Case Law Flashcards
Terry v. Ohio
- pat search of outer clothing
- for weapons
- during detentions
- w/ reasonable suspicion suspect may be armed
- Terry factors: time of day, subject’s behavior/mannerisms, high crime area, bulky clothing, prior knowledge of suspect, known gang member, # of subjects to officer(s)
Arizona v. Gant
- Change to “incident to arrest” search rule for vehicles.
- probable cause to search vehicle for items associated w/ suspect’s arrest
- OR suspect must be unrestrained and within reach of vehicle
- inventory search ok only if dept. has policy regarding inventory searches
- inventory searches must not be arbitrary
Graham v. Connor
- Objective reasonableness standard
- use of force by police
- factors: seriousness of offense, level of resistance, level of threat to officer(s) on scene and the public, size of suspect vs. size of officer, known facts about the suspect’s training in combative sports, known facts about the suspect’s criminal history, known or suspected level of intoxication, training and experience of the officer, proximity of weapons, etc.
Tennesse v. Garner
- Fleeing felon doctrine
- officers must have articulable facts fleeing suspect is posing a threat of serious bodily injury or death to officer or public prior to utilizing deadly force on the fleeing suspect
- warning should be given to suspect if feasible
Miranda v. Arizona
LE must advise of specific rights to a suspect they are attempting to illicit incriminating statements from who is in “custody”
Berghuis v. Thompkins
- Suspects must clearly invoke their right to remain silent or request an attorney during police questioning in order to invoke their 5th amendment privilege
- the request must be clear and unambiguous
CA vs. Beheler
- Police may illicit incriminating statements from suspects when they create a non-custodial environment through a # of factors
- ex. told free to leave any time, door left open and unlocked, suspect’s entering/exiting not blocked in any way, they must feel free to leave any time
Stegald v. US
- Police must secure a search warrant to arrest a suspect in a 3rd party location (residence not belonging to suspect)
- commonly referred to as “Stegald warrant”
US v. Ramey
When formal charges have not yet been filled with the district attorney’s office, police may seek a Ramey arrest warrant for a suspect when they have probable cause for the arrest and have probable cause to believe the suspect is in his/her residence
Carrol v. US
This case is known as the “vehicle exception” to a search warrant.
- when officers have probable cause that a suspect possesses contraband inside a vehicle (weapon, narcotics, etc) they can search the vehicle in the field w/o a warrant
Whren v. US
the subjective reason an officer has to stop a vehicle does not matter as long as they have an objective basis for the stop.
- ex. officer sees a vehicle w/ 4 suspected gang members driving down the road, he stops the vehicle for expired registrations, despite the outcome of the investigation, the basis for the stop has an objective foundation and thus is lawful
CA v. Riley
Search warrant required for suspect’s cell phone, prior to searching it incident to arrest or whenever there is an intrusion into the phone
- some regular search warrant exceptions apply i.e. consent, exigency
Missouri v. Mcnelley
Police must secure a search warrant to conduct a forced blood draw from a DUI suspect that will not consent to provide a blood sample to test BAC or blow into the breathalyzer
US v. Byrd
a person who is driving a rental vehicle has a 4th amendment protection while driving the vehicle even if they are NOT on the rental agreement
Penn. v. Mimms
Maryland v. Wilson
Police may order the driver out of a vehicle during a traffic stop with no needed justification
- police may also order occupants out or into the vehicle during a traffic stop with no needed justification
Brendlin v. CA
Passengers inside lawfully stopped vehicles are detained and not free to leave
Michigan v. Long
Police may search a vehicle for weapons when they have reasonable suspicion to believe there are weapons inside the vehicle.
- scope search must be for weapons only
US v. Santana
Police may arrest a suspect who does not have an arrest warrant in the doorway of their residence if they are within arm’s reach of the officer
Wardlow v. Illinois
Police may detain a suspect who is fleeing from them if they have reasonable suspicion
that they are involved in criminal activity
- doctrine called “flight plus” meaning mere flight alone does not justify the detention but other factors associated w/ the flight of the suspect can raise the circumstances to reasonable suspicion
- ex of factors: time of day, area the suspect is in, mannerisms of the suspect prior to flight and officer’s prior knowledge of the suspect
Carpenter v. US
Police must secure a search warrant to obtain geographical cell phone data of a suspect’s phone
- this is a recent Supreme Court case due to police only need a court order prior to this decision
US v. Jones
Police must obtain a search warrant in order to place a GPS tracking device on the vehicle of a suspect in order to track their movements
Bryan v. Mcpherson
This is the case that was cited which led to the use of a Taser being considered an intermediate level of force
- Police may now only use the Taser when they have facts they can articulate which show the suspect poses a threat to the officer or the public
- severity of crime, amount of resistance and level of threat against the officers are primary factors used to evaluate whether the application of the Taser was appropriate
Deorle v. Rutherford
Police can use less than deadly force (in this case a bean bag fired from a shotgun) when there is a strong gov. interest that warrants its use and when feasible a verbal warning should first be given before the use of the force option
Fernandez v. US
Soriano-Jarquin v. US
Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Dist. Court
Police may “as a matter of course request identifying info from passengers in legally stopped vehicles
- during traffic stops police may ask passengers for their info as “interrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for ID does not, by itself, constitute a 4th amendment seizure”
