Case Law Flashcards
Dyar v. State
Anywhere can be a “suspicious place” based on the totality of the circumstances.
Steagald v. US
Steagald stands for the proposition that entry may only be forced to execute a warrant when the warrant is being executed at the residence of the person named.
Crain v. State
Deals with consensual encounters and whether or not a “reasonable person” would feel free to leave in any particular circumstance.
Florida v. Royer
States that officers can make consensual encounters without it being a violation of 4th amendment.
Rhodes vs. State of Texas
States that handcuffing for officer safety does not necessarily constitute an arrest.
Stansbury vs. California
Traffic stop does not constitute “custody” for Miranda purposes.
US vs. Mendenhall
To determine whether an arrest has taken place will be based off whether or not “a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave.”
Oregon vs Haas
“A state is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this court holds to be necessary upon federal constitution standards.”
Heitman v State of Texas
“The court of criminal appeals will not be bound by United States Supreme Court decisions when addressing 4th amendment issues.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
A defendants invocation of his right to silence must be unambiguous.
Montejo v Louisiana
Deals with the appointment of counsel
Florida v Powell
While the four Miranda warnings are invariable, the court has not dictated the words required.
U.S. v Leon
The court held that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as to not bar the admission of evidence seized by reasonable, good faith.
Herring v. U.S.
Seizures based on search incident to an arrest that was based on a warrant that turns out being invalid is still admissible as evidence.
Wong Sun v U.S.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Mapp vs. Ohio
Created the Exclusionary Rule. Stating that seizures from 4th amendment violations are inadmissible.
California v. Hodari
A “seizure” requires physical force, even if slight. Or a show of authority to which the subject yields.
Brower v. Inyo county
A seizure occurs when government termination of a persons movement is effected through means intentionally applied.
Katz vs. U.S.
Developed “reasonable expectation of privacy”
Illinois v Wardlow
Flight is not solely indicative of criminal activity, however it can be added to the totality of circumstances to develope reasonable suspicion.
Guzman v. Texas
Avoiding officers is a factor to consider when determining probable cause, and the officers prior knowledge is relevant.
Aguilar vs. Texas
Word from a non credible, anonymous source is insufficient.
Illinois vs. Gates
Probable cause was determined through totality of the circumstances rather than the informants tip alone.
Baity vs. State of Texas
A police officer may approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behaviour even without probable cause.
Armstrong vs. State of Texas
Appellants consent to search was given after his arrest. It was determined that the evidence was seized through exploitation of the illegal stop.
Terry v. Ohio
Created “stop and frisk”
Adams vs. Williams
Officer reaches in car to retrieve gun he was informed by another was present. Determined that RS may be based on information supplies by another person.
United States v. Arvizu
BPA. “Totality of the Circumstances.”
3 pronged test
Mere suspicion that criminal activity is afoot is insufficient to justify terry stop. Reasonable suspicion needed =
- Some out of ordinary activity has or is occurring
- Suspect is connected with activity.
- Suspicious activity is related to crime.
