Ch. 4 Stop & Frisk (Q1/Midterm) Flashcards
What is the difference between a 4th Amendment stop and a 4th Amendment frisk?
Stop - brief detention (minimal seizure)
Frisk - “once-over-lightly” pat down of outer clothing
What is the purpose of a frisk?
To protect officers by taking away suspects’ weapons
Stops are the { } intrusive 4th Amendment seizure of persons.
Least
What is the relationship between invasion and objective basis?
Greater invasion = greater objective basis
A reasonable explanation for why an officer initiated a stop based on some minimum objective justification/basis.
What is reasonable suspicion?
What are the 2 clauses of the 4th Amendment?
1) Reasonableness clause
2) Warrant clause
What are the 2 prongs of the reasonableness test for warrantless searches and seizures?
1) Balancing element
2) Objective basis
Another name for the totality-of-circumstances test.
What is the “whole picture test?”
Suspicion that points to an individual.
What is individualized suspicion?
The case that started the notion of stop and frisk.
What is Terry v. Ohio?
Because stops and frisks are “minor” searches and seizures, they require { } facts to back up than for arrests and full-fledged searches.
Fewer
Are Terry Stops based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
Reasonable suspicion
What is the central consideration of the 4th Amendment according to Terry v. Ohio?
Reasonableness of all circumstances
What are the 2 elements of a reasonable stop?
1) Short/reasonable duration
2) “On-the-spot” investigation (investigation occurs where stop was made)
What did Adams v. Williams (1972) add to the stop-and-frisk rule introduced in Terry v. Ohio?
Adams v. Williams added that stop & frisk may be based on confidential informant info (hearsay) AND the officer’s direct observation established in Terry
Reasonable suspicion is the { }{ } for a stop.
1) Objective
2) Basis
Reasonableness of a stop is assessed through this test.
What is the totality-of-circumstances (whole picture) test
Reasonable suspicion = { } suspicion + { } suspicion
1) Individualized
2) Categorical
Why is categorical suspicion NEVER enough to establish reasonable suspicion?
Categorical suspicion is based on profiling
Is the location of a stop significant to whether it is valid or not? Why?
Yes; it is easier to make a stop in a high-crime area
What are the 3 objective quantifiable approaches to whether a stop is valid based on location?
1) Criminal activity
2) Geography & timing
3) Criminal activity/officer observation link
Lists of characteristics that drug traffickers supposedly possess.
What are drug courier profiles?
According to Reid v. Georgia (1980), why is a drug courier profile by itself not enough to amount to reasonable suspicion?
Drug courier profiles are only categorical suspicions
What are the 3 elements of a lawful frisk?
1) Lawful stop
2) Reasonable suspicion of armed/dangerous suspect
3) Search limited to light, over-the-clothes patdown
What does the balancing ideal for frisks state regarding a frisk’s reasonableness?
Reasonableness of frisk depends on balancing the government’s interest in protecting officers against the individual’s right to not be touched by an officer
Are frisks done to find evidence?
NO
What was the consensus of Maryland v. Wilson (1997) regarding traffic stops?
Officers can absolutely order passengers to step out of a vehicle since traffic stops can be rather dangerous for the officers
What is the 3-pronged balancing test to determine whether roadblocks and checkpoints are reasonable, and what case established this test?
1) Gravity of public interest served by seizure
2) Effectiveness of seizure in advancing public interest
3) Degree of interference w/ stopped individual’s liberty
Michigan v. Sitz (1990)
Between these 3 checkpoints, which one is NOT reasonable? (1) DWI checkpoints, (2) drug interdiction checkpoints, and (3) information-seeking checkpoints.
(2) Drug interdiction checkpoints
According to Michigan v. Sitz, why are sobriety checkpoints reasonable?
They require no individualized suspicion because limiting drunk/intoxicated driving is a matter of public interest
Why did City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) conclude that drug interdiction checkpoints were bad?
Because they just lack suspicion overall
According to Illinois v. Lidster (2004), why are hit-and-run checkpoints constitutional unlike drug interdiction checkpoints seen in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond?
Because hit-and-run checkpoints are NOT for crime control but for asking the public info about a crime committed by others
Due to strong government interest in controlling who and what comes into the U.S.’s borders, what 2 things do routine border detentions not require reasonable suspicion for?
1) Searches of purses, wallets, and pockets
2) Up-close dog sniffs
