Arrest/search/seizure Cases

Question 0

Chimel v. California

Answer 0

Unreasonable search. Police can search the suspect & immediate area around. Police cannot walk a handcuffed suspect to widen the area. Court emphasized importance of warrants and probable cause. (6th amendment right to counsel)

Question 1

Illinois v. Gates

Answer 1

Totality of circumstances. Allowed for more flexible test for courts to make probable cause determination.

Question 2

Terry v. Ohio

Answer 2

Patdown search. Clarification of stop and frisk. Must have constitutionally adequate reasonable grounds for patdown.

1. Observation of unusual conduct.
2. Person with whom dealing may be armed
3. In course of investigating this behavior he identifies as police
4. Reasonable inquiry
5. Initial stage of encounter gives fear to someone’s safety.

Question 3

Fruit of poisonous tree

Answer 3

Evidence seized illegally considered tainted and cannot be used against. as long as subsequent evidence derived cannot be used.

Question 4

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer 4

Sense of feel search. During terry searches for weapons police may seize items detected through feel if plain feel makes it immediately apparent that item is contraband.

Question 5

Delaware v. Prouse

Answer 5

Spot checks. Random spot checks may not be conducted.

Question 6

Florida v. Bostick

Answer 6

Consensual searches on buses. Consent required. Officers may not convey messages that passenger compliance with their request is required. Police may not use intimidation to coerce a consent.

Question 7

Weeks v. United States

Answer 7

Exclusionary rule federal cases. Only material obtained in an unconstitutional search and seizure by federal agents in a federal case. Not state.
Silver platter doctrine.

Question 8

Silver platter doctrine

Answer 8

Permitted federal prosecutors to use evidence obtained by state agents through unreasonable search and seizure. Federal participation none (evidence was turned over to federal officials)

Question 9

Wolf v. Colorado

Answer 9

Applied weeks to state court actions. Wolf prohibited unreasonable searches by states but if evidence was trustworthy it was admissible regardless.

Question 10

Mapp v Ohio

Answer 10

Unreasonable search and seizure applied at state level too now. Found pornographic material when unlawfully searching for fugitive In home.

Question 11

United States v. Leon

Answer 11

Good faith exception.

Question 12

Escobedo v. Illinois

Answer 12

Right to counsel during interrogation. Have lawyer during earlier proceedings. From investigatory to accusatory. As soon as focus on accused there should be a lawyer.

Question 13

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 13

Right against self incrimination. Advised of righty to attorney. Miranda rights.

Question 14

Lethal injection

Answer 14

7 to 2 decision rejected argument that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment.

Question 15

Protective sweep doctrine

Answer 15

If suspicion that other persons on premise of arrest is a threat. Plain view evidence seized.