involved in the fight, and at least one person was injured. An officer opened the door and announced himself, but no one heard. The officer then entered the home and yelled, at which point the fight stopped. Stuart and other partygoers (defendants) were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, intoxication, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The defendants argued that the officers' entry into the home without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and moved to suppress evidence gathered after entry. Rule: Police may enter a home without a warrant if there is an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is injured or in immediate danger.
What are the facts and rule from NY v. Belton.
Facts: Belton was pulled over for speeding; when the officer saw a small quantity of marijuana on the floor of Belton's car, he arrested Belton for possession of marijuana. The officer then searched the passenger compartment of the car and, inside the pocket of a jacket on the back seat, found cocaine. Rule: when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile," id., at 460—including examining the contents of any containers found there.
Why is the knotts decision about beepers on public roadways important? What are the facts?
Facts: Chemical manufacturer 3M Company informed a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension narcotics officer that Tristan Armstrong (defendant) was stealing chemicals used to make drugs. Police began investigating Armstrong and learned that he purchased additional chemicals from Hawkins (Hawkins) Chemical Company and delivered them to Darryl Petschen (defendant). Hawkins allowed police to place a transmitter called a beeper inside a container of chloroform, which they gave to Armstrong during his next purchase. Using the beeper and visual surveillance, police followed the container to Knotts' (defendant) cabin in Wisconsin. Over the next three days, the police gathered enough evidence to obtain a search warrant. Inside the cabin, they found a fully stocked drug laboratory. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to manufacture controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1976) and brought before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Rule: Monitoring the signals of a beeper to track the movements of a car does not constitute a search requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Precedent from the court in the knotts case where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy because they conveyed to anyone that wants to look that it's on a public road and not private property.
What are the facts and rule from NY v. Class?
Facts: Class was pulled over after driving over the speed limit and when the officers were looking at his VIN number, they saw a gun. The gun was seized and Class was convicted of a state law weapons offense. Rule: Because the officer could not see the VIN from outside the car and because the driver had exited the vehicle, it was constitutionally permissible for the officer to enter the car to the limited extent necessary to uncover the VIN. The officer was allowed to seize the gun, the Court found, because of the plain view doctrine, since the officer in Class saw the gun from a position he was authorized to be and from which he could legally gain physical control over it.
What are the facts and rule from U.S. v. Robinson?
Facts: D.C. police officer named Jenks stopped a 1965 Cadillac based on reliable information that the driver's operating license had been revoked. All three occupants exited the car, and the officer arrested the driver, Robinson. (The Court assumed that Robinson's full-custody arrest was valid.) The officer proceeded to search Robinson and felt a package whose contents the officer could not immediately identify. Rule: During a lawful arrest, it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to search the person being arrested.
What were the facts and rule from Michigan v. Long?
Facts: David Long (defendant) was stopped by police when officers observed Long's car swerve into a ditch after he had been traveling erratically at a high speed. Long met the officers at the rear of the car and did not respond to officers' repeated requests to produce his vehicle registration. The officers believed that Long may have been under the influence of some substance. Long began walking toward the car's open driver-side door. The officers followed him and saw a large hunting knife on the driver-side floorboard. At that point, officers conducted a protective patdown to check Long for weapons, but they did not find anything. One of the officers then shined his flashlight into the car to check for other weapons. The officer saw something sticking out from under the front armrest, and when the officer lifted the armrest, he found a pouch of marijuana. The officers then arrested Long and searched the rest of the car. They found no other contraband or weapons in the car's interior. Officers then decided to impound the car, and when one officer opened the car's unlocked trunk, he found 75 pounds of marijuana inside. Long was charged with possession of marijuana. He moved to suppress the marijuana Rule: The search of an automobile's passenger compartment, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if a law-enforcement officer reasonably believes, based on specific and articulable facts combined with the rational inferences from those facts, that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.
What are the facts and rule from Kentucky v. King?
Facts: During a drug sting operation at a Lexington, Kentucky, apartment complex, police officers mistakenly went to the wrong apartment to arrest a suspect who had purchased crack cocaine. After smelling burnt marijuana emanating from the apartment, the officers knocked loudly on the door and announced their presence. After hearing the apartment's occupants hurriedly moving around inside and on the belief that evidence might be destroyed, officers kicked down the apartment door and took three individuals into custody, including Hollis King (defendant). King and the others were charged with various drug-related offenses unrelated to the original operation. Prior to trial, King filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized at his apartment, arguing that the contraband was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Rule: The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to an officer-created exigency if the exigency does not arise from the officer's unreasonable or unconstitutional conduct.
What were the facts and rule from Mincey v. Arizona?
Facts: Earlier in the day, Officer Headricks had allegedly arranged to purchase a quantity of heroin from Mincey and had left, ostensibly to obtain money. On his return he was accompanied by nine other plainclothes policemen and a deputy county attorney. The door was opened by John Hodgman, one of three acquaintances of Mincey who were in the living room of the apartment. Officer Headricks slipped inside and moved quickly into the bedroom. Hodgman attempted to slam the door in order to keep the other officers from entering, but was pushed back against the wall. As the police entered the apartment, a rapid volley of shots was heard from the bedroom. Officer Headricks emerged and collapsed on the floor. -Every item in the apartment was closely examined p. 469and inventoried, and 200 to 300 objects were seized. In short, Mincey's apartment was subjected to an exhaustive and intrusive search. No warrant was ever obtained. Rule: The fact that a homicide has occurred does not justify making an exception to the rule that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching a suspect's home.
What are the facts and rule from Wong Sun?
Facts: Federal narcotics agents arrested Hom Way for drug possession. Hom Way told the police he got the drugs from "Blackie Toy" who owned a laundry business. The agents went to Toy's business, and James Wah Toy answered the door. When he realized it was the police, he ran back into the building. The police chased and arrested him. No drugs were found, but when the agents told him why they were there he said he never sold drugs but that "Johnny" sells drugs. The agents then had Toy take them to Johnny Yee's home where they found Yee in the bedroom. Yee surrendered his drugs and drug paraphernalia. Yee and Toy were then taken to the Office of the Bureau of Narcotics where Yee told the agents he received the drugs from "Sea Dog," whose real name, Toy said, was Wong Sun (defendant). Toy then took the agents to Wong Sun's house where Wong Sun's wife let them into the home. Wong Sun was arrested. No drugs were found. Toy, Yee and Wong Sun were all arraigned and released on their own recognizance. The men returned to the office several days later. The agents interrogated all three men separately and drafted statements for them to sign. Toy refused to sign his statement. Wong Sun would not sign his but admitted that it was accurate. The court of appeals found that there was no probable cause or reasonable grounds for Toy's or Wong Sun's arrest. Rule: Although evidence obtained through illegal police conduct must be excluded at trial as it is "fruit of the poisonous tree," the connection between the illegal police conduct and a relevant piece of evidence can become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, and such evidence may then be admissible.
What were the facts and rule from U.S. v. Place?
Facts: Federal narcotics officers had articulable suspicion to believe that two suitcases in the possession of a deplaning passenger at LaGuardia Airport contained narcotics. Raymond Place, the passenger, refused to consent to a search. The officers thereafter seized the suitcases and took them to Kennedy Airport. When the suitcases were subjected to a "sniff test" by a narcotics detection dog approximately 90 minutes after their initial seizure, the dog reacted positively to one suitcase. The officers obtained a search warrant for the bag and discovered it to contain cocaine. Place was charged and eventually convicted of possession with intent to distribute. Rule: when an officer's observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terry and its progeny would permit the officer to detain the luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the investigative detention is properly limited in scope."
What was the rule from Brendlin?
Facts: On November 27, 2001, police officers pulled Karen Simeroth (defendant) over to check on her vehicle's permit. The state admitted that the stop was unfounded. One of the officers recognized the passenger, Bruce Brendlin (defendant), and thought he might be a parole violator. After verifying that Brendlin was a parole violator with an outstanding warrant, the officer ordered Brendlin out of the car and placed him under arrest. During a search, the officers found drug paraphernalia. The officers also found drugs and paraphernalia on Simeroth and in the car. Brendlin was charged with drug possession and manufacture. Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the initial traffic stop was an unlawful seizure. Rule:When police stop a bus are all of those people stopped? Stop of a car is a 4th amendment even for everyone in that car.
What are the facts and rule from Arizona v. Fulminante?
Facts: Fulminante (defendant) was a suspect in the murder of his 11-year-old stepdaughter in Arizona. About two years after the murder, Fulminante was convicted in New Jersey of illegally possessing a firearm and was serving his sentence in a New York prison. He became friends with another inmate, Sarivola, who was a paid informant for the FBI. After hearing rumors that Fulminante was suspected of killing a girl in Arizona, Sarivola set out to obtain a confession from him. Sarivola offered to protect Fulminante from the other inmates who were starting to harass him due to the rumors of him molesting a young girl. However, Sarivola told Fulminante that he had to disclose the whole truth before Sarivola could properly protect him. As a result, Fulminante eventually confided in Sarivola and confessed to the murder in extreme detail. A few months later, Fulminante was released from jail. Sarivola and his wife drove Fulminante to Pennsylvania and on the way, Fulminante made another detailed confession to Sarivola's wife. Fulminante was indicted in Arizona for the first-degree murder of his stepdaughter. Before trial, Fulminante moved to suppress the two confessions. Rule: The harmless-error doctrine applies in cases involving coerced confessions. As an initial matter, a finding of a coerced confession may be made if an accused person faces a credible threat of physical violence by an agent of the government. Here, Fulminante confessed to Sarivola, a government agent, because he was afraid of violence from the other inmates unless Sarivola protected him. Because Fulminante was motivated by a credible threat of physical violence, his confession was coerced.
What are the facts and rule from Graham v. Connor?
Facts: Graham (plaintiff) is diabetic. He had an insulin reaction on the day in question, and his friend Berry drove him to a store to buy juice. There was a long line at the store so Graham rushed out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house. Officer Connor (defendant) became suspicious after seeing Graham rush in and out of the store and pulled Berry's car over to make an investigative stop. Berry explained that Graham was having an insulin reaction, but Connor told them to wait there until he found out if something happened at the store. When backup arrived, Graham was handcuffed and shoved against the hood of Berry's car face down. The officers refused to give Graham sugar and ignored his request that they check his wallet for his diabetic decal. During the incident, Graham sustained several injuries, including a broken foot and shoulder injury. He was finally released when Connor learned that nothing happened at the store. Graham sued Connor and the other officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983, charging them with using excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Connor moved for a directed verdict. Rule: A court should analyze excessive force claims that involve an officer's use of force during an investigatory stop, arrest, or other seizure under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. -Calculation of reasonableness must embody allowance fo that fact that police are often forced to make split-second judgements- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
What were the facts and rule from Flippo v. West Virginia?
Facts: Guy killed his wife. For over 16 hours, they took photographs, collected evidence, and searched through the contents of the cabin. Rule: Exigent circumstances: officers should not be required to get a warrant when it isn't feasible for them to do so. -Warrantless searches must end when the exigency ends.
What were the facts and rule from Warden v. Hayden?
Facts: Guy robbed a bar and bystander told the police what house he entered. -Officers got there and proceeded to search the house. The court held that the search was valid. Speed here was essential, and only a thorough search of the house for persons and weapons could have insured that Hayden was the only man present and that the police had control of all weapons which could be used against them or to effect an escape. Rule: The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.
What were the facts and rule from Sharpe?
Facts: Highway Patrol Officer Thrasher pulled alongside the Pontiac, which was driven by the defendant Sharpe, and signaled for the driver to stop. As Sharpe pulled to the side of the road, the defendant Savage drove his pickup truck between Officer Thrasher and Sharpe, nearly hitting the trooper's car, and proceeded down the road. DEA Agent Cooke remained with Sharpe while Officer Thrasher pursued the pickup and stopped it a half mile down the highway. DEA Agent Cooke radioed the local police to assist him with Sharpe. After they arrived, he joined Officer Thrasher, who had removed Savage from the pickup and was waiting for Cooke's arrival. Upon detecting the odor of marijuana emanating from the camper attached to Savage's truck, Agent Cooke subjected the vehicle to a search and recovered a large quantity of marijuana. -Twenty minutes had elapsed between the initial stop of Savage and this search. Rule: In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. A court making this assessment should take care to consider whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation, and in such cases the court should not indulge in unrealistic second-guessing. . . . The question is not simply whether some other alternative was available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize and pursue it.
What were the facts and rule from Illinois v. Edmond?
Facts: In order to interdict illegal drugs, the city of Indianapolis began to set up vehicle checkpoints in 1998. The city had six such checkpoints, and between August and November of 1998 it stopped 1,161 vehicles and arrested 104 motorists. Fifty five of the arrests were for drug related offenses, while forty nine were unrelated to drugs. The procedure is as follows: At each checkpoint the police stop a predetermined number of vehicles, and the driver is asked for a license and the car registration. The driver in each case is inspected for signs of impairment. The directives authorize that the police can conduct a search only by consent or if they have "particularized suspicion." The officers must stop each car in a particular sequence, and they cannot stop vehicles out of sequence. A dog was used to sniff around the car. Moreover, officers have no discretion to vary the predetermined plan for the checkpoint search. Edmond (plaintiff) and Palmer (plaintiff) were stopped at such a checkpoint in September 1998. Rule: A suspicionless roadside checkpoint established for the purpose of deterring general criminal activity is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
What are the facts and rule from Maryland v. Shatzer?
Facts: In 2003, a social worker reported allegations that Michael Shatzer (defendant) had abused his three-year-old son. At the time of this allegation, Shatzer was imprisoned for a different child-sexual-abuse conviction. The 2003 allegation was assigned to Detective Shane Blankenship, who went to interview Shatzer in prison. Shatzer initially waived his Miranda rights but afterwards demanded an attorney, at which point Blankenship ended the interview. The investigation was closed shortly afterwards. Two and a half years later, further details of the 2003 allegations against Shatzer were reported. Detective Paul Hoover undertook the investigation and on March 2, 2006 went to interview Shatzer in prison. Hoover obtained a written Miranda waiver and interviewed Shatzer. Shatzer agreed to take a polygraph five days later. Shatzer was again read his Miranda rights. Shatzer signed another written waiver and proceeded to fail the polygraph test. After further questioning, Shatzer confessed. Rule: an accused that has invoked his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation cannot be questioned further without counsel unless he himself initiates further communication with the police. Any evidence resulting from such further interrogation without counsel is presumed to be involuntary under Edwards. Since the Edwards rule is court-imposed, the rule is only justified if its benefits outweigh its costs. One benefit of the rule is that the accused is protected from coercive interrogation. However, this benefit is diminished where an accused has, in the interim, been released to his normal life before the second attempted interrogation. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that an accused's willingness to be interrogated without counsel in the second interrogation is the result of the pressures of prolonged custody.
What happened in Davis v. United States? What was the rule?
Facts: In April 2007, police officers in Alabama pulled over Stella Owens and Willie Davis (defendant), her passenger. Owens was arrested for driving while intoxicated and Davis was arrested for giving a false name to the police. Owens and Davis were handcuffed and placed in patrol cars. The police proceeded to search the passenger compartment of Owens' car and found a gun in the pocket of Davis' jacket. Davis was convicted and he subsequently appealed. At the time of Davis' arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) allowed police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest. While Davis' appeal was pending, Belton was overruled by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). In considering Davis' appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit applied the Gant rule and found that the search violated Davis' Fourth Amendment rights. The Eleventh Circuit also found that applying the exclusionary rule to this case would not serve to deter future Fourth Amendment violations, and consequently did not exclude the evidence uncovered in the search. Davis' conviction was therefore affirmed. Rule:A search conducted in objectively reasonable reliance upon binding appellate precedent that has since been overruled is not subject to the exclusionary rule.
What are the facts and rule from Carroll v. U.S.?
Facts: In Carroll, federal prohibition agents (together with a state police officer) encountered a car, on the highway between Detroit and Grand Rapids, whose occupants they believed (based on "reasonably trustworthy information") to be bootleggers. The agents stopped the car and searched it without a warrant, and found 68 bottles of whiskey and gin stuffed inside the hollowed-out upholstery.10 The Court upheld the search, concluding that the traditional Fourth Amendment warrant requirement was unsuited to the search of "a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Rule: This led the Court to recognize what came to be called the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement: For searches and seizures of cars stopped along the road, if obtaining a warrant is not "reasonably practicable," then "[t]he measure of legality . . . is that the seizing officer shall have reasonable or probable cause for believing that the automobile which he stops and seizes has contraband liquor therein which is being illegally transported."
What were the facts and rule from Atwater v. Lago Vista?
Facts: In March 1997, Gail Atwater (plaintiff) was pulled over for driving without a seatbelt and for failing to secure her two children in the front seat. Each violation is a misdemeanor carrying a fine of $25 to $50. Pursuant to Texas law, the officer arrested Atwater instead of issuing a citation. Atwater was booked into jail, brought before a magistrate, and released on bond. Atwater sued the officer, the police chief, and City of Lago Vista (defendants) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that the arrest was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Rule: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a warrantless arrest for a minor offense.
What are the law and facts from Tennessee v. Garner?
Facts: In Memphis, Tennessee, police officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a nighttime home burglary. After the officers arrived at the residence, Wright radioed dispatch. Meanwhile Hymon went around to the rear of the house where he saw Edward Garner (defendant) running across the backyard. Garner stopped by a chain-link fence. Hymon called out, "Police, halt." Hymon was able to see Garner and did not believe Garner had a weapon. Garner began to climb over the fence. Hymon fired his gun, and the bullet struck Garner in the back of the head. Garner later died at the hospital. A Tennessee statute provides that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, [the defendant] either flee[s] or forcibly resist[s], the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Tenn. Code Ann. 40-7-108 (1982). The police review board and grand jury declined to take criminal or civil action against Hymon or the police department. Garner's father sued Hymon, the police department, the director, the city, and the mayor in federal court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Garner's civil rights. The district court found for the defendants, and Garner's father appealed Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to stop an unarmed suspect from fleeing unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and the deadly force is necessary to prevent the suspect's escape.
What are the facts and rule from Robbins?
Facts: In Robbins, police stopped a car for erratic driving, and noticed the odor of marijuana wafting from the car. They arrested the driver and conducted a warrantless search of the car. In a recessed luggage compartment, they found two "bricks" covered with green opaque plastic, which they unwrapped. The packages contained 30 pounds of marijuana. rule: The Court concluded that this search, too, violated the Fourth Amendment, although there was no majority opinion. The fact that the kind of container in Robbins was not the kind normally used to transport "personal effects" did not matter; "[w]hat one person may put into a suitcase, another person may put into a paper bag.
What are the facts and rule Rhode Island v. Innis?
Facts: Innis (defendant) was arrested and convicted of kidnapping, robbery and murder. At the time of his arrest, Innis was unarmed, but the police suspected that he had hidden a gun somewhere nearby. When he was arrested, Innis was read his Miranda warnings. He said that he understood his rights and he wanted a lawyer. Innis was placed in a police car with three officers for the ride to the police station. Along the way, two of the officers began speaking to each other, expressing their concern that a student from the nearby school for handicapped children would find the weapon and hurt himself. At this point, Innis told the police to turn around and he would show them where the gun was. Before pointing out the gun's location, Innis was again read his Miranda rights. Innis responded that he understood but he did not want any children to come across the gun and get hurt. Innis then pointed out where the gun was. The trial judge ruled that Innis had been properly Mirandized and that it was understandable that the officers in the car would have addressed their concern to each other. Rule: Under Miranda, "interrogation" refers to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
What are the facts and rule from Oregon v. Bradshaw?
Facts: James Edward Bradshaw (defendant) was arrested in connection with a car accident in which a boy died. Bradshaw initially denied involvement in the accident; he was then informed of his Miranda rights and invoked his right to counsel. At this point, officers stopped questioning Bradshaw. Later, while Bradshaw was being transferred from the police station to the jail, he asked a police officer, "Well, what is going to happen to me now?" The officer reminded Bradshaw that he had invoked his right to counsel and told Bradshaw that the officer did not want him to talk unless it was an exercise of free will. Bradshaw said he understood, and the two had a conversation in which the officer suggested that Bradshaw help himself by taking a polygraph. Bradshaw agreed to do so. The next day, Bradshaw signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and took a polygraph test. At the end of the test, the examiner told Bradshaw that he did not believe Bradshaw was telling the truth. Bradshaw then confessed to driving drunk and causing the accident that killed the boy. At trial, Bradshaw moved to suppress his confession. Rule: If an accused asserts his right to counsel but subsequently initiates a conversation with police about a topic related to the investigation, his initiation of the conversation is a waiver of his right to counsel.
What were the facts and rule in Massiah v. US?
Facts: Massiah (defendant) was indicted for violating federal narcotics laws. With the assistance of counsel, he pleaded not guilty and was released on bail. Unbeknownst to Massiah, a co-defendant, Colson, had agreed to cooperate with the police. A few days after Massiah was released on bail, Colson, wearing a wire so the police could hear what Massiah said, initiated a conversation with Massiah where Massiah made incriminating statements. These statements were then introduced at trial. Massiah was convicted of several drug offenses. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. Massiah argued that the statements were introduced at trial in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Rule: A person who has been indicted on criminal charges has as much a constitutional right to have an attorney present during police interrogations as he does during the trial itself.
What was the limit on Informant's tip in florida v. JL?
Facts: Miami-Dade Police received an anonymous tip that a man matching J.L.'s (defendant's) description had a gun at the bus stop. Officers stopped and frisked J.L. and found a gun. J.L. was charged with possessing a concealed firearm without a license and while under age 18. J.L. moved to suppress the gun on the grounds that it was found during an unlawful search. Rule: An anonymous tip that a person may be carrying a gun does not justify a stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment unless there is additional corroboration to ensure that the tip has "sufficient indicia of reliability" to create reasonable suspicion justifying a stop.
What are the facts and rule from Minnesota v. Dickerson?
Facts: Minnesota police spotted Dickerson (defendant) leaving a known crack house. When Dickerson saw the officers, he turned and walked in the other direction. Based on these facts, the officers stopped Dickerson, and one of them performed a patdown search. The officer found no weapons but did feel a small object in Dickerson's jacket pocket. Believing this object to be crack cocaine wrapped in cellophane, the officer reached into the pocket to remove it. The officer found crack cocaine and arrested Dickerson for drug possession. At trial, Dickerson moved to suppress the evidence Rule: A police officer performing a patdown search for weapons may not seize other contraband detected during the search if the identity of that contraband is not immediately apparent.
What are the facts and rule from Pennyslvania v. Muniz?
Facts: Muniz (defendant) was arrested for driving while intoxicated. After failing three roadside sobriety tests and admitting that he had been drinking, Muniz was taken to a booking center. At the booking center, Muniz's interactions with the police were videotaped and he was told that he was being recorded. Muniz was asked a series of questions, the last of which was, "Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?" Muniz, slurring his speech, answered "No, I don't." Police had Muniz repeat the physical sobriety tests from earlier in the evening, during which he made further incriminating statements. Muniz was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test and refused. It was not until this point that Muniz was advised of his Miranda rights. Rule: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects a person suspected of driving while intoxicated from being required to answer a question that involves making a simple mathematical calculation. Although the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not protect a suspect from being compelled to provide real or physical evidence, it does protect him from being compelled to testify against himself.
What are the facts and rule from City of Los Angeles v. Patel?
Facts: Naranjibhai Patel and other motel operators in Los Angeles (plaintiffs) filed a federal suit against the City of Los Angeles (City) (defendant), alleging that Los Angeles Municipal Code § 41.49 permitted unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Section 41.49 required hotel or motel operators to keep certain records regarding all guests and to make the records available for inspection by any City police officer upon demand. Failure to comply with the ordinance constituted a misdemeanor criminal offense punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Rule: The warrantless search of hotel records for general inspection purposes does not fall under the administrative-search exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
What were the facts and rule from Arizona v. Hicks?
Facts: On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of respondent's apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below. Police officers arrived and entered respondent's apartment to search for the shooter, for other victims, and for weapons. They found and seized three weapons, including a sawed-off rifle, and in the course of their search also discovered a stocking-cap mask. -An officer noticed a stereo and some other equipment that had been taken from an armed robbery. -Respondent was subsequently indicted for the robbery. Rule: The Court holds that there was an unlawful search of the turntable. It agrees that the "mere recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a seizure." Thus, if the computer had identified as stolen property a component with a visible serial number, the evidence would have been admissible. But the Court further holds that "Officer Nelson's moving of the equipment . . . did constitute a 'search . . . '" It perceives a constitutional distinction between reading a serial number on an object and moving or picking up an identical object to see its serial number. . . . With all respect, this distinction between "looking" at a suspicious object in plain view and "moving" it even a few inches trivializes the Fourth Amendment. The Court's new rule will cause uncertainty, and could deter conscientious police officers from lawfully obtaining evidence necessary to convict guilty persons.
What are the facts and rule from Welsh v. Wisconsin?
Facts: On April 24, 1978, Edward G. Welsh (defendant) was seen driving erratically. Welsh pulled off the road into an open field and walked home. When police arrived, a witness described Welsh as either drunk or sick. The officer checked the car's registration and learned that Welsh lived nearby. At about 9:00 p.m., the officer arrived at Welsh's house and was let in by Welsh's stepdaughter. The officer found Welsh naked in bed and placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. At the station, Welsh refused to take a breathalyzer test, which was required under Wisconsin law for anyone arrested for driving while intoxicated. Rule: The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment does not allow warrantless entry into a home to make an arrest for a minor offense. Warrantless entry to search a home or make an arrest is only permitted in cases of emergency, or exigent circumstances. Whether such an emergency exists depends largely upon the seriousness of the offense and the dangers posed by waiting until a warrant is secured. The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement generally does not apply when only a minor crime has been committed.
What are the facts and rule from Watson?
Facts: On August 17, 1972, a reliable informant alerted a postal inspector that Watson (defendant) had a stolen credit card. The informant gave the card to the inspector and agreed to set up a meeting with Watson. During the meeting, the informant signaled that Watson had more stolen cards. Police arrested Watson, read his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and asked to search his car. Watson said, "go ahead," and repeated that officers could "go ahead" with the search even after an officer told him that anything found in the car would "go against" Watson. Watson gave officers the keys to the car, and officers found two stolen credit cards inside the car. Watson was charged with possessing stolen mail. Before trial, Watson moved to suppress the evidence found in the car. He claimed that the warrantless arrest was invalid and that his consent to search the car was involuntary and ineffective because he was not informed that he could withhold consent. Rule: A warrantless arrest is permitted if there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a felony. Can arrest if misdemeanor committed in officer's presence
What were the facts and rule from Lidster?
Facts: On August 23, 1997, an unknown motorist hit and killed an elderly postal employee on an Illinois highway. The accident occurred at night, and the motorist drove off without identifying himself. One week later, the local police set up a highway checkpoint in roughly the same location and at the same time as the accident for the purpose of finding out more about the hit-and-run. Police blocked the highway, forcing the traffic to slow down, and detained each car for about 10 to 15 seconds. Officers asked each vehicle's occupants if they knew anything about the hit-and-run accident and distributed a flyer that contained news of the accident. Robert Lidster (defendant) was driving his minivan toward the checkpoint but suddenly swerved before the checkpoint and narrowly missed an officer. An officer smelled alcohol on Lidster's breath and administered a sobriety test, after which Lidster was arrested. Lidster was tried and convicted in state court for driving under the influence of alcohol. Lidster claimed that his seizure was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment Rule: A roadside vehicle checkpoint is not presumptively unlawful if the primary law-enforcement purpose of the stop is to ask vehicle occupants for information about crimes possibly committed by others.
What were the facts and rule from United States v. Montoya-Hernandez?
Facts: On March 5, 1983, Rosa Elvira Montoya de Hernandez (defendant) flew into Los Angeles from Bogota, Columbia. Customs officials noted the number of trips Montoya de Hernandez had made into the country and questioned her. The officials did not believe Montoya de Hernandez's story that she had come into the country with no hotel reservation, appointments, checks, or credit cards in order to buy items for sale in Columbia. Officials believed Montoya de Hernandez was smuggling drugs. A patdown and strip search revealed that Montoya de Hernandez was wearing two pairs of underwear and her stomach was firm. Officials believed Montoya de Hernandez was smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal. After the inspector was unable to book a return flight to Columbia, Montoya de Hernandez was held for observation for over 16 hours until a court order authorizing an x-ray and rectal exam was obtained. Drugs were found, and Montoya de Hernandez was arrested. Montoya de Hernandez was convicted by bench trial for federal drug crimes. Rule: A person entering the country may be subjected to more intrusive searches than routine border searches, if there is reasonable suspicion that drugs are being smuggled in that person's alimentary canal.
What are the facts and rule from NY v Burger?
Facts: On November 17, 1982, police entered a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York owned by Joseph Burger (defendant) to inspect the premises. Burger did not have a license or a record book of his inventory, as required by New York law. Burger made no objection to the inspection. Police found stolen vehicles and arrested Burger. Rule: A business in a closely regulated industry may be searched without a warrant so long as the searches are necessary, there is a substantial government interest, and the authorizing statute serves the functions of a warrant.
What is the facts and rule from Brown v. Mississippi?
Facts: Suspects were whipped, hung from tree, stripped, laid on a board and whipped some more, warned if they changed their minds regarding confessions, they would be given to the mob. Rule: You can compel D. to testify but cannot extract a confession by torture.
What were the facts and rule from Camrara?
Facts: On November 6, 1963, a San Francisco Housing Inspector entered the apartment building where Roland Camara (defendant) resided to make a routine inspection. After being told that Camara was living on the ground floor in violation of the building's occupancy permit, the inspector demanded to inspect the area. Camara refused to allow the inspector in without a search warrant that day and again when the inspector returned. Camara was issued a citation requiring appearance at the office of the district attorney. When Camara did not appear, inspectors returned to the building demanding entry pursuant to § 503 of the Housing Code. Camara refused. A complaint was filed, and Camara was charged and later arrested for refusing the inspection. Rule:Under the Fourth Amendment, routine administrative searches require consent or a warrant.
What are the facts and rule from Whren v. U.S.?
Facts: Plainclothes police officers pulled over a car for traffic violations after witnessing the driver make a turn without signaling and then speed down the road. Prior to observing these traffic violations, the police observed the two men in the car from a distance and became suspicious that a drug deal was taking place. Whren (defendant) was a passenger in the car and when the police approached the car they observed plastic bags of cocaine in Whren's hands. Whren and the driver were arrested for illegal drug possession and convicted in federal court after the trial judge, over Whren's objections, permitted the cocaine to be introduced into evidence. Rule:Except with inventory searches and administrative inspections, when probable cause of illegal conduct exists, an officer's true motive for searching or detaining a person does not negate the constitutionality of the search or seizure.
What are the facts and rule from U.S. v. Ross?
Facts: Police believed Ross was selling drugs out of his car so they conducted a warrantless search for a brown paper bag containing heroin. Rule: The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile thus is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted.
What are the facts and rule from Mapp v. Ohio?
Facts: Police got a tip that a suspect wanted for questioning related to a bombing was hiding in Dollree Mapp's (defendant) home. Officers forcibly entered the home without Mapp's consent. When Mapp demanded to see the warrant, police showed her a piece of paper purported to be a "warrant." However, when Mapp took the "warrant," police engaged in a physical altercation to retrieve it from her. After searching the home, the officers found and seized books and photos that were introduced as evidence in Mapp's criminal trial for possessing lewd and obscene materials in violation of Ohio state law. Mapp was convicted, even though there was no evidence that the police ever obtained a warrant to search Mapp's home. Rule: Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings.
What are the facts and rule for Utah Strieff?
Facts: Police had a house under surveillance for suspected illegal drug activity. When Edward Strieff (defendant) visited and then left the house, police officer Douglas Fackrell stopped and questioned Strieff. Fackrell did so not because he had reasonable cause to suspect Strieff of criminal behavior, but solely because Fackrell wanted to question visitors about activities inside the house. Fackrell made a routine check of police records, found that Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a minor traffic offense, and arrested Strieff on that warrant. Fackrell then conducted a routine search and seized illegal drugs he found in Strieff's possession. The State of Utah (plaintiff) charged Strieff on drug charges. At trial, Strieff argued that the seized drugs came to light only as the result of Fackrell's unconstitutional search and seizure and that therefore the drugs should be excluded from evidence. The state argued that Fackrell's misconduct arose solely from an inadvertent procedural error. Rule: Unconstitutionally seized evidence is admissible if lack of flagrant impropriety, lack of temporal proximity, or an intervening circumstance attenuates the chain between police misconduct and the seizure.
What are the facts and rule from Mincey v. Arizona?
Facts: Police officer Barry Headricks, working undercover, arranged to purchase heroin from Mincey (plaintiff). Officer Headricks and other officers later went to Mincey's home where Officer Headricks was shot and killed. Shortly after Officer Headricks was shot, other officers arrived and began investigating and searching for evidence. Over four days, Mincey's home was thoroughly searched, although a warrant was never obtained. Mincey made a pretrial motion to suppress the fruits of the four-day warrantless search of his home, but the court denied that motion. Rule: The fact that a homicide has occurred does not justify making an exception to the rule that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching a suspect's home.
What were the facts and rule from Arizona v. Johnson
Facts: Police officers stopped a car because its registration had been suspended. One of the officers asked Johnson (defendant), one of the passengers, to get out of the car. The officer feared that Johnson might have a gun, so she patted him down, and the frisk revealed a gun Rule: To justify a pat down of a driver or passenger during a lawful traffic stop, the police must have reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.
What were the facts and rule from Fernandez v. California?
Facts: Police officers were investigating an assault and robbery involving gang activity. The officers were directed to a nearby building, where they observed a man run inside. The officers heard screams and the sounds of a fight coming from inside. The officers knocked on the door of the apartment, and Roxanne Rojas answered. She was clearly hurt and stated that she had been in a fight. When the officers asked Rojas to step outside so they could conduct a sweep of the apartment, Walter Fernandez (defendant) appeared at the door and told the officers they did not have a right to enter the apartment. Rojas identified Fernandez as her attacker, and the police arrested him. Approximately an hour later, officers returned to the apartment and told Rojas that they had arrested Fernandez and that he was in jail. The officers asked for consent to search the apartment, and Rojas agreed. The police discovered gang paraphernalia, a butterfly knife, clothing worn by the robbery suspect, and a sawed-off shotgun. Rule: One occupant's consent to search a premises is effective under the Fourth Amendment as long as no other occupant who objects to the search is physically present.
What are the facts and rule from Samson v. California?
Facts:On September 6, 2002, a San Bruno Police Officer stopped parolee Donald Curtis Samson (defendant). The officer believed that there was an outstanding warrant on Samson, but the radio dispatcher confirmed that there was no warrant. The officer then searched Samson and found drugs. Rule: The suspicionless search of a parolee does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
What was the facts and rule from Plumhoff v. Pickard?
Facts: Police pulled over Donald Rickard and his passenger, Kelly Allen, citing a faulty headlight. Police noticed an indentation the size of a head in the windshield and asked Rickard to step out of the car. Instead, Rickard drove off, leading police on a high-speed chase at over 100 miles an hour for some five minutes. Rickard wove around other vehicles, forcing some to veer out of his path. When a police cruiser cut him off, Rickard came to a near standstill against the cruiser, floored the accelerator, spun his tires, and rocked the car back and forth, then slammed it into reverse to escape. Police fired 15 shots into the car, killing Rickard and Allen. Rickard's daughter, Whitne Rickard (plaintiff), sued the officers, the mayor, and the police chief (defendants) for violating Rickard's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rule: Police may use deadly force to end a dangerous car chase and remain immune from liability absent violation of clearly established law.
What are the facts and rule from Illinois v. Gates?
Facts: Police received an anonymous letter implicating Sue and Lance Gates (defendants) in an elaborate illegal drug scheme. The letter contained many details about the couple and their drug business, including how the Gateses would obtain their illegal marijuana to sell and when the next transaction would occur. Based on this information, the police department conducted its own investigation which revealed that parts of the informant's tip were true, and only one discrepancy between what the informant said would happen and what did happen was uncovered. The police were able to secure a search warrant of the Gateses' home and car where they found drugs, weapons and other contraband. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the search was unlawful. The court held that the anonymous letter and the police detective's affidavit outlining the police investigation did not support the necessary probable cause needed to obtain the search warrant. Rule: A warrant application satisfies the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement so long as it establishes a substantial basis for concluding that a search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing. (Totality of the circumstances test: reliability or veracity and basis of knowlege)
What were the facts and rule from Chimel v. California?
Facts: Pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, the police went to Chimel's (defendant) home to arrest him for the burglary of a coin shop. Chimel's wife let the police inside and when Chimel returned home they arrested him. Without a search warrant and without permission, the police then conducted a complete search of Chimel's home. The police instructed Chimel's wife to remove items from drawers and eventually the police found and seized a number of coins, medals and tokens. Over Chimel's objection, these items were introduced at trial. Rule: Incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search of the area in possession and control of the person under arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
What are the facts and rule from Michigan v. Mosley?
Facts: Richard Bert Mosley (defendant) was arrested for robbery. Before questioning, Mosley was given the Miranda warnings and invoked his right to remain silent. The officer stopped the interrogation, and Mosley was taken to a cell. Later, a detective attempted to question Mosley about an unrelated murder. Mosley was again given the Miranda warnings, but did not invoke his right to remain silent. Mosley made incriminating statements and was charged with first-degree murder. Mosley moved to suppress his statements because the detective's questioning took place after Mosley invoked his right to remain silent. Rule: When suspect has invoked the right to remain silent, police must "scrupulously honot" the request: 1. Inteerrogation must cease 2. Police must wait significant amount of time before trying again 3. Police must re-administer warnings and secure waiver prior to second interrogation 4. Other factors: A. Different crime? B. Different interrogaotr? C. Different location?
What are the facts and rule from Illinois v. Wardlow?
Facts: Riding in four separate cars, police officers entered a high drug area of the city to investigate drug transactions. The officers in the last car of the caravan witnessed Wardlow (defendant) standing by a building holding an opaque bag. When Wardlow looked at the car he began running away, and the officers in the last car gave chase and caught him. One of the officers immediately conducted a pat-down to search for weapons. The officer felt something that appeared to be a weapon and when he removed it he discovered it was a handgun. Wardlow was arrested for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. The trial court held that the stop and frisk was lawful and allowed the gun to be introduced as evidence at trial. The court of appeals reversed Wardlow's conviction, holding that the police had no reasonable suspicion to search Wardlow and the gun should have been suppressed. Rule: A police officer may stop and frisk a citizen on the street when he has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and may pose a threat to the officer.
What were the facts and rule from Minnesota v. Olson?
Facts: Robert Olson (defendant) was the suspected getaway driver in a gas-station robbery and murder. Based on a series of credible tips, Minnesota (plaintiff) police tracked Olson to the upper unit of a duplex where he was staying as a houseguest. A probable-cause "arrest bulletin" had been issued for Olson's arrest, but police did not have an arrest warrant. After speaking to the woman who lived in the unit and concluding that Olson was inside, police entered the unit without permission and found Olson hiding in a closet. Olson was arrested and taken to police headquarters, where he made a self-incriminating statement. Rule: The Fourth Amendment protects an overnight guest from a warrantless, nonconsensual entry by police into the residence in which he or she is staying
What were the facts and rule from Collins v. Virginia?
Facts: Ryan Collins (defendant) lived in a house with a driveway that ran from the street, along the front lawn and down the side of the house, extending several yards past the front of the house and abutting the house. The portion of the driveway abutting the house was partially enclosed by a brick wall approximately the height of a car. Collins's motorcycle was under a tarp in this partially enclosed portion of the driveway when a police officer walked up the driveway and conducted a warrantless search of the motorcycle. Collins was indicted for receiving stolen property and filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of the motorcycle. Rule: The automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not allow a warrantless search of a vehicle located within a home or its curtilage.
What are the problems with the community caretaking exception in U.S. v. Rohrig?
Facts: Some loud music in the house. Police were called over and tried to yell to turn it down the but the music was too loud so they opened the unlocked screen door to come inside and turn it down. Rohrig, the occupant, was asleep on the floor. Rule:Some question whether the police were enforcing the law against unreasonable noise or abating a nusiance in a community caretaking role.
What are the facts and rule from Byrd v. U.S.?
Facts: Terrence Byrd (defendant) was the driver of a rental car but was not listed on the rental agreement. Police stopped the car Byrd while was driving and searched it, finding marijuana in the trunk. Byrd was arrested and filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the trunk of the rental car on the theory that the search had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At the suppression hearing, the United States (plaintiff) asserted that Byrd was not in lawful possession of the vehicle at the time of the search, but this fact was not determined by the trial court. The trial court denied Byrd's motion to suppress on the grounds that Byrd lacked standing to object to the search. Byrd entered a conditional plea and reserved the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Rule: A driver of a rental car who is not named on the rental agreement but who is in lawful possession of the car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car.
What were the facts and rule from Spinelli?
Facts: The FBI obtained a search warrant and uncovered evidence that was ultimately used to convict William Spinelli (defendant) of illegal gambling. The affidavit primarily rested on information from a confidential informant, and the FBI was able to corroborate some of this information through its own investigation. Spinelli challenged the constitutionality of the warrant. The district court denied Spinelli's motion, holding he did not have standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim. The court of appeals found that Spinelli did have standing and further held that the warrant was issued without probable cause. After a rehearing en banc, the court of appeals sustained the warrant and affirmed Spinelli's conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the validity of the search and seizure. Rule: An affidavit that lacks sufficient detail to explain why an informant is reliable and how he came to his conclusions does not provide the necessary probable cause to obtain a search warrant.
What are the facts and rule from Los Angeles County v. Rettele?
Facts: The Los Angeles County Sheriff's office was conducting an investigation of fraud and identity theft; one of the suspects had a registered handgun, a fact that plainly affected the nature of the subsequent search. Deputies obtained a warrant to search two houses where various public records indicated the suspects lived. Unbeknownst to the police, one of the two houses had recently been sold to plaintiff Max Rettele, who lived there with his girlfriend and her teenage son. When the police arrived at Rettele's door at 7:15 A.M., here is what transpired: Rettele and Sadler were held at gun-point for one to two minutes by police who entered their home before Rettele was allowed to retrieve a robe for Sadler. He was then permitted to dress. Rettele and Sadler left the bedroom within three to four minutes to sit on the couch in the living room.By that time the deputies realized they had made a mistake. They apologized to Rettele and Sadler, thanked them for not becoming upset, and left within five minutes. They proceeded to the other house the warrant authorized them to search, where they found three suspects. Rule: The Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep with a weapon within reach. The reports are replete with accounts of suspects sleeping close to weapons. . . . -The deputies needed a moment to secure the room and ensure that other persons were not close by or did not present a danger. Deputies were not required to turn their backs to allow Rettele and Sadler to retrieve clothing or to cover themselves with the sheets. Rather, "the risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation." [Michigan v. Summers,
What are the facts and rule from Skinner?
Facts: The Railway Labor Executives' Association (plaintiff) filed suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of employee drug and alcohol testing provisions set forth in a Federal Railway Administration (defendant) regulation. Rule: Governmental regulations authorizing the collection of biological samples from public employees in the absence of suspicion do not violate the Fourth Amendment when special law enforcement needs render probable cause and warrant requirements impracticable.
What are the facts and rule from Chandler v. Miller.
Facts: The State of Georgia is the only state that conditions an individual's candidacy for state office on passing a drug test. Any candidate must submit the urinalysis drug test within 30 days prior to qualifying for nomination or election, and the results must be negative, indicating no drug use. The proscribed substances include marijuana, cocaine, and opiates. Libertarian party nominees for state office in 1994 (plaintiffs) requested declaratory and injunctive relief from the state statute mandating the drug test prior to taking office Rule: A suspicionless drug test of nominees seeking state office is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.
What are the facts and rule from National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab?
Facts: The United States Customs Service (the Service) was a federal agency charged with protecting the borders of the United States. In May 1986, William von Raab (defendant), the commissioner of the Service, implemented a new drug-testing program. This program made successful drug testing a condition of promotion for employees seeking to be promoted to three categories of positions: (1) positions directly involved with the interdiction of illegal drugs, (2) positions requiring the carrying of firearms in the line of duty, and (3) positions with access to classified material. Under the program, an employee who tested positive without a legitimate explanation was subject to dismissal. The National Treasury Employees Union (plaintiff) challenged the drug-testing program on the ground that the program violated the Fourth Amendment. Rule: A government employer's warrantless and suspicionless drug testing of an employee is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the employer's special needs outweigh the employee's expectation of privacy.
What were the facts and rule in U.S. v. Matlock?
Facts: The defendant in [Matlock] was arrested in the yard of a house where he lived with a Mrs. Graff and several of her relatives, and was detained in a squad car parked nearby. When the police went to the door, Mrs. Graff admitted them and consented to a search of the house. Rule: In resolving the defendant's objection to use of the evidence taken in the warrantless search, we said that "the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared."
What was the rule and facts from Horton v. California?
Facts: The police obtained probable cause that Horton (defendant) was the one responsible for an armed robbery. The police obtained a warrant to search Horton's home only for the proceeds of the robbery, though the affidavit for the warrant also described the weapons used in the robbery and not just the proceeds. Pursuant to the warrant, the police searched Horton's home where they did not find the proceeds of the robbery but they did find the weapons used in the robbery lying in plain view. Rule: When the police have a legal right to be where they are and they find incriminating evidence and the incriminating character is immediately apparent, the police may seize the evidence without a warrant under the plain view doctrine.
What are the facts and rule from Rakas v. Illinois?
Facts: The police pulled over a car that fit the description of a car used in a robbery. The police ordered the four occupants out of the car. Upon searching the vehicle, the police found a box of rifle shells in the glove compartment and a sawed-off rifle under the front passenger seat. Rakas (defendant) and another man in the car were arrested. Neither Rakas nor the other man had been driving the car, neither owned the car, and neither claimed he owned the shells or the rifle. Rakas moved to have the rifle and shells suppressed at trial, but the trial court denied the motion to suppress. Rakas and the other man were convicted of armed robbery. Rule: A passenger in a car belonging to someone else does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car or in items found in the car that do not belong to him and thus may not challenge the search of the car or seizure of the items as unconstitutional.
What are the facts and rule from Minnesota v. Carter?
Facts: The police received a tip from an anonymous informant that a drug transaction was transpiring in a first floor apartment. Based on the tip, an officer went to the apartment building and, while standing in an area frequently used by the public, he peered into the apartment through a crack in the blind and observed Johns and Crater (defendant) putting white powder into bags. He called headquarters, requested that a warrant be obtained, and an eventual search pursuant to the warrant revealed that the occupants of the apartment had been bagging cocaine. The apartment belonged to a woman who was present when the drugs were being packaged. Johns and Carter were from another state, had only been at the apartment for a few hours, and did not have a preexisting relationship with the owner of the apartment, who was simply allowing them to use the apartment to bag their drugs in exchange for cocaine. At trial, Carter claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and requested that the drug evidence be suppressed. Rule: To claim Fourth Amendment protection, an individual must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched.
What are the facts and rule from Alabama v. White?
Facts: The police received an anonymous tip that Vanessa White (defendant) would be leaving her apartment complex carrying a briefcase with cocaine inside. The informant gave the police White's address and a description of her car, and said that White would be heading to a certain hotel. The police immediately set up a surveillance team at the apartment complex and saw a car matching the description given by the informant outside the specified apartment building. The police soon observed White exit the building without the briefcase, get in her car, and head toward the hotel. Just before White arrived at the hotel, the police stopped the car. They informed White of what they were looking for and asked to search the car. She consented to the search, and when the police found a briefcase, she gave them the combination to the lock. The police found marijuana in the briefcase and arrested her. Later, at the police station, the police found three milligrams of cocaine in White's purse. White was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine. White moved to suppress the marijuana and cocaine. Rule: To determine whether an informant's tip provides reasonable suspicion, the totality of the circumstances must be analyzed, with attention given to the veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge of an informant.
What were the facts and rule from California v. Acevedo?
Facts: The police watched as a man entered his home carrying a package they had probable cause to believe contained marijuana. Before a search warrant could be obtained, Acevedo (defendant) arrived at the house and left after about ten minutes carrying a bag that was the same size as the package. Acevedo put the bag in the trunk of his car and drove away. Fearful of losing the evidence, the police followed him, pulled him over, opened the trunk and looked inside the bag, finding marijuana. Rule: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband.
What were the facts and rule from Gerogia v. Randolph?
Facts: The police, responding to a domestic disturbance call made by his wife, arrived at Randolph's (defendant) house. When the police arrived at the house, Randolph's wife proceeded to tell them that Randolph used cocaine. The police asked for permission to search the home for evidence. Randolph's wife gave consent but Randolph, who was present with his wife, refused. Based on the wife's consent, the police proceeded to search the home despite Randolph's objections and discovered cocaine in Randolph's bedroom. Rule: The police may not enter a home without a warrant to search for evidence where they obtain consent from an occupant but a co-occupant is present and objects to the search.
What were the facts and rule from Nix v. Williams about the inevitable discovery doctrine?
Facts: There incriminating statements obtained in violation of the defendant's right to counsel had led the police to the victim's body. The body had not in fact been found through an independent source as well, and so the independent source doctrine was not itself applicable. Rule: We held, however, that evidence concerning the body was nonetheless admissible because a search had been under way which would have discovered the body, had it not been called off because of the discovery produced by the unlawfully obtained statements. This "inevitable discovery" doctrine obviously assumes the validity of the independent source doctrine as applied to evidence initially acquired unlawfully. It would make no sense to admit the evidence because the independent search, had it not been aborted, would have found the body, but to exclude the evidence if the search had continued and had in fact found the body. The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered
What were the facts and rule from Pennsylvania v. Mimms?
Facts: There, the defendant was lawfully stopped for driving with an expired license plate and was ordered out of his car. As the defendant emerged from the automobile, the officer noticed a large bulge under his sports jacket. A frisk revealed the bulge to be a .38 caliber revolver. Rule: The hazard of accidental injury from passing traffic to an officer standing on the driver's side of the vehicle may also be appreciable in some situations. Rather than conversing while standing exposed to moving traffic, the officer prudently may prefer to ask the driver of the vehicle to step out of the car and off onto the shoulder of the road where the inquiry may be pursued with greater safety to both.
What were the facts and rule from Lange v. California?
Facts: This case began when petitioner Arthur Lange drove past a California highway patrol officer in Sonoma. Lange, it is fair to say, was asking for attention: He was listening to loud music with his windows down and repeatedly honking his horn. -He went in his garage after being told to pull over by the cop and refusing. He was tested for alcohol and his bac was 3 times the legal limit. Rule: -Not an automatic circumstance when the suspect flees into the home.
What are the facts and rule from California v. Hodari D.?
Facts: Two police officers were on patrol. As they were approaching a small car, the youths huddled around the car saw the officers and took off running. Suspicious, the officers gave chase. Just before one officer caught up with him, Hodari D. (defendant), tossed the crack cocaine he had been carrying. Hodari D. moved to have the drug evidence excluded at trial and the motion was denied. Rule: A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs where the police exercise physical force over a subject or where a subject submits to an officer's show of authority.
What were the facts and rule from U.S. v. Jones?
Facts: Washington, D.C. nightclub owner Antoine Jones (defendant) was suspected by the FBI of being involved in a large-scale drug trafficking operation. As part of a joint task-force operation with the police, FBI agents applied for a warrant that would allow them to place a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on Jones's vehicle in an effort to track his movements. A federal district court issued the warrant but required the agents to place the device on Jones's vehicle within 10 days of issuance of the warrant and while the vehicle was physically located in the District of Columbia. On the eleventh day, and while the vehicle was parked in a lot in Maryland, agents placed the GPS device on the vehicle's undercarriage. For 28 days, the Government used the device to track Jones's movements and collected more than 2,000 pages of data. Jones was indicted on multiple counts of drug-related offenses. Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the information the Government obtained from the GPS device. Rule: The warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of an individual's vehicle in order to track the person's movements on public streets constitutes an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
What were the facts and rule from Weeks v. U.S.?
Facts: Weeks (defendant) was convicted of illegal use of the federal mail system for the purpose of gambling. Used as evidence against him were letters and envelops a U.S. Marshal had found and taken from Weeks' home. The U.S. Marshal did not have a search warrant. Citing Fourth Amendment violations, Weeks petitioned the district court to return the paper-work but the motion was denied. Rule: The United States and federal officials are prohibited from executing unreasonable searches and seizures upon people.
What is the facts and rule from U.S v. White?
Facts: White (defendant) was convicted on two charges involving illegal narcotics. At trial, over White's objections, government agents were permitted to testify to conversations White had had with a government informant. The government agents had overheard these conversations through a wire-tap the informant had been wearing, allowing them to hear every word in real time. The court of appeals reversed the conviction holding that the testimony was inadmissible at trial. Rule: The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures does not protect people from their misplaced expectations of trust and therefore there is no Fourth Amendment search and seizure when the person the defendant is speaking with is secretly a government agent or an informant wearing a wire and recording what is being said.
What are the facts and rule from Arizona v. Mauro?
Facts: William Mauro (defendant) was arrested for the murder of his son and taken to the police station. Police advised Mauro of his Miranda rights, Mauro invoked his right to counsel, and police stopped questioning him. Mauro's wife was also in police custody at the station in connection with the murder. Mrs. Mauro repeatedly told Detective Manson, the officer who was questioning her, that she wanted to speak with Mr. Mauro. Manson was hesitant to grant her request but discussed it with his supervisor and was told to allow Mrs. Mauro to speak to Mr. Mauro, to tape record the conversation, and not to leave the two alone. Manson brought Mrs. Mauro into the room where Mr. Mauro was being held, placed his tape recorder on a table, and recorded the Mauros' conversation. During the conversation, Mr. Mauro repeatedly admonished Mrs. Mauro to be quiet and not to answer questions without a lawyer present. At his trial, Mr. Mauro raised the insanity defense. The prosecution played the recording of the Mauros' conversation to rebut Mr. Mauro's defense. Mr. Mauro moved to suppress the recording on the theory that his conversation with Mrs. Mauro had been a police interrogation and had violated Mr. Mauro's right to counsel. Rule: Police have not conducted an interrogation if, without orchestrating the conversation as a ploy to elicit incriminating statements, they allow a suspect to hold a conversation about a crime and record the conversation for use as evidence.
What were the facts and rule from Royer?
Facts: Without returning his airline ticket or identification, the detectives asked Royer to accompany them to a room about 40 feet away. The detectives then retrieved Royer's suitcases, brought them to the room, and asked for Royer's permission to search them—a process that took about 15 minutes. Rule: The Royer plurality concluded that the drugs recovered in the resulting search should have been suppressed because at the time Royer produced a key to his luggage, his detention had already escalated from the type of stop authorized by the Terry line of cases into "a more serious intrusion . . . than is allowable on mere suspicion of criminal activity." Id., at 502. The plurality emphasized Royer's removal to a police interrogation room and also the conclusion that the officers' conduct was more intrusive than necessary—that police could have asked Royer for consent to search his bags on the concourse, or that they might have exposed the bags to a narcotics detection dog, confirming or dispelling their suspicions more expeditiously.
What are the facts and rule from Ornelas v. U.S.?
Facts: a detective in the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department conducting drug interdiction surveillance in the early morning in 1992 noticed a 1981 two-door Oldsmobile with California plates in a motel parking lot. The officer was aware that such cars are often used by drug couriers because it is easy to hide things in them. Police thereafter took a series of steps that eventually led them to dismantle a panel above the right rear passenger armrest of the Oldsmobile, behind which they found two kilograms of cocaine. Rule: The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals' determination that the district court's finding of probable cause to search should be reviewed deferentially and held that the question of whether probable cause existed to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo on appeal.
What were the facts and rule from orenals v. U.S.?
Facts: a detective in the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department conducting drug interdiction surveillance in the early morning in 1992 noticed a 1981 two-door Oldsmobile with California plates in a motel parking lot. The officer was aware that such cars are often used by drug couriers because it is easy to hide things in them. Police thereafter took a series of steps that eventually led them to dismantle a panel above the right rear passenger armrest of the Oldsmobile, behind which they found two kilograms of cocaine. Rule: The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals' determination that the district court's finding of probable cause to search should be reviewed deferentially and held that the question of whether probable cause existed to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo on appeal.
What are the facts and Rule from U.S v. Chadwick?
Facts: federal agents had probable cause to believe that a locked footlocker being transported by a train passenger contained marijuana. They waited until the suspect disembarked the train and placed the footlocker in the trunk of a car. Then—before the car's engine even was started—they arrested the suspect and his traveling companion, as well as the driver of the car. The car and footlocker were brought to a federal building, and subsequently searched without a warrant, revealing a "large quantity" of marijuana. Rule: he Court rejected the government's argument that the rationale of the Carroll-Chambers "automobile exception" also should apply to luggage. According to the Court, the "automobile exception" is based only in part on the "inherent mobility" of automobiles; an additional, important basis for the exception is the "diminished expectation of privacy which surrounds the automobile." Cars are registered with, and heavily regulated by, the state, including (in many states) a periodic inspection requirement. None of these characteristics applies to a footlocker, which is "intended as a repository of personal effects," and in which "expectations of privacy . . . are substantially greater than in an automobile."
What are the rule and facts of Santana v. U.S.?
Facts: police officers drove to Dominga Santana's house with probable cause to think that Santana was dealing drugs, a felony under the applicable law. -When the officers pulled up, they saw Santana standing in her home's open doorway, some 15 feet away. As they got out of the van and yelled "police," Santana "retreated into [the house's] vestibule." Id., at 40. The officers followed her in, and discovered heroin. -We upheld the warrantless entry as one involving a police "hot pursuit," even though the chase "ended almost as soon as it began." Id., at 43. Citing "a realistic expectation that any delay would result in destruction of evidence," we recognized the officers' "need to act quickly." Rule: Santana's "act of retreating into her house," we stated, could "not defeat an arrest" that had "been set in motion in a public place." Ibid. The amicus takes that statement to support a flat rule permitting warrantless home entry when police officers (with probable cause) are pursuing any suspect—whether a felon or a misdemeanant.
What was the rule from Brower v. County of Inyo and the facts?
Facts: the Court dealt with the question whether police officers had "seized" Brower when the stolen car he was driving crashed into a police roadblock that was set up to stop him, resulting in his death. Rule:purely accidental stop doesn't trigger 4th Amendment but driver who collided with roadblock was seized for 4th Amendment purposes. Seizures of a person limited to "an intentional acquisition of physical control."
What are the facts and rule from California v. Carney?
Facts: the Court faced the question whether the automobile exception applies to a mobile home. It does. Rule: That lesser privacy expectation, in turn, "derive[s] . . . from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways."
What is the facts and rule from Rawlings v. Kentucky?
Facts: the defendant and others were being detained in the home of a third party while the police were conducting a search. The police emptied the handbag of a woman who had been seated next to the defendant, and found illegal drugs. The defendant promptly claimed ownership of the drugs, and later moved to suppress, arguing that the search of the handbag was illegal. Rule: A person who places his or her property into a bag belonging to someone else does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag.
What are the facts and rule from Griffin v. Wisconsin?
Facts:Applying the special needs doctrine, the Court upheld the warrantless search of a probationer's home by a probation officer based only on reasonable suspicion (no warrant; no PC). -School resource officers gonna be viewed differently than local police officer. Rule: A state's operation of a probation system, like its operation of a school. Govt officer or prison, or its supervision of a regulated industry, likewise presents 'special needs' beyond normal law enforcement that may justify departures.
What are the facts and rule for Maryland v. King?
Facts:In 2003, a man broke into the victim's house and raped her. Police were unable to determine the man's identity from the woman's description, but police were able to get the man's DNA. In 2009, Alonzo King was arrested for an unrelated assault. During booking, as was standard practice for serious offenses under Maryland law, the police used a cotton swab to take a DNA sample from the inside of King's cheek. The DNA was run through a law enforcement database, and officers found that it matched the DNA of the perpetrator from the 2003 rape. Rule: When officers make an arrest for a serious offense that is supported by probable cause and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is a legitimate police-booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
What are the facts and rule from Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls?
Facts:The Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County (District) (defendant) instituted a drug testing policy for all students participating in extracurricular activities. The policy requires students to be tested before participating in an extracurricular activity, at random as long as they participate, and any time the school has reasonable suspicion. The test requires the student to produce a urine sample while being monitored from outside the stall. Test results are kept confidential and never turned over to police. Students that test positive may not be permitted to participate in extracurricular activities. Rule: Students who participate in extracurricular activities may be subjected to drug testing without a warrant or individualized suspicion.
What are the facts and rule from Safford v. Redding?
Facts:Vice Principal Kerry Wilson discovered that students in the school were passing out prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen. These pills were common pain relievers that were equivalent to one Aleve pill. Wilson found some pills on one student, who stated that she received the pills from Savanna Redding (plaintiff). Wilson confronted Redding, and Redding denied having any knowledge of the pills. Wilson searched Redding's backpack and did not find any more pills. Wilson then had a female school official take Redding into the school nurse's office and perform a strip search. Redding was directed to undress down to her underwear and then pull out her bra and panties and shake them. This exposed her breasts and pelvic area. Redding described this as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. No pills were discovered. Redding sued the school district and several school officials (defendants) for violating the Fourth Amendment. Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, a school official cannot strip search a student without a specific suspicion that the student is hiding evidence in intimate places.
What are the facts and rule from Ryburn v. Huff?
Facts:police went to the home of Vincent Huff, a high school student, after the principal of the school informed them that Vincent was rumored to have written a letter threatening to "shoot up" the school, resulting in many parents deciding to keep their children at home. One of Vincent's classmates told police that Vincent was capable of carrying out such a threat. After going to the house and ringing the phone a couple of times with no answer, finally, when police called the cell phone of Vincent's mother, she answered and, upon being asked her location, admitted that she and Vincent were inside the home. An officer requested to speak with her, but she hung up, only to walk outside with Vincent a few minutes later. Sergeant Darin Ryburn next asked Mrs. Huff if the officers might come inside. She said no. He then asked if there were any guns in the house. Mrs. Huff responded by running inside. Sergeant Ryburn, who later testified that he was "scared because [he] didn't know what was in that house," followed her, as did Vincent and another officer who did not want Sergeant Ryburn to enter the home alone. Two additional officers followed, believing that Mrs. Huff had given her consent to entry. The officers conducted no search, but merely spoke with Vincent and Mr. Huff during this period, before concluding that the rumor about Vincent's alleged threat was false. The officers thereafter departed, and the Huffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. Rule: the Court concluded, by apparently taking the view "that conduct cannot be regarded as a matter of concern so long as it is lawful," and by analyzing each event transpiring at the Huffs' residence in isolation, in an "entirely unrealistic" way. "Judged from the proper perspective of a reasonable police officer forced to make a split-second decision in response to a rapidly unfolding chain of events that culminated with Mrs. Huff turning and running into the house after refusing to answer a question about guns."
What were the facts and rule from torres v. mardid?
Facts:woman thought two cops were robbers. Drove away and they shot at her and she was injured. Later arrested. Rule: There are two kinds of seizures; either submission of request or physical force. Common law principles and then applied to 4th amendment issues. Building off of the rules from Hodari and Brower.
Are you seized under the 4th amendment when you're stopped at a checkpoint?
For all the moments at the checkpoint!!
How do we distinguish arrests from terry stops in terms of PC?
For terry stops, we need reasonable suspicion of a crime. For a full blown arrest, we need probable cause of the crime.
Wheeling your luggage around and I have probable cause to look into it what should I do?
Go get a warrant. Warrant required to search container outside of car.
What was the rule for Herring v. U.S.?
Good faith exception not required for negligent police bookkeeping errors.
What was Justice Scalia's concurrence in U.S. v. Jones saying?
Harkens back to the original meaning of the 4th amendment. Not overruling the Katz decisions. Chose to not overrule on reasonable expectations of privacy ground. Simpler- there are principle reasons- this is the moment of a clear cut trespass. Physical contact of the car is sufficient enough to establish a trespass. 1.When the govt trespasses on private property of the target without the target's consent. 2. Person's houses and affects.
What was the overarching takeaway from florida v. riley for 4th Amendment analysis purposes?
IF ITS NOT A 4TH AMENDMENT SEARCH, I DON'T NEED ANY LEVEL OF SUSPICION TO INVESTIGATE YOU
How important is the govt/public interest in Maryland v. King?
Identification Safety Discouraging flight Bail determinations. Exoneration.
What was the rule from Florida v. Harris?
If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search."
What happens at a checkpoint?
If they had suspicion (saw or smelt something), then they can be a search. Use of a drug dog by itself is not a search Gov't should have some reason to stop you. Your physical liberty to move is intruded upon at a checkpoint. Significant liberty rights deserve some defense. One side is gonna mention the intrustion and how there is hardly any government justification for these stops. Other side is gonna mention its briefness and government interest in protecting the community.
What is the difference between Griffin and Knights?
In Knights it was an actual detective and in Griffin it was the probation officer. In Griffin it's justified by special needs In Knights it's a totality of the circumstances (just the step 2 balancing).
How does wardlow change the terry analysis?
In Wardlow-After Terry, a stop is ok if officers have reasonable suspicion based on specific and articuable facts Reasonable suspicion-Flight, high crime area, sees police, marked cars, uniform of officer.
In the Dow Chemical case, is the gov't's use of aerial surveillance a search?
In the case there was no sophisticated equipment used to enhance visual surveillance. -Ended up deciding that it was not a search because the chemical plant did not have the same protections as a home. No 4th amendment protection.
What was justice thomas emphasizing in Miller about the cell phone company's property?
It is not necessarily Carpenter's property, it's the cell phone company's. It matters whose stuff we're talking about.
Can probable cause from a case in january matter if its a warrant from March?
Just a lot that can change in that timeframe. Not gonna rely on 2 month old information. Warrants expire (searched on the 11th day and expire on the 10th day). What was there 2 weeks ago might not be there a month from now.
What does attenuated mean?
Length of time between illegal act and obtaining evidence
Why is the rule in maryland v. king a limited degree of intrusion.
Minimal physical intrusion Diminished expectation of capacity Processing/retention of DNA reasonable
Officer Q was patrolling a residential area beset by several recent nighttime burglaries. At 1:00 am, she saw Donny walking down an empty street alone. Officer Q stopped her car 50 feet from Donny. As Q approached Donny, Donny ran. Q chased him and ordered Donny to stop: saying "police, stop." While Donny was running, his backpack fell open and silver flatware spilled out. Donny claims that Q seized him unlawfully. Was Donny seized? (Next slide: Did Officer Q have RS?) A. Yes, because Officer Q ordered him to stop. B. No, because Donny continued to run from Officer Q. C. No, because a seizure only occurs when the officer lays hands on a suspect.
No, because Donny continued to run from Officer Q. California v. Hodari. If he were to stop he would've been seized! Lange and Handsang.
What is rule from Richards v. Wisconsin?
No-knock warrants are allowed under certain circumstances- eventually move to a reasonable suspicion standard.
During a 4th Amendment seizure, is there an advice of rights requirement?
No.
Officer Gouldin states in an affida that she suspects some crime. Dos the aff. Establish probable cause?
No.
From Mincy, Assume the gun was found on the body. Is the discovery of those guns the product of an unlawful search?
No. Combining emergency aid exception with the plain view exception.
In Mincey v. Arizona, assume the gun was found on the body. Is the discovery of those guns the product of an unlawful search?
No. Combining emergency aid exception with the plain view exception.
How to differentiate seizures from non-seizures for Terry Stops?
Non-sezisures: No 4A event Hunch/suspicion -Seizures: Terry stop-reasonable suspicion Arrest-probable cause
Sophie was pulled over and arrested by Officer Don for texting while driving. During a search incident to her arrest, Officer Don found Sophie's cell phone. The phone was not locked, so he accessed her settings, put the phone in "airplane mode" to prevent remote wiping and turned off the password protection feature to ensure that he could access the phone after obtaining a warrant. What is your opinion? A. Reasonable B. Unreasonable
Officer Don's actions were unreasonable under Riley. Changed the settings himself. Definitely in the phone. Use of the bags-remote possibility.
When does crimination apply?
Only applies if ongoing possibility of prosecution (i.e., no privilege if relevant statute of limitations have run out; no privilege if granted immunity)
What was the rule from Hester?
Open fields doctrine: allowing the warrantless search of outdoor areas not included in the curtilage of a home.
What is the rule from United States v. Chambers?
Over the years, lower courts have developed an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, the so-called "police-created exigency" doctrine. Under this doctrine, police may not rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence when that exigency was "created" or "manufactured" by the conduct of the police.
What is the difference between a pen register and a wire tap and why does this matter? (Smith v. Maryland)
Pen register keeps track of the number of calls and the number that you're calling. No reasonale expectation in pen registers. Wire tapp gonna pick up the contents of the phone call but a wire tap doesn't.
What happens to people searched before the Supreme Court changed the rule that was set forth by Belton that was overruled by Gant in Davis? What happens to people who were searched after?
People searched before: Don not get the benefit if police rely in good faith on prior precedent or statutes (good faith exception) People searched after: Do not get the benefit of the changed rule.
What was the rule in Hudson v. Michigan?
Police had a valid warrant, were seconds away from lawful entry. Must "knock and announce" before entering to execute warrant unless there is a law enforcement interest that establishes the reasonableness of no knock warrant. K&A no necessary when RS of: "Threat physical violence" Destruction of evidence Otherwise "futile"
What is the rule from Montano?
Reasonable suspicion is not required for the routine search of the gas tank of a vehicle attempting to enter the United States.
Warden v. Hayden 2 prong rule.
Rule: (1) The Fourth Amendment permits officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon to enter a home, into which the suspect had fled, and search the home without a warrant. (2) The Fourth Amendment permits officers to seize mere evidence of a crime that is not either a fruit or instrumentality of crime or contraband.
What is the rule from Steagald v. U.S.?
Search warrant (to enter home) is required to preserve 3d party's rights.
How do we distinguish Place from Bond?
Slender distinction. You don't have a reduced expectation of privacy in contraband. This technology is targeted. The case is not turning on the expectation that it differs based on place. For TSA, you consent to have your things checked. Suspicion based/random procedures. A search is justified through regulation. Not suspicion based
In Murray, in applying for the warrant, the agents did not mention the prior entry, and did not rely on any observations made during that entry? Why did the district courts view the warrant as tainted?
Some of the concern is that you're giving police the opportunity to confirm their suspicion before filing the warrant. Primary justification for the exclusionary rule-some deterrence value.
What was the rule in Franks v. Delaware?
Suppression therefore remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.
What evidence is protected under Schmerber?
Testimonial evidence only. Does not include: Fingerprints, photos, DNA, Line-up, hair, trying on blouse, writing sample.
In Kylo where a man was growing marijuana in his house, Why is it a search if the govt hasn't crossed into the person's curtilage?
The device they're using works in the same way that would constitute a search. They used infrared technology that picked up the high-powered lamps used in the greenhouse. Would have to enter the home with that same device.
What was the rule from Murray v. U.S.?
The independent-source doctrine does not apply if police officers were subjectively motivated to obtain a search warrant by what they learned during an original warrantless search of the premises, even if the warrant application does not rely on information gained during the original search.
What is the Katz test?
The legal standard that requires the government to attain a warrant demonstrating "probable cause" for any "search" that violates a person's actual and reasonable expectation of privacy.
What was the rule from Thornton v. U.S.?
The majority reaffirmed the Belton rule, holding it to apply even when an officer does not make contact with an arrestee until this person has already left a recently occupied vehicle.
How was the seizure justified in arvizu?
The totality of the circumstances. Court looked at the following facts: (1) the vehicle "was a minivan, a type of automobile that [the agent] knew smugglers used"; (2) the van was driving along a dirt road sometimes used by drug smugglers (though it was also sometimes used by vacationers); (3) the trip "coincided with the point when agents begin heading back to the checkpoint for a shift change, which leaves the area unpatrolled"; (4) when the van's driver saw the agent, the van slowed down considerably; (5) the driver of the van "appeared stiff and his posture very rigid"; (6) the children in the back of the van waved at the agent "in an abnormal pattern . . . as if the children were being instructed"; (7) the children's knees seemed to be propped up on something in the back of the van; (8) the van was registered to an address near the Mexican border, in an area "notorious for alien and narcotics smuggling."
Why wasn't the automobile exception applicable in Jimeno?
There was no probable cause. Look at it in the same way you talk about the scope limitations of opening those containers.
What can police do on a bus that is not protected under the 4th amendment?
They can lightly touch passengers' bags in the overhead compartment (it is not a search unless they manipulate the bags). They can take a seat behind a suspect and listen in on their conversations.
What are the rationales for search incident to arrest?
They need to collect evidence to build their cases. Need to do something to conceal this situation. -Prevents destruction of evidence
What is the rule from delaware v. prouse?
Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the reasonableness of a warrantless seizure must be weighed against the public interest the seizure serves.
What was the rule from Nathanson v. United States?
Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may not properly issue a warrant to search a private dwelling unless he can find probable cause therefore from facts or circumstances presented to him under oath or affirmation. Mere affirmance of belief or suspicion is not enough.
What is the rule from Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the police can establish checkpoints if the state interest outweighs the intrusion into people's privacy interests and the checkpoint is proven to be an effective means of achieving the state's goal.
What are some unique limitations for a sniff test from Place?
Unique limitations of a sniff test search: -The manner of the situation was limited -The content was also limited; nothing else in the luggage was shown to the world Less intrusive.
What is the rule from U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte?
Warrantless stops at permanent, internal Border Patrol checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
What was the good faith exception from Leon?
When a police officer relies in objective good faith on the warrant, and the warrant turns out to be defective because it lacks PC. exclusionary rule does not apply.
What does the standing doctrine require? What is the relative case law?
When using the exclusionary rule: 1. Person seeking to suppress must be a D. in a criminal case aganst whom evidence is offered AND 2. Person seeking to suppress must have his or her personal Fourth Amendment rights violates Rakas-target theory Rawlings-specify further Olson-guests Carter-guests
Is wiretapping a conversation prevented under the 4th amendment?
Yes if the interview/conversation occurs in the home.
What was the rule in florida v. Jardines?
a dog sniff is not a search because there's a lot of things an officer is allowed to come to the front door to do. We have knock and talk. Preserving the ability for people to walk up to the front door and talk. Bringing the dog with them to search for marijuana exceeds the scope of that license. Curilage is part of the house. We've gone beyond the implied license. Contravening property rights or interest.
What was the rule from Brinegar?
a police officer has probable cause to arrest when "the facts and circumstances within p. 450[the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed."
What is a buie sweep?
a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding."
What is the rule from Muehler v. Mena?
a two- to three-hour handcuff detention was constitutionally reasonable given that the warrant being executed authorized a search for both weapons and a wanted gang member, who was believed to reside on the premises: "In such inherently dangerous situations, the use of handcuffs minimizes the risk of harm to both officers and occupants."
What is the rule from Wilson v. Arkansas?
absent some law enforcement interest establishing the reasonableness of an unannounced intrusion, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering premises to execute a warrant.
What happened in Katz?
gambling information relayed by a guy in a telephone booth. Was wire tapped by police. -Found by the court to not be a tangible physical trespass or privacy issue. -That phone booth is not his person, house, paper, or effect. -4th amendment right against warrantless searches and seizures is focused on people and not places.
What is the rule from Michigan v. Summers?
officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority "to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted."
What are some examples of curtilage.
patios and decks.
What is the rule from Cardwell v. Lewis?
permissible for officers acting with probable cause but without a warrant to take paint scrapings from an automobile seized from a public parking lot—a constitutionally permissible confiscation and destruction of the owner's property.
What are some examples of special needs cases?
railroad employees (Skinner) Cusotoms agents (Von Raab) Political candidates (Chandler) Students in extra-curricular activities (Earls)
What were the rule from Maryland v. Wilson?
the Court applied a similar analysis to passengers, concluding that once a stop was properly made, the police could legitimately require the passengers to exit the car as well. Then, once the riders were out of the car, the next step was to decide whether officer safety justified a Terry frisk of the passengers who the police had reason to think created a risk to officer safety, even if the police had no reason to believe that the passengers had or were about to violate any laws.
What is the automobile exception?
to the Search Warrant Requirement An exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement to obtain a search warrant that allows police to search an entire car and containers within it if (1) the car is operable and (2) police have probable cause to believe contraband is inside
