Collins Final 2 (A&B)

Question 1

The police are not require to obtain an arrest warrant before arresting a person in a public place, even if there was time and opportunity to do so, as long as the police are duly authorized to make the arrest by statute. There is minimum protection in a public place.

Answer 1

United States v. Watson

Question 2

After making an arrest, the police may search the area within the person’s immediate control. The purpose of such search is to discover and remove weapons and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Answer 2

Chimel v. California (1969)

Question 3

A body search is valid in any situation in which a full-custody arrest occurs. There is no requirement that officers fear for their safety or believe that they will find evidence of a crime before the body search can be made.

Answer 3

United States v. Robinson

Question 4

The 4th amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. “A limited protective sweep during an arrest in a home is allowed if justified.”

Answer 4

Maryland v. Buie

Question 5

The police may not validly enter a private home to make a routine warrantless felony arrest, unless justified by exigent circumstances. In the absence of exigent circumstances or consent, the police may not enter a private home to make a routine, warrantless felony arrest. The evidence was not admissible because there was time to obtain a warrant and there were no exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless non-consensual search

Answer 5

Payton. v. New York

Question 6

Because open fields are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, office, or commercial structure would not be, and because fences or “no trespassing” sign do not effectively bar the public from viewing open fields, the expectation of privacy by an owner of an open field does not exist. Consequently, the police may enter and search unoccupied or underdeveloped areas outside the curtilage without either a warrant or probable cause.

Answer 6

Oliver v. United States

Question 7

The interior of the barn (and fences)that was observed but not entered by police was not a part of the curtilage and therefore, the warrantless observation by the police was valid. Whether an area is consider a part of the curtilage of a home rest on four factors.

1. The proximity of the area to the home
2. Whether the are is in an enclosure surrounding the home.
3. The nature and uses of the area
4. The steps taken to conceal the area from public view.

Answer 7

United States v. Dunn

Question 8

Using a technological device to explore details of a home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Answer 8

Kyllo v. United States

Question 9

Voluntariness of consent to search is determined from the totality of the circumstances, of which knowledge of the right to refuse consent is a factor but not a requirement. Implied officer authority. Coercion

Answer 9

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Question 10

…a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.

Answer 10

Georgia v. Randolph