Chapter 5: Case Law Flashcards
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)
(p. 173)
- police may search container located within automobile, and need not hold container pending issuance of search warrant, even though they lack probable cause to search vehicle as whole and have probable cause to believe only that container itself holds contraband or evidence.
- if an officer has probable cause to believe that a container in an automobile holds contraband, the officer may open the container and seize the evidence, provided that the evidence is in fact contraband
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
(p.173) -Carroll Doctrine: principle that allows an officer to search a vehicle w/o search warrant provided that P/C exists to believe that it contains contraband and that the vehicle is mobile
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
(p.173)
A New York state police officer pulled over a speeding vehicle, with four occupants, including Roger Belton. The vehicle belonged to none of the men present. The police officer smelled burnt marijuana, and saw an enveloped associated with the drug. He ordered the men out, arrested them for possession. He split them up, confiscated the drug, and searched each of them. He then searched the passenger compartment of the car, and found the respondent’s leather jacket. He found cocaine in one of the pockets.
- when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupants of an automobile he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and may also examine the contents of any container found within the passenger compartment and such “container”, i. e., an object capable of holding another object, may be searched whether it is open or closed
Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970)
(p. 174) **Vehicle Inventory Searches**
- police, as result of talking to victim and teen-age observers, had probable cause to believe that robbers, carrying guns and fruits of crime, had fled scene in light blue compact station wagon carrying four men, one wearing a green sweater and another wearing a trench coat, officers had probable cause to stop automobile and search it for guns and stolen money, and search of automobile at station house without warrant was not improper
- vehicles are routinely inventoried to prevent later claims that items were taken; search and inventory are two separate processes, but can be conducted simultaneously; evidence obtained as a result of an inventory search is admissible
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)
(p. 172) **Criteria for Plain-View Search**
1) Officer must be lawfully present
2) Item seized must have been found inadvertently
3) Item is contraband or would be useful as evidence in a crime
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
(p. 154) **Scope of Search** auth. to search incident to arrest
- officers had arrest warrant, but searched the suspect’s house after arrest, found rare coins that were taken in a burg
- warrantless search of defendant’s entire house, incident to defendant’s proper arrest in house on burglary charge, was unreasonable as extending beyond defendant’s person and area from which he might have obtained either weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him
- a search made incident to a lawful arrest must be confined to the area around the suspects immediate control
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
(p. 167) **Consent Searches** -officers boarded a bus in Ft. Laud asked for permission to search a passengers bag and were provided consent; cocaine found
- random bus searches conducted pursuant to passenger’s consent permissible so long as the officers do not convey the message that compliance with their request is required
- test to determine whether police-citizen encounter on a bus is a seizure is: whether a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officer’s requests or otherwise terminate the encounter
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991)
(p. 166) **Consent Searches** Limiting the scope of search** -suspect gave consent, officer then located and searched a brown paper bag inside the vehicle- it contained a kilo of cocaine -suspects who give consent can limit or withdraw their consent at anytime; a person’s general consent includes all containers inside the car UNLESS otherwise specified
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990)
(p. 155) **Apparent Authority** Good Faith** -police were lead to an apartment by complt who claimed her b/f had beat her, informed police that she was living there, produced a key and allowed police to enter. They found def w/ drugs, later it was learned that complt had not lived there; court held that police had reason to believe that she did
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
(p. 152) **Exclusionary Rule**
- officers in Ohio searching for a fugitive, used a blank piece of paper claiming it to be “a warrant”; searched Mapp’s house, didn’t find fugitive, but found “obscene material”
- expanded the exclusionary rule to apply to both federal and state courts evidence obtained by unconstitutional search was inadmissible
- there’s a relationship btwn the 4th and 5th amendment that makes up the basis for exclusionary rule
Weeks v. United States (1914)
(p. 152) **Exclusionary Rule**
Exclusionary Rule: courts will exclude any evidence that was illegally obtained even though it may be relevant and material -est the exclusionary rule, but it only applied to federal courts… until Mapp v. Ohio
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984)
(p 155) **Good Faith Exception** -police officers, who were advised by judge that all necessary clerical changes had been made in defective warrant form, took every step that could reasonably be expected of them, there was an objectively reasonable basis for police officers’ mistaken belief that search warrant authorized the search which officers conducted; thus, exclusionary rule would not be applied since officers conducting the search acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate which subsequently was determined to be invalid.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)
(p. 156) **Inevitable Discovery Doctrine** Christian Burial Speech**
- evidence that has been seized illegally or evid. stemming from illegally seized evid. is admissible if police can prove that they would have inevitably discovered it anyway by lawful means
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
(p. 175) **Open Fields Doctrine** -open fields are not protected by the 4th amendment; no “reasonable expectation of privacy”
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
d
