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
Arizona v Evans (1995)
extend good faith because officer is not responsible for clerical error, ER intended to deter police misconduct
Greenwood v California (1988)
Putting trash outside curtilage demonstrates no expectation of privacy, dissent said trash reveals personal info
Terry V Ohio (1968)
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
MN v Dickerson (1993)
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
Wilson v Arkansas (1995)
knock and announce principle, have to knock and announce and wait
Hudson v michigan
if knock and announce principle is violated evidence is still admissible
Riley v CA (2014)
cannot search cell phone during search incident to lawful arrest
Florida v Bostick (1991)
Suspicion-less searches are ok but with consent
Brown v MS (1936)
States can do what they want until their policies offend fundamental fairness, witness faced torture which isn’t allowed, coercion through torture
Spano v NY (1959)
Coerced confessions untrustworthy, totality of circumstances used to figure out whether confession was coerced
Escobedo v IL (1964)
Trigger when questioning shifts from investigatory to accusatory then legal counsel must be provided, need counsel to know rights and laws
Edwards v AZ (1981)
Brightline rules, once right to attorney invoked questioning must stop
Minnick v MS (1990)
once right to attorney invoked, attorney must be there
Brewer v Williams (1977)
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
Nix v Williams (1984)
Inevitable discovery of body, evidence improperly obtained because didn’t read miranda
OR V Mathiason (1977)
Miranda triggers - have to be in custody and interrogated, he wasn’t in custody so not required to mirandize
MO V Seibert (2004)
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
CO V Connelly (1986)
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
Schmerber v CA (1966)
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
Berghuis v Thompkins (2010)
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
Harris v NY (1971)
if you forget part of miranda can only use statements to impeach credibility not establish guilt, impeachment process aids jury
NY v Quarles (1984)
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
Berkemer v Mccarty (1984)
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
U.S. v Patane (2004)
5th protects against self incrimination through testimonial, communicative evidence, not physical evidence so kept gun, don’t need warrant when suspect provides consent
IL V Perkins (1990)
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
Olmstead v U.S. (1928)
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
Katz v U.S.
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
U.S. v Jones (2012)
warrantless use of tracking device is unlawful, concurring mention expectation of privacy
