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- consent may be withdrawn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
