Criminal Procedure Exam 3

Ohio v. Robinette (1996)

(before you get gone case) USSC determined that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle after he was told he could go by a state trooper. SC cites Schneckoth saying that "just as it is impractical to require an officer to read a suspect their rights of refusal" it is impractical for a trooper to always tell a driver they are free to go before they consent to a search.

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)

A person subjected to custodial interrogation must be given the "Miranda" warnings regardless of the nature or severity of the offense. Exception: the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation, so there is no need to give the "Miranda" warnings.

In which case did the Supreme Court first approve of a search incident to a lawful arrest?

Chimel v. California

In which case did the Supreme Court hold that 'drug checkpoints' (stopping vehicles without suspicion and using a dog to search for drugs) are a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

US v. Leon (CN)

Court established the "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.

Missouri v. McNeely (2013) (133 S. Ct. 1552)

DUI- must have a warrant to draw blood

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)

Drug testing okay to protect students; no violation of fourth.

Maryland v. Buie (1990)

Emergency Searches: extends to places where a person can hide while warrant is being served.

Malloy v. Hogan (1964)

Extended a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to state courts.

A police officer seizes illegal drugs from Dan during the course of searching his house. Dan's lawyer files a motion to exclude the evidence and the judge grants the motion. Dan will now be able to recover the drugs because of the exclusionary rule.

False

According to the Supreme Court, if a person refuses a police request to search his person or property, such as luggage, the police may treat this refusal as establishing probable cause to believe that the person is hiding a weapon or evidence of a crime and then proceed to search without consent and without having to obtain a warrant.

False

According to the Supreme Court, police may stop and board an interstate bus and ask passengers to consent to a search of their luggage, but they must first inform the passengers of their right to refuse a request to search.

False

According to the Surpeme Court, consent to search property by the police, e.g. an apartment, can only be given by the lawful owner of that property.

False

Currently, all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

False

During the 1960s the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

False

In Maryland v. Buie the Supreme Court held that the police may do a protective sweep of the area in a dwelling where an arrestee was hiding in order to look for other suspects who might be hiding there, but the police must have probable cause to believe that there is another suspect hiding there.

False

Probable cause is required before an arrest warrant is issued, but police may arrest without a warrant whenever they have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committeed a crime.

False

The U.S. Supreme Court incorporated a provision from the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment for the first time during the 1960s.

False

The exclusionary rule prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being used in a deportation hearing.

False

Under the common law, even though the police had probable cause, they could not arrest someone for a felony unless they observed the crime being committed.

False

Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be used against the defendant for any purpose.

False

according to current Supreme Court Holdings u.s. citizens entering the United States from another country must be given the Miranda warning prior to any questioning by federal agents about where they traveled how long they were gone and whether they are carrying any prohibited Goods into the country

False

according to the Supreme Court when an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation he or she must give the Miranda warnings to the driver before asking any questions

False

if a suspect walks into a police station voluntarily not under arrest the police must give him the Miranda warnings before asking any questions

False

prior to Malloy vs. Hogan the Supreme Court permitted forced confessions to be used against defendants in a criminal prosecution

False

under the Supreme Court Holdings a confession that was obtained by the police as a results of physically beating a suspect is admissible against the suspect at trial so long as the Miranda warnings were properly given

False

Riley v. California (2014) (134 S. Ct. 2473)

Held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a smartphone for information.

Georgia v. Randolph (2006) (547 U.S. 103)

Is a case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.

Chimel v. Calif. (CN)

It held that the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned that searches "incident to arrest" are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect.

Sitz v. Department of State Police

Michigan State Police highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment

California v. Beheler (1983)

Miranda warnings were not required at respondent's first interview with the police. For Miranda purposes, "custodial interrogation" means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Florida v. Bostick (1991)

Modifies the "free to leave" definition acknowledging defendant was not free to leave Greyhound bus, but he was free to decline officer's requests to search his bag in which they found 1 lb of cocaine. Not a 4th amendment seizure

Flippo v. West Virginia (1999)

Petitioner's motion to suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search of a "homicide crime scene" was denied on the ground that the police were entitled to make a thorough search of any crime scene and the objects found there.

California v. Acevedo

Police may search a container in a car without a warrant if they have probably cause to believe it holds contraband or evidence.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)

Police traffic checkpoints cannot be justified as a generalized search for criminal evidence; they must be narrowly focused on a specific objective

Choose the correct statement with respect to the Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable suspicion must be based on articulable facts.

California v. Greenwood (1988)

Ruled that no warrant was necessary to search trash

In which of the following cases did the U.S. Supreme Court create the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule?

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States

Choose the correct statement.

The Fourth Amendment applies in any case in which there is state action and the state actor engages in a search OR a seizure.

Payton v. New York (1980) , 445 U.S. 573

The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest.

Harris v. New York (1971)

The Supreme Court ruled that information gathered in violation of the Miranda rule is admissible if defendants choose to testify in their own defense.

Terry v. Ohio (CN)

The case dealt with the 'stop and frisk' practice of police officers, and whether or not it violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Choose the correct statement with regard to a person's consent to a search of their property.

The consent must be voluntary

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The court ruled that those subjected to in-custody interrogation be advised of their constitutional right to an attorney and their right to remain silent.

A police officer was walking on a public sidewalk and while standing on the sidewalk looked through the window of a house sitting 30 feet back from the sidewalk. He saw in the window a very large metal statue of a past president of Michigan State University. The statue had been reported recently stolen. Choose the correct statement:

The officer would still have to obtain a search warrant to enter the house and seize the statue

Acting on their own, two custodians employed by the owners of an apartment buidling used a pass-key to enter a tenant's apartment for the purpose of stealing jewlery, cash, and stereo equipment. While they were in the apartment they saw a large amount cocaine. They reported this to the police. The information they (the custodians) gave to the police can be used by the police in requesting a search warrant.

True

As a general rule, police may use a reasonable amount of force to carry out an arrest.

True

In a situation where the police are permitted to do a protective sweep (as authorized by Maryland v. Buie), the plain view rule applies.

True

The exclusionary rule is not limited to violations of the Fourth Amendment. It potentially applies to violations of other Constitutional provisions.

True

The provisions in the Bill of Rights were originally intended to protect citizens from the federal government, and were not intended to protect citizens from state or local governments.

True

There are exceptions to "the fruit of the poisonous tree" rule.

True

Under current Supreme Court holdings, police may not enter a home to carry out a routine felony arrest of someone inside unless the police have an arrest warrant, even though the police have probable cause.

True

Stoner v. California (1964)

USSC rejected the claim that a hotel night clerk had either apparent or actual authority to search defendant's hotel room

In which of the following cases did the U.S. Supreme Court create the exclusionary rule?

Weeks v. United States

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

When a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.

The purpose of a "Chimel" search is:

a and b are correct: a) to find evidence that an arrestee may try to destroy. b)to find a weapon that the arrestee may try to use to escape.

Weeks v. United States involved:

a federal criminal prosecution.

Police can use which types of sensory information to take further action?

a, b, and c are correct

Arizona v. Gant (129 S. Ct. 1710)

an arrest does not justify a vehicle search if the handcuffed driver has already been removed and poses no danger to officers or to the preservation of evidence

Rodriguez v. United States (135 S. Ct. 1609) (CN)

analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception

United States v. Drayton

clarified the applicability of Fourth Amendment protections to searches and seizures that occur on buses, as well as the function of consent during searches by law enforcement.

United States v. Watson (423 U.S. 411) (CN)

decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment

Florida v. Jardines (133 S. Ct. 1409) (CN)

decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.

Under Terry v. Ohio, the purpopse of a frisk is to:

find a weapon that the suspect may use to harm the officer and others.

Ariz. v. Hicks

held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view

In United States v. Calandra the U.S. Supreme Court held:

illegally obtained evidence can't be used in a grand jury proceeding.

Illinois v. Wardlow

involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures

If police officers are conducting a search inside of a dwelling under a valid search warrant and they see (in the open) stero equipment (assuming that the officers have no information that the specific equipment is stolen), the officers:

may not move the equipment in order to look for the serial numbers.

Cupp v. Murphy (1973)

officers may seize evidence to protect it if taking time to seek a warrant creates a risk of its destruction

Cupp v. Murphy (1973)

officers may seize evidence to protect it if taking time to seek a warrant creates a risk of its destruction; was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a murder conviction notwithstanding a challenge that the evidence upon which guilt was based was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Florida v. J.L. (2000)

police officers may not conduct a stop-and-frisk search based solely on an anonymous tip

Which provision of the Bill of Rights was at issue in the case of Palko v. Conn.?

protection against double jeopardy

Board of Education v. Earls (2002)

public school mandatory drug testing of students in extracurricular activities is constitutional

Illinois v. Lidster (540 U.S. 419) (CN)

ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use a roadblock to investigate a traffic incident

Heien v. North Carolina (135 S. Ct. 530) (CN)

ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop

A "Chimel" search of a person is permitted when:

that person has been lawfully arrested.

United States v. Matlock

the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched.

In Cupp v. Murphy the court permitted the search because of:

the fact that a delay would result in the evidence being destroyed and there was probable cause to arrest the suspect for murder.

A "Terry" stop of a person is permitted when:

the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Assuming that police are lawfully inside of a dwelling and standing in a lawful location inside of that dwelling:

they may seize any contraband in plain view so long as there is probable cause for doing so.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a seizure of a person occurs:

when a person is approached by the police and asked a question and under the circumstances a reasonable person would not feel free to decline to answer the question and terminate the encounter with the police.

Maryland v. King (133 S. Ct. 1958) (CN)

when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.