Chapter 5 cases Flashcards
Weeks v U.S. (1914)
Issue: Are warrantless searches and seizures unreasonable and therefore a violation of the fourth amendment?
Decision: yes, evidence inadmissible, exclusionary rule created
Silverthorne Lumber v U.S. (1920)
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine - evidence that derives from an illegal search and seizure cannot be used at trial, derivatives not allowed because it encourages police to circumvent 4th
Wolf v Colorado (1949)
state citizens should have 4th amendment rights, enforceable through 14th amendment due process clause, not an extension of ER
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
ER extended to state citizens because need to deter police misconduct, search and seizure just as important as other constitutional rights, judicial integrity
Chimel v CA (1969)
Can’t search entire house without warrant when arresting someone, SILA - can search area under immediate control and their person
Bumper v NC (1968)
whether a search is reasonable is based on consent, if you use consent you have to show it was freely and voluntarily given
Schneckloth v Bustamonte (1973)
Voluntariness is a question of fact - totality of circumstances used, can’t use refusal to cooperate as anything towards probable cause
Stoner v CA (1964)
Third party consent is based on the notion of common authority- shared dominion and control, joint access to property, exigent circumstances are only exception to access to private property
IL v Rodriguez (1990)
Fischer does not have common authority, she is an infrequent visitor, reasonable person test used and said police reasonably believed she had common authority so evidence is admissible
Georgia v Randolph (2006)
consent cannot be given after initial refusal
Carroll v U.S. (1925)
don’t need warrant for car as long as you have probable cause it contains contraband, creates automobile exception for search warrant requirement, based on mobility - evidence will be gone
U.S. v Ross (1982)
If you have probable cause that a car contains contraband, you can search anywhere and anything that could contain what you are looking for; diminished expectation of privacy
Wyoming v Houghton (1999)
passenger property rule not accepted, passengers also have diminished expectation of privacy in a car, precedent - ross doesn’t make distinction on ownership
Knowles v Iowa
Supreme court invalidated law that allows for full blown search in traffic stops, violates constitution, level of intrusion for officer safety - even though traffic stops are dangerous it doesn’t justify greater intrusion of search, search incident to citation not justifiable
Illinois v Caballes (2005)
Don’t need reasonable suspicion for drug dog in routine traffic stops, no legitimate privacy is violated, only exposes contraband
AZ v Hicks (1987)
recording serial numbers is not a seizure but it is a search since stereo was moved, plain view eliminates inconvenience of getting a warrant, lawful police presence and probable cause are two necessities for warrant
U.S. v Leon (1984)
Exception created to search warrant requirement - good faith, if the police have good reason they are acting within the law, evidence is admissible, exclusionary rule not a constitutional right, excluding evidence impedes truth finding
MA v Sheppard (1984)
technical defects in warrant don’t matter