Chapter 5 cases

Question 1

Weeks v U.S. (1914)

Answer 1

Issue: Are warrantless searches and seizures unreasonable and therefore a violation of the fourth amendment?
Decision: yes, evidence inadmissible, exclusionary rule created

Question 2

Silverthorne Lumber v U.S. (1920)

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Wolf v Colorado (1949)

Answer 3

state citizens should have 4th amendment rights, enforceable through 14th amendment due process clause, not an extension of ER

Question 4

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Answer 4

ER extended to state citizens because need to deter police misconduct, search and seizure just as important as other constitutional rights, judicial integrity

Question 5

Chimel v CA (1969)

Answer 5

Can’t search entire house without warrant when arresting someone, SILA - can search area under immediate control and their person

Question 6

Bumper v NC (1968)

Answer 6

whether a search is reasonable is based on consent, if you use consent you have to show it was freely and voluntarily given

Question 7

Schneckloth v Bustamonte (1973)

Answer 7

Voluntariness is a question of fact - totality of circumstances used, can’t use refusal to cooperate as anything towards probable cause

Question 8

Stoner v CA (1964)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

IL v Rodriguez (1990)

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Georgia v Randolph (2006)

Answer 10

consent cannot be given after initial refusal

Question 11

Carroll v U.S. (1925)

Answer 11

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

Question 12

U.S. v Ross (1982)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Wyoming v Houghton (1999)

Answer 13

passenger property rule not accepted, passengers also have diminished expectation of privacy in a car, precedent - ross doesn’t make distinction on ownership

Question 14

Knowles v Iowa

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Illinois v Caballes (2005)

Answer 15

Don’t need reasonable suspicion for drug dog in routine traffic stops, no legitimate privacy is violated, only exposes contraband

Question 16

AZ v Hicks (1987)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

U.S. v Leon (1984)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

MA v Sheppard (1984)

Answer 18

technical defects in warrant don’t matter

Question 19

Arizona v Evans (1995)

Answer 19

extend good faith because officer is not responsible for clerical error, ER intended to deter police misconduct

Question 20

Greenwood v California (1988)

Answer 20

Putting trash outside curtilage demonstrates no expectation of privacy, dissent said trash reveals personal info

Question 21

Terry V Ohio (1968)

Answer 21

Freedom to leave test - if you can’t leave you are under arrest, need reasonable articulable suspicion to stop, protecting society from someone who just committed or about to commit a crime, scope of frisk is outer clothing only, would reveal gun

Question 22

MN v Dickerson (1993)

Answer 22

Purpose of Terry search (stop and frisk) is to reveal sharp items or weapons, stop shouldn’t have happened - no reasonable suspicion he had a weapon

Question 23

Wilson v Arkansas (1995)

Answer 23

knock and announce principle, have to knock and announce and wait

Question 24

Hudson v michigan

Answer 24

if knock and announce principle is violated evidence is still admissible

Question 25

Riley v CA (2014)

Answer 25

cannot search cell phone during search incident to lawful arrest

Question 26

Florida v Bostick (1991)

Answer 26

Suspicion-less searches are ok but with consent

Question 27

Brown v MS (1936)

Answer 27

States can do what they want until their policies offend fundamental fairness, witness faced torture which isn't allowed, coercion through torture

Question 28

Spano v NY (1959)

Answer 28

Coerced confessions untrustworthy, totality of circumstances used to figure out whether confession was coerced

Question 29

Escobedo v IL (1964)

Answer 29

Trigger when questioning shifts from investigatory to accusatory then legal counsel must be provided, need counsel to know rights and laws

Question 30

Edwards v AZ (1981)

Answer 30

Brightline rules, once right to attorney invoked questioning must stop

Question 31

Minnick v MS (1990)

Answer 31

once right to attorney invoked, attorney must be there

Question 32

Brewer v Williams (1977)

Answer 32

right to counsel attaches after you have been arrested, have to show intentional relinquishment to waive counsel, body is inevitable discovery - exception to fruit of the poisonous tree

Question 33

Nix v Williams (1984)

Answer 33

Inevitable discovery of body, evidence improperly obtained because didn't read miranda

Question 34

OR V Mathiason (1977)

Answer 34

Miranda triggers - have to be in custody and interrogated, he wasn't in custody so not required to mirandize

Question 35

MO V Seibert (2004)

Answer 35

court struck down question first technique, misleads suspects when you introduce miranda in the middle of questioning, don't understand rights they are abandoning, concurring opinion - 20 mins isn't enough break

Question 36

CO V Connelly (1986)

Answer 36

keep statements, in order for statements to be coerced has to be from the police, he was coerced by his own mind, must show a preponderance of evidence - said he wasn't crazy when he confessed

Question 37

Schmerber v CA (1966)

Answer 37

5th types of evidence - compelling testimonial or communicative evidence, blood is physical evidence 6th - didn't restrict access to attorney 4th - minor intrusion to body, probable cause 14th - has to violate fundamental fairness or shock the conscience and it didn't

Question 38

Berghuis v Thompkins (2010)

Answer 38

right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously, establishment of implied waiver, police not required to rewarn, dissent said promoted use of unreliable coerced confessions

Question 39

Harris v NY (1971)

Answer 39

if you forget part of miranda can only use statements to impeach credibility not establish guilt, impeachment process aids jury

Question 40

NY v Quarles (1984)

Answer 40

statements admissible because of public safety exception, balancing test - need for answers outweighs miranda, dissent said no people in store and knew approx location of gun, encourages officers to stop using miranda

Question 41

Berkemer v Mccarty (1984)

Answer 41

extend miranda to misdemeanors because minor offenses could escalate, police could use as workaround if we don't extend, not extended to roadside stops due to them being brief and not secluded and inefficient since there are 20 mil roadside stops per year

Question 42

U.S. v Patane (2004)

Answer 42

5th protects against self incrimination through testimonial, communicative evidence, not physical evidence so kept gun, don't need warrant when suspect provides consent

Question 43

IL V Perkins (1990)

Answer 43

incarcerated suspects not entitled to miranda, Perkins had nor reason to believe he was talking to a cop, not violation of right to counsel he was in on other charges

Question 44

Olmstead v U.S. (1928)

Answer 44

didn't violate 5th because they were not forced to conduct conversation, didn't violate 4th because wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure under the meaning of the 4th amendment

Question 45

Katz v U.S.

Answer 45

4th protects people not places, justifiable expectation of privacy, warrant is required to unveil what a person makes an effort to keep private even in public, searches conducted without prior approval by judge are unreasonable but subject to exceptions

Question 46

U.S. v Jones (2012)

Answer 46

warrantless use of tracking device is unlawful, concurring mention expectation of privacy