Ch. 4 Stop & Frisk (Q1/Midterm)

Question 1

What is the difference between a 4th Amendment stop and a 4th Amendment frisk?

Answer 1

Stop - brief detention (minimal seizure)

Frisk - “once-over-lightly” pat down of outer clothing

Question 2

What is the purpose of a frisk?

Answer 2

To protect officers by taking away suspects’ weapons

Question 3

Stops are the { } intrusive 4th Amendment seizure of persons.

Answer 3

Least

Question 4

What is the relationship between invasion and objective basis?

Answer 4

Greater invasion = greater objective basis

Question 5

A reasonable explanation for why an officer initiated a stop based on some minimum objective justification/basis.

Answer 5

What is reasonable suspicion?

Question 6

What are the 2 clauses of the 4th Amendment?

Answer 6

1) Reasonableness clause
2) Warrant clause

Question 7

What are the 2 prongs of the reasonableness test for warrantless searches and seizures?

Answer 7

1) Balancing element
2) Objective basis

Question 8

Another name for the totality-of-circumstances test.

Answer 8

What is the “whole picture test?”

Question 9

Suspicion that points to an individual.

Answer 9

What is individualized suspicion?

Question 10

The case that started the notion of stop and frisk.

Answer 10

What is Terry v. Ohio?

Question 11

Because stops and frisks are “minor” searches and seizures, they require { } facts to back up than for arrests and full-fledged searches.

Answer 11

Fewer

Question 12

Are Terry Stops based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause?

Answer 12

Reasonable suspicion

Question 13

What is the central consideration of the 4th Amendment according to Terry v. Ohio?

Answer 13

Reasonableness of all circumstances

Question 14

What are the 2 elements of a reasonable stop?

Answer 14

1) Short/reasonable duration
2) “On-the-spot” investigation (investigation occurs where stop was made)

Question 15

What did Adams v. Williams (1972) add to the stop-and-frisk rule introduced in Terry v. Ohio?

Answer 15

Adams v. Williams added that stop & frisk may be based on confidential informant info (hearsay) AND the officer’s direct observation established in Terry

Question 16

Reasonable suspicion is the { }{ } for a stop.

Answer 16

1) Objective
2) Basis

Question 17

Reasonableness of a stop is assessed through this test.

Answer 17

What is the totality-of-circumstances (whole picture) test

Question 18

Reasonable suspicion = { } suspicion + { } suspicion

Answer 18

1) Individualized
2) Categorical

Question 19

Why is categorical suspicion NEVER enough to establish reasonable suspicion?

Answer 19

Categorical suspicion is based on profiling

Question 20

Is the location of a stop significant to whether it is valid or not? Why?

Answer 20

Yes; it is easier to make a stop in a high-crime area

Question 21

What are the 3 objective quantifiable approaches to whether a stop is valid based on location?

Answer 21

1) Criminal activity
2) Geography & timing
3) Criminal activity/officer observation link

Question 22

Lists of characteristics that drug traffickers supposedly possess.

Answer 22

What are drug courier profiles?

Question 23

According to Reid v. Georgia (1980), why is a drug courier profile by itself not enough to amount to reasonable suspicion?

Answer 23

Drug courier profiles are only categorical suspicions

Question 24

What are the 3 elements of a lawful frisk?

Answer 24

1) Lawful stop
2) Reasonable suspicion of armed/dangerous suspect
3) Search limited to light, over-the-clothes patdown

Question 25

What does the balancing ideal for frisks state regarding a frisk’s reasonableness?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Are frisks done to find evidence?

Answer 26

NO

Question 27

What was the consensus of Maryland v. Wilson (1997) regarding traffic stops?

Answer 27

Officers can absolutely order passengers to step out of a vehicle since traffic stops can be rather dangerous for the officers

Question 28

What is the 3-pronged balancing test to determine whether roadblocks and checkpoints are reasonable, and what case established this test?

Answer 28

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)

Question 29

Between these 3 checkpoints, which one is NOT reasonable? (1) DWI checkpoints, (2) drug interdiction checkpoints, and (3) information-seeking checkpoints.

Answer 29

(2) Drug interdiction checkpoints

Question 30

According to Michigan v. Sitz, why are sobriety checkpoints reasonable?

Answer 30

They require no individualized suspicion because limiting drunk/intoxicated driving is a matter of public interest

Question 31

Why did City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) conclude that drug interdiction checkpoints were bad?

Answer 31

Because they just lack suspicion overall

Question 32

According to Illinois v. Lidster (2004), why are hit-and-run checkpoints constitutional unlike drug interdiction checkpoints seen in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond?

Answer 32

Because hit-and-run checkpoints are NOT for crime control but for asking the public info about a crime committed by others

Question 33

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?

Answer 33

1) Searches of purses, wallets, and pockets
2) Up-close dog sniffs