Cases Of Exam 1 Flashcards
California v Greenwood
People do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in “open field”
California v Greenwood
People do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash ON THE CURB
The court said no because he’s throwing away his trash out I the curb handing over the trash to the curb in which kids, scabergers, and animals can get the trash. If it was next to the house then it would’ve been
United States v. Place (1982)
A “canine sniff” of luggage in a public place is NOT a 4A “search” because:
A) A canine sniff is not as intrusive as an officer rummaging through a suitcase
B) A canine sniff only discloses narcotics, the possession of which is illegal
C) A canine sniff is “sui generis” in its precision
4th amendment doesn’t apply. But expectation of privacy. Saying it’s one thing if human being sniffing less intrusive the only thing the dog trying to do is sniff the drugs. Can’t have reasonable of privacy by which the dog sniffs in which ur not suppose to have in the first place. The 4th amendment does not apply to canine sniffs.
Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)
Cuz forced to the cruel trilemma. So drunk can’t remember when it was ur 6th bday. Or just make up a number (perjury). Guilty knowledge
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed and held that the testimony regarding Muniz’s behavior and the results of the field sobriety tests was physical in nature, not testimonial, but that the audio portion of the recording should have been suppressed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the application for review.
United States v. Wade (1967)
Providing voice samples as nontestimonial activity.
The court held that police did not violate the 5th amendment by requiring wade to say a lineup the words utterby a robber “ put the money in the bag”
Wade was required the court reasoned the use of his voice in demonstrating its physical characteristics
SCHMERBER V CALIFORNIA
force on blood
1. 14A Due Process
“NO STATE shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”
BECAUSE STATE OFFICER ACTING THROUGH THE DOCTOR TO TAKE THE BLOOD. THIS IS INDIRECT ACTION. The officer has the doctor take the blood. It is a violation of the 14the amendment because the officer acts through the doctor as a puppet.
2. 5A Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
-“No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”
-Defendant argument is being strapped and taken away blood. Took a part of me and took my own blood to be used“against me
- …No Person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a WITNESS against himself…”
- A witness is someone who testifies
4A does apply for the blood being drawn now as if there was a violation. The 4A only prohibits “Unreasonable” searches or seizures. Now it was not unreasonable it was reasonable cause Schmerber would have destroyed the evidence if wait for a warrant. And the police had reasonable cause because of his B.A level. So taking the blood was reasonable.
Bond v. United States (2000)
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy from officers physically manipulating/squeezing carryon luggage in overhead bin of common carrier
BOND was a passenger on a Greyhound bus a border patrol agent was walking towards the front and I’m on the way to squeeze the luggage which passengers have placed overhead storage space above the seats. Along the way the agent discovered a brick of metaamphetamine when a passenger place is a bag in the overhead bin they expect that other passengers or employees may move it for one reason or another he does not expect that other passengers or employees will feel the bag in an explarotry manner like the agent did . Therefore THE AGENTS PHYSICAL MANIPULATION OF THE PETITIONERS BAG VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
Florida v. Jardines (2013)
- Government use of a trained police dog to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “4A Search”
- Because the use of the dog here was:
A) Government’s “Physical entry”
B) Into “curtilage”
C) For gathering information
Unlicensed intrusion- can’t go roaring around
There for other reason of dropping something off or selling something
Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois (1992)
The government can trigger 4A Application with EITHER a:
“SEARCH,” (An intrusion on PRIVACY)
OR a
“SEIZURE” (An intrusion on DOMINION & CONTROL)
People who live in a mobile home
Mobile home park manager wanted to evict them. Took court and court was dismissed.
Deep pocket- dealing with practically
Going to sue the sheriff’s pocket. Sodol showed were paying our rent. To officers yet they took it away.
Court said there was a seizure and was literally carried away
United States v. Karo (1984)
Karo = The “Beeper Case”
- A “Technical trespass” on “the space occupied by the beeper” is NOT enough to create a “4A Seizure”
- Because a person’s “possessory interest” must be “interfered with” in a “meaningful way.”
When Karo took possession of a can of ether unbestowed to him contained a a beeping device placed by federal officers
California v. Hodari D. (1991)
Definition of “Seizure of a Person” in General:
An officer restrains the liberty of a person by:
1. Application of Physical Force,
-OR-
2. a) Officer’s “Show of Authority”
AND
b) Suspect’s SUBMISSION to officer’s show of authority
3. So that an (objectively) reasonable person, in suspect’s
situation, would not feel “Free to Leave”
the guy running and threw crack cocaine before the officer arrested him
United States v. Drayton (2002) & Bosticks
Definition of “Seizure of the Person” Specifically – When Suspect is already “Stationary”
Police conduct would have communicated to an (objectively) reasonable person, in suspect’s situation,
That the suspect was not free to “decline officer’s requests or otherwise terminate the encounter”
A “reasonable person” here is a “law-abiding” person
Torres v Madrid
Facts: Officer Madrid and Williamson shot Roxanne totes when she drove away in her car and continued fleeding, after the shooting, for 75 miles.
CAN SUE A OFFICER FOR 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.
Pleads not contest to stealing the car and aggravated assault to a police officer. Then sued for excessive force for a seizure.
- did they
Issue:
“whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporally eluded capture after the shooting”
- Application of physical force ( whether by directly hand or finger, or indirectly by mace, bullet, etc.) upon the body of the person
- With an Objective “Intent to restrain”
Objective facts to make thinks to be restrain - Even if the person “does not submit and is not subdued”
-The mere touch rule can do with a hand or the tip of a finger if not direct can do indirect a mace or a bullet, has to do with eh strain to arrest or…..
- the dissent
Brendlin v. California
Brendlin ruled:
- Bostick and Drayton apply to Brendlin
- Police “seized” Brendlin, a front seat passenger of a vehicle, when the police pulled over the driver of the vehicle,
- Because a reasonable passenger would consider the officer’s show of authority as directed to ALL occupants of the vehicle, AND once the vehicle came to a stop and Brendlin stayed inside, he submitted.
