Case Law Flashcards
A stop based on a flyer must not be significantly more intrusive than would have been permitted by the originating agency. If it is later determined that the flyer was not founded on reasonable suspicion, the officer making the stop would have a good faith defense in any subsequent civil suit.
United States v. Hensley (Investigative stops based on a bolo, flyer, or bulletin) –
An investigative stop is permissible provided the dention is temporary and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances/ The Officer must articulate a “well founded suspicion based upon articulable facts. A hunch, gut feeling, or bare suspicion is a sufficient basis for a stop. True for False?
False (Insufficient)
___________________ the court held that the informed and deliberate determinations of empowered magistrates are preferred to the sometimes hurried
actions of officers.
Aguilar v. Texas (Arrest Warrant Preferred)
________________ the officer testified that over his 14 year career in law enforcement, he had felt thousands of nickel bags. He said that he had been trained in narcotics identification and investigations.
C.A.M. v. State
______________________ Seizure tantamount to arrest typically occurs as a result of an investigative encounter. This case law stated a critical consideration in this case is the agents kept the defendants identification and airline ticket.
Florida v. Royer
As long as the warnings reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda, it is sufficient. The court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed (including the use of a standard rights form or card).
Florida v. Powell
_________________ LEOs do not violate 4th Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place.
Florida v. Royer
Reaffirmed that to receive Miranda protection, restraint on freedom of movement is of the degree associated with a formal arrest.
California v. Beheler
___________________ the Court said that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
Tennessee v. Garner
1) Officer is justified in using only that amount of force which is reasonable and necessary to overcome resistance.
2) When making a lawful arrest, officer does not have to back down when threatened with physical resistance.
3) Officer has a duty and obligation to press forward and bring the suspect under control.
4) The officer has the right to use that amount of force necessary for self-protection.
Graham v. Connor (Self Defense)
_______________________ that police are not required to guess at their peril the precise moment at which they have probable cause to arrest a suspect.
Hoffa v. United States
A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.
Adams v. Williams
Court upheld the validity of sobriety checkpoints citing that the program complied with the aforementioned criteria(State v. Jones)
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
The driver is being asked to expose to view very little more of his person than is already exposed. It is at most a mere inconvenience which cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer’s safety.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms (Authority to order the occupants from a vehicle)
_______________ the state provided a specific factual basis for LEO experience to establish its claim of probable cause in the Plain Feel Doctrine.
Doctor v. State
Applies to words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to words, known to be false, reporting some physical hazard in circumstances where such a report creates a clear and present danger of bodily harm to others.
Thus, words alone cannot constitute disorderly conduct unless the words are “fighting words” or words such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
State v. Saunders (Disorderly Conduct)
_________________ was a land mark case that illustrates an application of a stop and frisk.
Terry v. Ohio
Police may reinitiate contact with the suspect even if he requested counsel initially after 14 days had elapsed. Thus, the suspect may be re-approached on or after the 15th day.
Maryland v. Shatzer
______ established a legal basis for the police-citizen encounters. 3 levels of types of encounters: 1)Consensual Encounter
2) Investigative Stop
3) Arrest
Popple v. State
Reading of Miranda rights during a consensual encounter does not in and of itself convert the encounter into a custodial stop, but the subject must be affirmatively advised that he is not under arrest.
Caldwell v. State
Retaining person’s identification may convert consensual encounter into a seizure.
Golphin v. State
Prohibits questioning first and getting confession, then giving Miranda warnings, and going through the questions again.
Missouri v. Seibert
There must be some evidence that the crowd is actually responding to the defendant’s words in some way that threatens to breach the peace.
Barry v. State
The court requires that both elements of loitering and prowling statute occur in the officer’s presence. Otherwise, the officer may not make an arrest.
Freeman v. State
