Chapter 6: Search and Seizure without a Warrant Flashcards
A search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed due to what two factors?
- protect the arresting officer
2. prevent the destruction of evidence
What are four requirements before a search incident to an arrest may be made?
- must be lawful
- only certain articles may be seized
- search must be made contemporaneously with arrest
- arrest must be in good faith
In Arizona v Gant (2009), SCOTUS decided that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest under what two circumstances?
arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which he/she was arrested
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.
Chimel v California (1969)
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.
US v Robinson (1974)
In Mincey v. Arizona (1978), SCOTUS said that there is no _____ _____ exception to the 4th amendment.
murder scene
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.
protective sweep, reasonable belief; cursory inspection
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.
passenger compartment
What are four considerations for determine whether consent to search is valid?
- must be voluntary
- limited to exact words or meaning of consent
- consent may be withdrawn
- person giving consent must have capacity to do so
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.
free to go
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.
common authority
In Georgia v Randolph (2006), SCOTUS held that police CAN / CANNOT search if one person consents and other person, who is also present, does not.
CANNOT
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.
CANNOT
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.
CAN
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).
intelligently and knowingly
In ___ v ___ (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.
New Jersey v T.L.O.; WAS
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.
probable cause
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.
probable cause
In US v Ross (1972), SCOTUS 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 _____ _____.
compartments or closed containers, reasonable found
In Florida v Wells (1990), SCOTUS held that absent a policy to search _____ _____, the instant search was insufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment
closed containers
The court allows for the inventorying of automobiles based on what three reasons?
- protect the owner’s property
- ensure against claims of loss
- guard police from danger
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)
unreasonable
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?
- PC must exist
2. failure to get a warrant was justified due to circumstantial exigencies
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.
plain view
In Arizona v Hicks (1987), SCOTUS said that police require _____ _____ to seize items in plain view.
probable cause
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.
subjective, probable casue
In Horton v. California (1990), SCOTUS expanded the plain view doctrine that included a three-part test. What are the three parts?
- lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
- the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
- the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”
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.
inadvertant
In US v Dunn (1987), the court provided four factors for determining the extent-of-curtilage of a home. What are the 4 factors?
- proximity of area to home
- whether the area is w/i an enclosure surrounding the home
- nature and uses to which the area is put
- steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by others
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.
curtilage, expectation of privacy
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.
suspicionless
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.
their own
Officers do not need probable cause to make a Terry stop…all that is needed is _____ _____.
reasonable suspicion
The frisk allowed in the Terry stop is limited to a ____ ____ and not a full-scale search. The frisk is only for the _____ __ ___ _____.
pat down; safety of the officer
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.
IS NOT
The ultimate legal determination of what constitutes reasonable suspicion in stop-and-frisk situations is “_____ __ ___ _____.”
totality of the circumstances
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.
MAY
In _____ v. _____ (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.
Pennsylvania v Mimms, DID NOT
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. Expanded Pennsylvania v Mimms.
MAY
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.
MAY
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.
DID
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.
DO NOT…it does not violate 5th Amendment self-incrimination provision
Court decisions related to having persons step out of a vehicle include what three cases?
Pennsylvania v Mimms 1977
Maryland v Wilson 1997
Arizona v Johnson 2009
