Chapter 3-Stop and Frisk Flashcards
Stop
justified if the police have reasonable suspicion,(less than probable cause)that criminal activity is afoot.
Frisk
after the stop is valid,for one purpose and one purpose only, for officer protection.
leading case on stop and frisk
terry v Ohio, 1968
what case holds that the 4th Amend allows officers pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name and that the person may be arrested for refusing to comply.
Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 2004
Terry v Ohio, 1968
plainsclothes police officer observes two men standing on corner, appearing to casing a store. observing the suspicious behavior, officer confronted the subjects. after a mumbled response from subjs, officer patted down the subjs and removed a weapon. charged with carrying a weapon.
a stop and frisk may be based on information provided by another individual
Adams v Williams, 1972
officer was informed by informant that Adams was in a nearby auto carrying narcotics and had a gun.
Adams arrested fpr weapons and heroin.
Police can be able to effect a stop and frisk based on third party info, as long as info constitutes reasonable suspicion.
reasonable suspicion based on a “wanted poster” is sufficient for a valid stop
United States v Hensley
Hensley wanted for questioning for armed robbery in St. Bernard Ohio. Officers in Covington Kentrucky stopped Hensley due to knowing of the flyer.
there is no rigid time limit for the length of an investigatory stop; instead, specific circumstances should be taken into account
United States v Sharpe, 1985
DEA agent surveiling a drug suspect driving tandem with an apparently overloaded truck. DEA had the vehicles stopped./ detaining a driver for 20 minutes is considered reasonable in view of circumstances. There is no rigid time for length of inv stop.
For an investigative traffic stop, what should be taken into account on how long the stop should be.
purpose of stop, reasonableness of the timeused for the investigation that officers want to conduct, reasonableness of the means of investigation used by officers,
reasonable suspicion is less demanding standard than probable cause, and can be base on anonymous tip corroborated by independent police work
Alabama v White, 1990
Anonymous tip stating White would be leaving her apt driving a brown plymouth sw with right taillight lens broken, going to dobeys motel in possession with 1 ounce cocaine. officers corroborated the infor by surveillance.
a frisk that goes beyond that allowed in Terry is invalid
Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993
Dickerson seen leaving a crack house and avoided officers location when he oberved them. officers stoped Dickerson and conducted pat down revealing no weapons. officers continued to search and felt a small lump in Dickerson’s pocket, determining is was crack cocaine. Search invalid. Although, if officers had probable cause to believe form experience as police officer and the circumstances of this case, that lump was cocaine, seizure may have been valid
presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about to take place
Illinois v Wardlow, 2000
Narcotic officers were caravanning to make arrests in an area known for drugs. Wardlow was observed standing next to building holding an opaque bad and fled when he saw officers. Wardlow stopped and frisked and weapon found.
flight plus factors
factors to be able to establish reasonable suspicion in flight-from-police cases.
anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer’s stop and frisk of that person
Florida v J.L., 1999
anonymous tip that young black male was at bus stop carrying gun. Invalid search/. Crt ruled that anonymous tip in itself does not amount to reasonable suspicion. What is needed is more indication that would establish that the tip itself was reliable.
what would indicate that information given by anonymouse tip to be reliable
Tip plus more, the test for reasonable suspicion.
who argued for “firearm exception” to Terry v Ohio
State of Florida and Federal Government
Court rejected the proposed exception, holding the same level of standard for stop and frisk in weapons and non-weapons cases
in making reasonable suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing
United States v Arvizu, 2001
US Border Patrol operating a checkpoint in an isolated area in Arizona.This case settles an issue in stop and frisk cases on how an officer determines the existence of reasonalb suspicion. Totality of Circumstances.
4th Amen allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk to require a person to provide his or her name. Person may be arrested for refusing to comply. (only under certain circumstances)
Hiibel v Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada ET AL., 2004
Humbolt Co Sherriff’s Office received a call from a person who had seen a man assault a women in Red and Silver GMC truck. upon locating Hiibel, Hiibel refused to identify himself.
officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle and pat them down if there is reasonable suspicion they may be armed and dangerous.
Arizona v Johnson, 2009
Gang Task Force pulled over a veh for registration viol. Johnson, a passenger, wearing clothing consistent with Crip membership and holding a police scanner, was ordered out of car and patted down.
Driver and passenger already lawfully stopped may be required to exit the vehicle because?
Governments “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the additional instrusion.
Pennsylvania v Mimms, 1977
ruled officers could order the driver out of a vehicle citing Terry, that once out of vehicle, officer could pat down driver if reasonable suspiciion the driver was armed
Maryland v Wilson,
extended the decision in Mimms to passengers of vehicle. Knowles v Iowa that officers should be able to conduct pat-downs on passengers of lawfully stopped veh.
Court Ruling that during a traffic stop an officer effectively seizes everyone in the vehicle.
Brendlin v California,
