chapter 6 Flashcards

1
Q

A search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed due to what two factors?

A
  1. protect the arresting officer2. prevent the destruction of evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are four requirements before a search incident to an arrest may be made?

A
  1. must be lawful2. only certain articles may be seized (not in Ohio)3. search must be made contemporaneously with arrest4. arrest must be in good faith
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

In Arizona v Gant (2009), SCOTUS decided that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is ______ at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the ______ of the arrest.

A

within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which he/she was arrested

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

In _____ v _____, SCOTUS held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach/control of the person.

A

Chimel v California (1969)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

In _____ v _____, an officer has the proper authority to make an arrest may make a full search of the arrestee, although such evidence has no direct connection to the arrest.

A

US v Robinson (1974)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

In Mincey v. Arizona (1978), SCOTUS said that there is no _____ _____ exception to the 4th amendment.

A

murder scene

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

In Maryland v. Buie (1990), SCOTUS said that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited _____ _____ in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a _____ _____ based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. These searches are limited to a ____ ____ of the premises.

A

protective sweep, reasonable belief; cursory inspection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

In New York v. Belton (1981), SCOTUS held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the ____ ____ of that automobile. Must also follow more recent Arizon v Gant (2009) ruling.

A

passenger compartment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are four considerations for determine whether consent to search is valid?

A
  1. must be voluntary2. limited to exact words or meaning of consent3. consent may be withdrawn4. person giving consent must have capacity to do so
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

In US v Robinette (1996), SCOUTS held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to inform a motorist during a traffic stop that they are “___ __ __” before asking questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop.

A

free to go

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In US v Matlock (1974), SCOTUS held that the consent of one who possesses _____ _____ over the premises or effects is valid against the absent, non-consenting person with whom the authority is shared.

A

common authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

In Georgia v Randolph (1996), SCOTUS held that police CAN / CANNOT search if one person consents and other person, who is also present, does not.

A

CANNOT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

If an adult child has a room that he/she uses exclusively, allows no one else in the room, and the child is paying rent specifically for that room, the parent CAN / CANNOT give consent to search.

A

CANNOT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

In Commonwealth v Lowery (1982), however, SCOTUS said that if an adult child has access to the entire house, never manifested an expectation of privacy in his room, and both child and parent have joint control and access over the room, the parent CAN / CANNOT provide consent even if the child pays rent.

A

CAN

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

In determining whether a minor _____ and _____ gave consent to search, courts must take into consideration the age, scope of consent requested and given, and whether request was unequivocal and specific (People v Santiago 1997)

A

intelligently and knowingly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

In New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), SCOTUS found that the vice-principal’s search of the purse WAS / WAS NOT justified based on reasonable grounds that the search would turn up evidence of a crime or violation of rules.

A

WAS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

In Carroll v US (1925), SCOTUS held that police can search a vehicle if there is ____ ____ to believe there is contraband based on the fact that it could be moved from the jurisdiction.

A

probable cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

In Chambers v Maroney (1970), SCOTUS held that officers can search a vehicle even if they have taken control of it, provided there is ____ ____ to believe that it contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. A warrant is unnecessary under this ruling even if there is time to get a warrant.

A

probable cause

19
Q

In US v Ross (1972), SCOUTS held that if an officer has PC to search an occupied vehicle for a particular type of evidence, he/she is entitled to conduct a warrantless search of all _____ or _____ _____ within the vehicle in which the evidence may be _____ _____.

A

compartments or closed containers, reasonable found

20
Q

In Florida v Wells (1990), SCOTUS held that absent a policy to search _____ _____, the instant search was insufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment

A

closed containers

21
Q

The court allows for the inventorying of automobiles based on what three reasons?

A
  1. protect the owner’s property2. ensure against claims of loss3. guard police from danger
22
Q

It is the basic principle of the 4th Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are per se ______ in the absence of one of a number of well-defined exigent circumstances. Coolidge v New Hampshire (1971)

A

unreasonable

23
Q

In United States v Dawkins (1994), the DC Circuit court listed what two guidelines that had been established in earlier cases in regards to exigent circumstances?

A
  1. PC must exist2. failure to get a warrant was justified due to circumstantial exigencies
24
Q

Under the _____ ____ exception to the search warrant, an officer must be (1) lawfully present when he views the object (2) must recognize the article as contraband, illegal possessed of stolen property, or otherwise subject to seizure.

A

plain view

25
Q

In Arizona v Hicks (1987), SCOTUS said that police require _____ _____ to seize items in plain view.

A

probable cause

26
Q

In Whren v US (1996) (pretextual stop), SCOTUS held that an officer’s ____ motivation for making a traffic stop was irrelevant as long as there is ____ ____ to justify the stop.

A

subjective, probable casue

27
Q

In Horton v. California (1990), SCOTUS expanded the plain view doctrine that included a three-part test. What are the three parts?

A
  1. lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”
28
Q

In Horton v. California (1990), SCOTUS abandoned the ____ requirement of Coolidge v New Hampshire (1971) although the court said that this prong of the test was never part of the holding in Coolidge.

A

inadvertant

29
Q

In US v Dunn (1987), the court provided four factors for determining the extent-of-curtilage of a home. What are the 4 factors?

A
  1. proximity of area to home2. whether the area is w/i an enclosure surrounding the home3. nature and uses to which the area is put4. steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by others
30
Q

In California v Greenwood (1988), SCOUTS said that trash left on the curb is not included in the _____ of the house and there is no ____ __ ____ in the discarded items.

A

curtilage, expectation of privacy

31
Q

In Samson v California (2006), SCOUTS held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a _____ search of a parolee due to the terms in his parole agreement.

A

suspicionless

32
Q

In Rakas v Illinois (1978), SCOTUS said that defendants charges with crimes of possession may only claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule if ___ ___ 4th Amendment rights have been violated.

A

their own

33
Q

Officers do not need probable cause to make a Terry stop…all that is needed is _____ _____.

A

reasonable suspicion

34
Q

The frisk allowed in the Terry stop is limited to a ____ ____ and not a full-scale search. The frisk is only for the _____ __ ___ _____.

A

pat down; safety of the officer

35
Q

In Florida v JL (1999), SCOTUS ruled that an anonymous tip, without more from the officers to test the validity of the information, IS / IS NOT sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion.

A

IS NOT

36
Q

The ultimate legal determination of what constitutes reasonable suspicion in stop-and-frisk situations is “_____ __ ___ _____.”

A

totality of the circumstances

37
Q

In Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), SCOTUS held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful pat-down search for weapons feels something (touch) that plainly is contraband, the object MAY / MAY NOT be seized even though it is not a weapon. The officer must immediately recognize (have PC) it as contraband and cannot manipulate it.

A

MAY

38
Q

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), SCOTUS held that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons after noticing a bulge DID / DID NOT violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A

DID NOT

39
Q

In Maryland v Wilson (1997), SCOTUS ruled that an officer MAY / MAY NOT order passengers out of a vehicle as all passengers are subject to a Terry pat-down within the guidelines of Terry stops.

A

MAY

40
Q

In Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009),SCOTUS held, by unanimous decision, that police MAY / MAY NOT conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.

A

MAY

41
Q

In US v Brigham (2004), SCOTUS DID / DID NOT reject the notion that a police officer’s questioning, even on matter’s unrelated to the traffic stop, violated the 4th Amendment.

A

DID

42
Q

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), SCOTUS held that state laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during Terry stops by law enforcement officers DO / DO NOT violate the Fourth Amendment.

A

DO NOT…it does not violate 5th Amendment self-incrimination provision

43
Q

Also re-read 6.1.2 - 6.1.4

A

pages 158-162