Briefs in Leading Cases in Law Enforcement Flashcards
Terry v. Ohio
A stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion is valid.
Adams v. Williams
A stop and frisk may be based on information provided by another individual. Can come from an informant.
US v. Hensley
Reasonable suspicion based on a “wanted poster” is sufficient for a valid stop.
US v. Sharpe
There is no rigid time limit for the length of an investigatory stop; instead, specific circumstances should be taken into account.
Specific circumstances should be accounted for:
a. Purpose of stop
b. Reasonableness of the time used for investigation
c. Reasonableness of the means of investigation used by officers
Alabama v. White
Reasonable Suspicion is a less demanding standard than Probable Cause, and can be based on an anonymous tip corroborated by independent police work.
Minnesota v. Dickerson
A frisk that goes beyond that allowed in Terry (weapon) is invalid.
Illinois v. Wardlow
Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about to take place.
Florida v. J.L.
An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer’s stop and frisk of that person.
US v. Arvizu
In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada ET AL.
The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply.
Arizona v. Johnson
Officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle and pat them down if there is reasonable suspicion they may be armed and dangerous.
Utah v. Strieff
The discovery of a valid arrest warrant is a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between an unlawful stop and the discovery of evidence incident to an arrest.
Two classifications: With warrant and without warrant
Parts of Arrest:
a. Seizure and Detention
b. Intention of Arrest
c. Arrest Authority
d. Understanding by the Person Arrested
US v. Santana
A warrantless arrest that begins in a public place is valid even if the suspect retreats to a private place and is arrested there.
US v. Watson
An arrest without a warrant in a public place is valid as long as there is probable cause, even if there is time to obtain a warrant.
Dunaway v. New York
Probable cause is needed for the stationhouse detention of a suspect if such detention is accompanied by an interrogation.
Payton v. New York
The police may not validly enter a private home to make a routine, warrantless felony arrest unless justified by exigent circumstances.
Michigan v. Summers
A search warrant carries with it the limited authority to detain occupants of the premises while the search is conducted.
Welsh v. Wisconsin
The warrantless nighttime entry of a suspect’s home to effect an arret for a non-jailable offense violates the Fourth Amendment.
Michigan v. Chesternut
The test to determine whether a seizure of a person occurs is whether a reasonable person, viewing the police conduct and surrounding circumstances, would conclude that the police had restrained the person’s liberty so that he or she is not free to leave.
Brower v. County of Inyo
The seizure of a person occurs when there is a “governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.”
California v. Hodari D.
No seizure of a person occurs when an officer seeks to arrest a suspect through a show of authority, but applies no physical force, and the subject does not willingly submit.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
The warrantless detention of a suspect for 48 hours is presumptively reasonable. If the time-to-hearing is longer, the burden of proof shifts to the police to prove reasonableness of the delay. If the time-to-hearing is shorter, the burden of proof of unreasonable delay shifts to the suspect.
Illinois v. McArthur
Under exigent circumstances, and where police need to preserve evidence until a warrant can be obtained, they may temporarily restrain a person’s movements (thus temporarily seizing a person) without violating his or her Fourth Amendment right.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
“The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation, punishable only by a fine.”
Muehler v. Mena
Detaining occupants of the premises in handcuffs for a certain period of time while executing a search warrant does not by itself violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Bailey v. US
Detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.
Warden v. Hayden
A warrantless search and seizure inside a person’s home is valid if probable cause and exigent circumstances are present. “mere evidence” may be searched, seized, and admitted in court.
a. The warrantless seizure in this case was valid because probable cause and exigent circumstances were present.
b. There is no difference between “mere evidence” and contraband or instrumentalities of a crime under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment.
Chimel v. California
After an arrest, police may search the area within a person’s immediate control.
Vale v. Louisiana
The warrantless search of a house after an arrest with a warrant, when the arrest does not take place in a house, is justified only in “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”
US v. Robinson
A body search is valid when a full-custody arrest occurs.
US v. Edwards
After a lawful arrest and detention, any search conducted at the place of detention that would have been lawful at the time of the arrest may be conducted without a warrant, even though a substantial period of time may have elapsed between the arrest and the search.
Illinois v. Lafayette
Searching the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest is valid if it is part of the administrative procedure incident to the booking and jailing of the suspect.
Maryland v. Buie
A limited protective sweep during arrest in a home is allowed if justified.
Virginia v. Moore
Officers may make a warrantless arrest of a person, even for a misdemeanor crime, if allowed by the Fourth Amendment but prohibited by state law.
Consent Searches
Voluntary and Intelligent.
Valid consent:
Husband and wife, roommate (common areas), driver, and high school administrator
Invalid consent:
Child, landlord, lessor, hotel clerk, college or university administrator, and a business employee.
Stoner v. California
A hotel clerk cannot give consent to search the room of a hotel guest.
Bumper v. North Carolina
Consent obtained by deception through a claim of lawful authority that did not in fact exist is not voluntary. A search conducted by virtue of a warrant cannot later be justified by consent if the warrant turns out to be invalid.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Voluntariness of consent to search is determined from the totality of circumstances, of which knowledge of the right to refuse consent is a factor but not a requirement.
Florida v. Royer
More serious intrusion of personal liberty than is allowable on suspicion of criminal activity taints the consent and makes the search illegal.
Illinois v. Rodriguez
Searches in which the person giving consent has “apparent authority” are valid.
Florida v. Jimeno
Consent justifies the warrantless search of a container in a car if it is objectively reasonable for the police to believe that the scope of the suspect’s consent permitted them to open that container.
Georgia v. Randolph
“A warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”
Fernandez v. California
The lawful occupant of a house or apartment may consent to a search, even over the potential objection of another lawful occupant, if the other occupant is not present or was removed on objectively reasonable grounds.
Carroll v. US
The warrantless search of an automobile is valid if there exists probable cause to believe it contains contraband.
Chambers v. Maroney
If probable cause exists that an automobile contains contraband, a warrantless search is valid even if the automobile is first moved to a police station.
US v. Chadwick
The warrantless search of a movable container found in a motor vehicle is invalid in the absence of exigent circumstances.
Delaware v. Prouse
Stopping an automobile at random and without probable cause is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
New York v. Belton
The police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a car and of the contents therein if it is incident to a lawful arrest.
US v. Cortez
In determining reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, the totality of circumstances must be taken into account.
US v. Ross
When making a valid search of a car, the police may search the entire car and open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items for which they have probable cause to search.
Michigan v. Long
A limited search of an automobile, after a valid stop, is permissible if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and might gain immediate control of a weapon.
California v. Carney
Motor homes used on public highways are automobiles for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and therefore a warrantless search is valid.
Colorado v. Bertine
Warrantless inventory searches of the person and possessions of arrested individuals are permissible under the fourth Amendment.
a. To protect an owner’s property while it is under police control.
b. To ensure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property.
c. To protect the police from danger.
Florida v. Wells
Evidence obtained from closed containers during inventory searches is not admissible in court unless authorized by departmental policy.
California v. Acevedo
Probable cause to believe that a container in an automobile holds contraband or seizable evidence justifies a warrantless search of that container even in the absence of probable cause to search the vehicle.
Pennsylvania v. Labron
There is no need for a warrant in vehicle searches if the vehicle is readily mobile, even if there is time to obtain a warrant.
Knowles v. Iowa
Officers may search a vehicle incident to an arrest, but a search incident to the issuance of a traffic citation, absent consent or probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.
Wyoming v. Houghton
Police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect occupants’ belonging found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.
Bond v. US
A traveler’s luggage is an “effect” and is under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Officers may not physically manipulate the luggage to inspect it without a warrant or probable cause.
Maryland v. Pringle
An officer may arrest an occupant of a vehicle based on probable cause that a crime has been committed (or is being committed) in the vehicle and it is not clear who committed it, as long as there is a reasonable inference from the circumstances that the person arrested could have committed the crime.
Thornton v. US
Officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after a lawful arrest even if the suspect was not in the vehicle when arrested.
Arizona v. Gant
“Police may search a vehicle incident to 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 the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.”
Navarette v. California
An anonymous 911 call is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop if it contains enough information to enable officers to corroborate its veracity and reliability.
Byrd v. US
The fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement does not defeat his otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.
