Case Laws Flashcards
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.
Deadly force
Fleeing Suspect
Good Faith Belief
Significant threat or serious physical injury
Non-violent felon ignoring does give rise to good faith belief
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is
about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”
Stop and frisk without PC
Needs RS (committed, is comitting, or is about to commit)
AND
reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State’s proffered justification for such order - the officer’s safety - is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent’s personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer’s safety.
Under the standard announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, whether “the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search `warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate” - the officer was justified in making the search he did once the bulge in respondent’s jacket was observed.(edited)
Order out of Vehicle
Officer Safety
Mere Inconvenience for driver
Could perform a terry frisk
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)
Police officers with probable cause to search a vehicle, as in this case, may inspect passengers’ belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.
Inspect the passengers belongings
Carroll v. United States 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
In Carroll, the court established the “automobile exception” to 4th Amendment protections against warrantless searches. In this prohibition-era case, the court noted the inherent difference between buildings and vehicles - buildings remain stationary, while cars and other vehicles can be moved and hidden before a warrant can be issued. The court held that if Officers have probable cause that an automobile contains evidence of a crime, the vehicle in question can be searched without a warrant.
automobile exception for warrantless searches
because inherent difference buildings / vehicles
with PC the vehicle can be searched without a warrant
Mike Smoore v. The LSPD (October 17, 2020)
This Court recognizes two distinct facts relating to “felony stops”. First and foremost, when effectuating an arrest or once an arrest has been effectuated, police may conduct a “protective sweep” of the premises or location from which the individual is arrested or detained. This includes opening the trunk of a vehicle to inspect the trunk for occupants when an attack may be launched against the officers or others from that area.
Secondly, This Court recognizes that absent separate probable cause or exception (i.e. probable cause that evidence of the crimes of arrest will be found or an inventory search of a vehicle to be impounded) officers may not search the or inventory the trunk of the vehicle when performing a protective sweep, and the contents of the trunk shall not be considered to be in “plain sight” when a protective sweep is conducted.
Can do - protective sweep of car
Can’t do - Search the trunk of vehicle, contents of trunk not in plain sight
Need separate probable cause to search a trunk
The People v. Otto Delmar (Tuesday March 16, 2021)
Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, there is a general warrant requirement for law enforcement to enter private properties, including privately owned/maintained premises, residences, and domiciles.
One exception to this general warrant requirement is the exigent circumstance of preservation of life. This exigent circumstance requires a reasonable, objective belief by a police officer that a person inside of the premises is injured or otherwise threatened with serious injury.
A single dispatch call indicating that shots have been fired inside or nearby a residence does not, by itself, support that exigency.
Exigent circumstances with a singular dispatch call indicating shots have been fired must be supported by more, including but not limited to (1) law enforcement hearing additional shots in the area to be entered; (2) dispatch or 911 calls indicating an injured person in the area; (3) Evidence on scene which tends to indicate injury has occurred such as casings or blood found in public areas for which a warrant is not required (4) corroboration by individuals on scene that shots were fired in an otherwise private or residential area and that individuals were injured, and/or; (5) ongoing dispatch calls of shots being fired in the area sought to be entered.
exigent circumstances private properties preservation of life
additional shots in the area
dispatch of 911 calls indicating an injured person
evidence of scene indicates injury in public areas
corroboration by individuals on scene that individuals were injured
ongoing dispatch calls
including not limited to
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything that you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present if available. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you free of charge by the State. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you, Sir/Ma’am?”
The People v. Georgina Williams (Nov. 20, 2020) “The Wrangler Decree”
Conversations between suspects and undercover police officers are not afforded Miranda Protection. Miranda rights are afforded due to the potential of coercion created in a “police dominated atmosphere” where there may be a compulsion to confess due to (1) the suspect being in police custody and (2) the suspect being subjected to formal interrogation. Because neither of these elements apply to a situation where an undercover officer has a conversation with a suspect, there is no need for a talismanic reading of the Miranda rights in these situations.
Statements made by individuals to undercover officers will be admissible in Court.
when undercover there is not a police dominated atmosphere
no compulsion to confess due to being in police custody or being subjected to formal interrogation
no need for undercover officer to read miranda rights
statements made to undercover officers will be admissible in Court
The People v. Meg Kyracruz (Sept. 12, 2020)
An express statement by a Defendant, including a request as to whether an attorney is available, shall constitute an affirmative invocation of the Miranda Rights as read in the State of San Andreas (If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided to you if available).
When such an invocation is made by the Defendant, questioning may not resume again until either (1) counsel has been provided or (2) the suspect has waived the right to an attorney.
For instance, if no attorney is available an officer should (1) inform the Defendant that no attorney is available and (2) ask if the Defendant is waiving their right to an attorney to continue questioning in light of that fact.
requesting an attorney is an affirmative invocation of the Miranda Rights
questioning may not resume until counsel has been provided or suspect waved the right to attorney
The People V Gunther Klean (Devereaux’s Golden Rule)
It is not entrapment if the person was inclined to commit the crime(s) and was merely provided an opportunity by Peace Officers and their Agents. Any defendant that claims entrapment was involved in a criminal case has the burden of proving that:
The idea of committing said crime originated with Peace Officers or their Agents instead of the defendant.
Peace Officers and their Agents persuaded the defendant to commit the offense.
The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime(s) they are charged with before Peace Officers and their Agents persuaded the defendant to commit the crime(s).
It is not entrapment for Peace Officers or Agents to conceal their identity or deceive civilians. (The People V Georgina Williams, Wranglers Decree).However, Peace Officers and their Agents behavior and conduct are taken into consideration when determining whether or not entrapment has taken place.
origin of crime idea is with peace officers
peace officers/agents persuaded the defendent to commit the offenese
defendent was not predisposed to commit the crime before peace officers/agents persuaded
not entrapment to conceal their identity or deceive civilians
“bait car”
Delayed Death Exception
The Double Jeopardy provision of the fifth amendment does not bar a second prosecution for homicide or murder following conviction with assault, assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder where the death of the victim occurs after a prosecution for assault or other nonhomicide offenses.
The “Delayed Death” exception authorizes a second prosecution when one of the offenses is assault or some other offense resulting in physical injury to a person, and the other offense is one of homicide based upon the death of the victim from the same physical injury, and the death occurs after a prosecution for the lesser crimes.
not double jeopardy to press murder if someone ICUs
Appeal - Patricia Mayonnaise (October 1, 2020)
Double Jeopardy shall be issue preclusive. This means that where the State seeks to press additional charges against an individual in a secondary or subsequent prosecution, the State must point to new underlying actions of the Defendant to support those charges.
A Defendant may not be subsequently or secondarily charged with increased offenses arising out of the same actions where the charges have been dismissed by the State or the Department of Justice.
new underlying actions of a defendant to support charges
can’t be secondarily charges with increased offenses out of the same charges that were dismissed
Madonna v. American Airlines, 82 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1996)
Where action is taken in furtherance of the goals specific to an employee of the State, specific to the role or function of that occupation, including police officers, emergency medical personnel, and officers of the Department of Corrections, and said employee of the State is exposed to a heightened risk of sustaining a particular injury, he or she may not recover damages for common law negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct by third parties. Otherwise stated, where the injuries sustained are expected in the line of duty of the State employee, he or she may not recover damages relating to the injuries.
Where action is taken in furtherance of the goals specific to an employee of the State, specific to the role or function of that occupation, including police officers, emergency medical personnel, and officers of the Department of Corrections, and said employee of the State is exposed to a heightened risk of sustaining a particular injury, he or she may not recover damages for common law negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct by third parties. Otherwise stated, where the injuries sustained are expected in the line of duty of the State employee, he or she may not recover damages relating to the injuries.
“fireman’s rule”
we can’t recover damages sustained in the line of duty, it’s expected in our role
The People v. Bree Matthews (January 11, 2021)
Whoever knowingly harbors or conceals any prisoner wanted for a capital level offense after their escape from custody of Bolingbroke State Penitentiary or any other State correctional institution shall be guilty of this offense. This offense shall include but not be limited to providing residence for the prisoner, assisting the prisoner in escape from the authorities, and/or failing to notify the proper authorities of the prisoner’s location if the suspect should reasonably know the prisoner is wanted for arrest on capital level offenses.
“Concealing Escaped Prisioner”
providing residence
assisting with prisoner escape
failing to notify proper authorities of prisoners’ location
