Case Laws

Question 1

Explain Graham v Connor

Answer 1

This case sets aside the standard for determining the excessive use of force as established in the 1973 case of Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2nd Cir. 1973). If the use of force violates the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then the standards listed in this Amendment will be used.”All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.” In other words, was the decision of the officer reasonable based on the information he had at the time.

Question 2

Explain Miranda v Arizona

Answer 2

The Miranda case is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the “Miranda Warnings” given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, “custody” is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. “Interrogation” is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person.

Question 3

Explain the Carroll Doctrine

Answer 3

Police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle stopped on traffic if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence.

Question 4

Explain Terry v Ohio

Answer 4

An officer can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. The officer is also permitted to do a limited “frisk” search of the person without a warrant. Before the officer can frisk search the subject, he must:
Have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon.
Limit the search to pat searching the outer garments of the suspect to feel for objects that might be weapons.
Only reach inside the clothing after feeling such objects.

Question 5

Explain Mapp v Ohio

Answer 5

The US Supreme Court applied the “exclusionary rule” to the states. Any evidence illegally obtained by the government cannot be used in court against the accused.

Question 6

Explain Tennesse v Garner

Answer 6

The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Question 7

Explain Penn v Mimms

Answer 7

After police officers had stopped respondent’s automobile for being operated with an expired license plate, one of the officers asked respondent to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. As respondent alighted, a large bulge under his jacket was noticed by the officer, who thereupon frisked him and found a loaded revolver. Respondent was then arrested and subsequently indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and unlicensed firearm. His motion to suppress the revolver was denied and after a trial, at which the revolver was introduced in evidence, he was convicted. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed on the ground that the revolver was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Held:
1. 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.
2. Under the standard announced in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 392 U. S. 21-22 – 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.