4th Amendment--Warrantless Searches & Seizures: Stop & Frisk

Question 1

An officer may stop & frisk if:

Answer 1

1. Crim activity is afoot
2. Believes D is armed & dangerous.
3. Identifies himself as an officer & makes reasonable inquires that don’t reassure him (Dropped in recent case law).

Question 2

Terry v. Ohio

Answer 2

P was in plain clothes & observed two men & believed they were casing a store (thought they may be armed), P approached them, D mumbled answers to inquires & P eventually performed a search, which revealed a gun. D claimed illegal search & seizure b/c no PC.
Rules:
1. A seizure occurs whenever a cop accosts an individual & restrains his freedom to walk away.
2. A careful exploration of a Ds clothing constitutes a search.
3. An officer may perform a search for weapons w/o PC when officer reasonably believes person may be armed or dangerous.
Language: Liberal court was very concerned w/ind rights & minority rights, but there was a popular opinion that CT needed to do more to encourage crime prevention.

Question 3

Terry v. Ohio: Rules cont

Answer 3

Prior to seizing:

1. P needs reasonable suspicion that a crime is in the middle of occurring or going to occur.
2. Reasonableness judged by: Ps observations; behavior of D; officer’s experience
   a. Less than PC standard but need to point to articulable facts
3. Articulable facts that taken together w/rational inferences would lead a man of reasonable caution to believe criminal activity was afoot.

Question 4

Terry v. Ohio: Rules cont

Answer 4

Prior to frisking:
1. Need a sense that officer or public are in danger
2. For protection of himself & others, officer may conduct a limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that may be used to assault him.
Limits: Outer clothing, searching for weapons only.

Question 5

Terry v. Ohio: Rules cont

Answer 5

There is no limitation on when a cop can speak to you. Can detain you if they have reasonable suspicion, but can’t pat down unless they believe you have weapons.
a. No justification needed for surveillance and speaking. Line drawn when they grab a person.

Question 6

Adams v. Williams

Answer 6

X told P someone was in the car w/guns & drugs. P knocked on Ds car window, reached in & withdrew the gun.
Rule: An informant’s tip may justify reasonableness for an officer’s search. (Expanding Terry)
a. If an officer has reason to believe something is in a specific place, officer may be able to just reach in and grab it.
b. Terry is not limited to the officer’s personal observations.

Question 7

Pennsylvania v. MImms

Answer 7

D pulled over for a traffic stop & P asked him to get out of the car. P noticed a bulge & performed a frisk.
Rule: Under Terry, Ps’ in the course of a legal stop of a car may ask the driver to step out of the vehicle.
a. No further justification needed to order someone out of a car (Poses racial profiling dangers).
b. Once a bulge is identified, P has a reason to believe a suspect is armed & dangerous.
(This was extended in later cases to allowing Ps to request passengers also leave the car).

Question 8

Detention for duration of seizure: Michigan v. Summers

Answer 8

Ps w/search warrant of a home may detain occupants while the search is being executed (want to prevent the destruction of evidence).

Question 9

Detention for duration of seizure: Mueller v. Mena

Answer 9

Ds house was being searched for gang members. P placed Ds in handcuffs & INS questioned them about immigrants.
Rule: Add questions is not an add intrusion when the suspect is lawfully detained
Rule: A P may use reasonable force in a search to effectuate detention.

Question 10

Detention for duration of seizure: Bailey v. US

Answer 10

P had warrant to search Ds house. P spotted D a mile away & made him go back to the apartment.
Rule: Once a D leaves the immediate vicinity of the premises being searched, any detention must be justified by other means.
a. If off premises, can no longer destruct evidence.

Question 11

Stop v. Encounter

Answer 11

1. For an encounter, cops may do whatever they want

2. For a stop, cops need to comply w/Terry.

Question 12

US v. Meadenhall

Answer 12

D was stopped in an airport & asked for license & ticket. They were in diff names, so P asked D to accompany him to a room & D consented to a bag search that revealed drugs.
Rule: No seizure. A person is seized when in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave

Question 13

Meadenhall Objective Test: Factors

Answer 13

1. Presence of several officers
2. Display of weapon
3. Physical touching
4. Voice or language indicating compliance may be compelled

Question 14

Florida v. Royer

Answer 14

D stopped at airport & asked about ticket discrepancy. P kept the ticket & asked D to come to a private room. P retrieved bags w/out consent & D consented to a search. Seizure found.
Rule: The initial stop & questioning was a valid Terry stop, but the subsequent conduct was more intrusive than necessary to carry out the limited investigation permitted by Terry.
a. Seizure occurred when P took Ds license & walked away.
b. If a person denies to engage in a conversation w/cops, it cannot be treated as suspicious conduct for a Terry stop.

Question 15

INS v. Delgado

Answer 15

Ps conducted surveys at a factory to identify illegal aliens. No seizure.
Rule: It is not a seizure to conduct a factory survey in search of illegal aliens.
a. Seizes if uses physical force or by show of authority
b. Or if reasonable person believes they are not free to go

Question 16

US v. Cardozo

Answer 16

Ps followed D down a one way street & began asking D questions & saw D waive a bullet while answering. P spoke to D through the window & got out of the car to frisk D. No seizure when P was talking to D through the window.
Rule: A seizure occurs if viewed from totality of the circumstances Ps conduct objectively communicated P was using authority to restrain Ds movement.
a. Should look if P was acting coercively, rather than if D would feel free to leave.
b. This didn’t change Terry or Meadenhall. Just an alt view from circuit court.

Question 17

Bus Case: Florida v. Bostick

Answer 17

A bus search constitutes a stop if a reasonable person would not feel free to decline Ps requests.
a. Not stop b/c officer said you don’t have to talk to us (even though officers stopped in front and back of bus).

Question 18

Bus case: US v. Drayton

Answer 18

Ds were on a bus & P asked to check their bags & they consented. No showing of weapons, blocking aisle & said free to leave anytime. Drugs were found. No stop.
Rule: To determine a stop must look at all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to see if a reasonable person would feel free to decline Ps requests.
a. Since questioning would have been lawful on the street same logic to bus
b. Alter free to leave test a little & focus on Ps coercion.
c. When Ps perform a drug interdiction on a bus & Ds consent to bag search, 4th amend seizure will usually not be found.

Question 19

State of Mind required for a stop: Brower v. Idvo

Answer 19

P set up a blind roadblock to catch D & D died.
Rule: In order for a stop to occur, the P must act intentionally to stop Ds movement.
Ex. a. No int seizure if P hits hostage instead of hostage taker.
b. If hit X, but the perp turns about to be Y, still a seizure b/c intended to hit X.
c. Must have some reasonable suspicion/PC

Question 20

Running away: Cali v. Hodari

Answer 20

Ps approached group of kids & D started to run, D drops drugs. D argued he was seized when chase started. P tackles and arrest D.
Rule: A seizure of a person doesn’t occur until that person has been physically seized or submits to Ps authority, No yield=No seizure.
a. Policy: Can’t encourage people to run away. Changes free to leave test.
b. New Rule: aA seizure occurs when: D drops in response to chase or P orders & once stopped, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
Dissent: Rule will create problems & give police incentives, Are now looking at Ds behavior not Ps.

Question 21

Running away: US v. Lender

Answer 21

P approached men huddled in group & D walks away & P yelled stop, D fumbles with something in belt, P yells stop again & D stops w/back to police & gun falls from waist.
Rule: No stop. A momentary halt does not constitute a yield.

Question 22

Grounds for Reasonable Suspicion

Answer 22

RS: Terry. Specific articulable facts taken together w/rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant the intrusion.

a. Source of info on which reasonable suspicion is based (quality).
b. Whether that info is sufficient to support a stop (quantity).

Question 23

Tips: Alabama v. White

Answer 23

P received anon tip that D leaving w/ briefcase of drugs. Anon gave P Ds address, description of car & certain hotel D headed to. P saw D leave home w/out briefcase & head to certain motel. P stopped D at motel & D consented to search & drugs were found in briefcase. RS found.
Rule: RS satisfied by an anon tip that is corroborated by Ps investigation.
a. Knowing a Ds future activities indicates reliability.
b. RS is determined by totality of the circumstances. Key factor is whether informant predicted future events (predictive info). (lesser standard than PC)

Question 24

Anon tip: Florida v. JL

Answer 24

P received anon tip that D was black, in plaid shirt & carrying a gun, P walked up to D & frisked & found gun.
Rule: To qualify for RS, the tip must be reliable in its assertion of illegality. Need add corroboration.
a. No predictive info, only get description. Don’t show tipster has knowledge of concealed crime activity.
Emergency Exception: Comb, drunk driving, domestic violence, reports of ongoing emergencies.

Question 25

Factors to determine reliability of tips:

Answer 25

US v. Chavez:

a. If inf totally anon
b. If inf relied on first hand knowledge
c. If detailed info
d. Inf motivation
e. If P corroborated info

Question 26

Anon tip & Reckless driving: Navarette v. Cali

Answer 26

P received call D ran someone off the road & P followed D for 5 minutes. P suspected D was drunk driving, pulled D over & found pot. RS found.
Rule: Call has indications of reliability b/c 911 calls are less likely to be fabricated (traced).
Rule: Under totality of circumstance, P had RS to believe D was intoxicated, which justifies stop.

Question 27

Quantum of suspicion: A fair possibility of crim activity?

Answer 27

US v. Windsor: probability based question
US v. Arvizu: Totality of circumstances
US v. Trulls: High crime area
US v. Rodriguez: No reasonable suspicion, police fabrication suspected

Question 28

Quantum of suspicion: US v. Arvizu

Answer 28

P stopped D in minivan, got consent to search car & drugs were found, RS found.
Rule: when looking at RS, look at totality of circumstances to see if P had a particular & objective basis for suspecting illegal wrongdoing.
a. Rejects prior courts approach at looking at factors.
b. Here, occupants behavior, effort to avoid checkpoints, passenger position, car registered in smuggler area, minivans used for smuggling.

Question 29

Quantum of suspicion:: US v. Rodriguez

Answer 29

P said D didn’t acknowledge them, so P stopped D. P performed consented search & found drugs.
Rule: NO RS if the facts could have fit thousands of law-abiding drivers
a. Possible police fabrication. Ct takes this as suspicious

Question 30

Quantum of suspicion: US v. Hensley

Answer 30

Inf told P that D drove getaway car. P spotted car, arrested D and found gun.
Rule: Terry doctrine applies to investigation of completed crimes

Question 31

Race Factor: St Paul v. Uber

Answer 31

D (white male, driving in black neighborhood) stopped in a car in high prostitutes area b/c suspected of soliciting prostitutes.
Rule: Race is relevant, but cannot be only factor.
a. A person from another placed doesn’t need to justify their lawful presence on a pub street.

Question 32

Illinois v. Wardlow

Answer 32

D ran from cops after observing cop car & P patted down & found guns.
Rule: As long as mistake of law is reasonable, there is RS to justify stop.
Combo of flight (running) & high crime area is enough usually.

Question 33

Mistake of law: Helem v. North Carolina

Answer 33

P pulled D over for 1 brake light out, but the law actually allowed this, D consented to search & drugs are found.
Rule: As long as mistake of law is reasonable, there is RS to justify stop.
Concurrence: stresseed statute must be ambiguous & require hard interpretative work.

Question 34

Scope of Terry Frisk: Limited Searches: Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer 34

P conducted lawful stop & pated D & felt hard object. P continued to squeeze object, removed it and saw it was crack.
Rule: Once a P concludes D doesn’t have a weapon (pat on outer clothing), P can’t continue to search to discover other evidence
a. Frisk cannot be used to search for evidence.

Question 35

Expansion of Terry Search Beyond Protective Searches beyond suspect’s person: Michigan v. Long

Answer 35

P stopped D for reckless driving & appeared to be under the influence. Initially refused to give license & registration & started walking toward passenger side of car. P stopped D, saw a knife & searched passenger compartment & trunk, which had drugs.
Rule: Power to search under Terry can be expanded to protective areas beyond the person of the suspect.
a. P may search passenger compartment if:
1. P has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that D is dangerous & may gain control of weapon; and
2. P only looks in parts of compartment where weapons may be placed or hidden.
Policy: Concerned w/Ps being harmed once D permitted to return car.

Question 36

Limited searches: Ybarra v. Illinois

Answer 36

P cannot conduct a protective search of a 3rd person unless there is a reasonable belief the 3rd person posses a risk of harm. (Mere presence in bar were going to search not enough).

Question 37

Suspicion required to support a frisk: People v. Russ

Answer 37

A frisk requires knowledge of facts providing reasonable basis for suspecting the ind to be subjected to that intrusion is armed & may be dangerous.
a. Info from inf that D passes gun to another not enough, there was no inquiry by P, no suspicious bulge, no furtive movements, movements & appearance not concealed by darkness.

Question 38

Suspicion required to support a frisk: US v. Rideau

Answer 38

High crime area not enough, when engaged in suspicious activity in high crime area w/violence & weapons around.
Dissent: Searched b/c of status, person in bad part of town & do not belong on street late at night unless they are up to no good.

Question 39

Applying Long:

Answer 39

US v. Brown: Search of locked glove compartment when RS of drug activity (weapons & violence frequently associated w/drug transactions so, armed & dangerous).
US v. McGregor: Secret compartment for gang members RS okay
US v. Johnson: Overralls located few feet away from crime, RS yes
All b/c have they will get back in car & have to return thing

Question 40

US v. Swann

Answer 40

P responses to robbery. P approached Ds patted down & felt hard objects in socks. P pulled out object, which were credit cards.
Rule: P may remove the object so long as objectively believes it could have been a weapon.

Question 41

MD v. Buie

Answer 41

P arrested D w/warrant in home. P conducted protective sweep & found linking clothes b/c believed D had harbored inds.
Rule: A protective sweep may be justified by a Ps RS that the swept area may contain harbored dangerous ind.
Limits:
a. Has to be where person could be hiding
b. Limited quick & cursory inspection
c. Justification is for protection
Protective sweep is a quick & limited search of premises incident to arrest & is conducted to protect safety of arresting officers.

Question 42

Stop v. Arrest Factors: Forced movement into area for investigatory purpose

Answer 42

Florida v. Royer: D was teken into airport room & P retained his ticket & license. D consented to a search & drugs were found. Arrested
Rule: An arrest occurs when a D is forcibly moved into a custodial atmosphere for purpose of investigation.
People v. Hicks: P transported D to area b/c suspected of robbery. P wanted witnesses to identify D.
Rule: It is permissible stop under Terry to transport D a short distance for identification purposes.
a. ID is central purpose of Terry stop.

Question 43

Stop v. arrest factors: intrusive investigatory techniques

Answer 43

Hibbel v. District: D stopped b/c was an assault suspect, but wouldn’t provide id
Rule: A P has a right to demand ID in a Terry stop.

Question 44

Stop v. arrest factors: Investigation of other matters (stop v. stop)

Answer 44

A Terry stop cannot be used for a fishing expedition. Need RS to continue stop.
US v. Erwin: D pulled over for drunk driving, but was not drunk. P had RS that D was drug dealer.
Rule: In the course of a lawful stop to investigate crime A, the P gets RS to investigate crime B, detention may be extended to investigate crime B. ]
Ohio v. Robinette: D was being released for traffic stop & P asked if he had contraband. D consented to car search that revealed drugs. Voluntary encounter after stop occurred.
Rule: To determine if the continuing discussion is a voluntary encounter, look at totality of circumstances. (no express by P that D free to go required).
Dunway v. NY: D asked to come to police headquarters, complied, read Miranda warnings & would have been retrained tried to leave, was questioned & confessed. No PC to arrest D, but P believed D was involved in crime.
Rule: PC is necessary for station house detention accompanied by an interrogation, even if no formal arrest is made.
Hayes v. Fla: P had RS that D was a rape suspect, so forced D to be fingerprinted, P transported D & fingerprinted him.
Rule: P needs PC to forcibly move someone to the station house for fingerprinting.
Rodriguez v. US: P stopped D for driving on the shoulder P questioned D & issued summons. P asked if could perform dog sniff, but D said no & P did it anyway, Drugs were found. Unjustified stop after stop.
Rule: A traffic stop prolonged beyond the point is unlawful.
a. Authority for the traffic stop ends when traffic task is or reasonably should have been completed. (dog sniff not routine, no safety in dog sniff).
1. Need particularized facts to authorize another stop.
2. Remember a dog sniff is not a search.

Question 45

Stop v. arrest factors: Time limits: Unreasonably long detention:

Answer 45

US v. Sharpe: 2 Ps were following Ds. 1 P detained 1 D for 20 minutes to wait for 2nd P. Time okay
Rule: Ps only need to show they diligently pursued an investigation to confirm or dispel their suspicions.
a. No bright line on time limit, look if investigation was in reasonable manner.

Question 46

Stop v. arrest factors: Show of force & detention of property

Answer 46

Depending on what crime Ps have RS of, Ps may use guns & handcuffs.
US v. Vanleewan: (det of prop): P had RS about a package & detained it. Not unreasonable.
Rule: A package may be unreasonably detained if Ps don’t conduct investigation promptly & diligently.
US v. Place: P seized Ds luggage & performed dog sniff 90 mins later. Unreasonable detention
Rule: Terry allows a P to briefly detain a Ds luggage (effects) to investigate the circumstances.

Question 47

Search incident to arrest

Answer 47

Search must correspond in scope w/:

1. Prevention of evidence destruction; and
2. Protect safety of officers & others

Question 48

Search incident to arrest

Answer 48

Chimel v. Cali: (defined rationale rule): P went to Ds house w/arrest warrant & asked for search permission. D said no, but P searched anyway & seized evidence. Unreasonable.
Rule: A search in an arrestee’s home beyond his person & immediate control area is unreasonable under the 4th amend.
a. justification for the rule is to prevent danger to cops or destruction of evidence
b. Grab area: anywhere a D could reach to grab a weapon or destroy evidence.
Dissent: An arrest where evidence may be destroyed is an exigent circumstance b/c everyone has a friend who can destroy evidence in home.
US v. Lucas: D arrested for robbery & kept trying to go into cabinet, so P opened it and found gun. Reasonable.
Rule: Chimel extends to drawers, so long as D could reasonable reach the area.
If have reason to believe person is hiding can also search places where a person could fit.
US v. Currence: A handlebar is in Ds immediate control if D had ability to reach it.
Courts split on whether the grab area should be determined at the time of arrest or time of search
Davis v. Robbs: Grab area should be determined at time of search. Ps should arrest D first to prevent themselves from being in danger.
US v. Shakar: Ps bag was search after D was arrested. Search allowed.
Rule: If an item is removed from Ds control b/w arrest & search, then no justification exists for the search.
Washington v. Chrisman (Post arrest movements): P saw D w/alcohol, so escorted D to his dorm. P saw pot got a consented search & found more drugs.
Rule: When D is arrested, P is allowed to stay w/them.
a. When P has a right to be in a room, anything in plain view may be lawfully seized w/out warrant.

Question 49

Temporal limits on search incident to arrest

Answer 49

A search may not be used to get PC for arrest;
If a search is too far away from arrest, exception doesn’t apply. Need another justification or a warrant.
US v. Edwards: P arrested D for burglary & searched his clothes next morning & found linking paint chips
Rule: A search that is allowed at time of arrest may be made later when D is in detention

Question 50

Search of person

Answer 50

US v. Robinson: P pulled D for driving w/revoked license permit. P arrested, D patted him down & found cig box, opened it and found drugs.
Rule: When a D is lawfully arrested, P may conduct a search on Ds person beyond frisking for weapons & preserving evidence.
a. includes containers found on persons
b. No justification is needed to search after full arrest. Diminished privacy expectation.
c. Custodial arrest are more dangerous b/c have to transport D.