Court Cases

Question 1

Graham v Connor

Answer 1

Established an objective reasonableness standard for when an officer can legally use force on a suspect and how much force can be used

Question 2

Tennessee v Garner

Answer 2

Use of deadly force to prevent escape of a fleeing suspect is only authorized if it is belived that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Question 3

Terry v Ohio

Answer 3

(Investigatory Stops) Not a violation of the 4th amendment to “stop and frisk” the outside of the clothing if it suspected that the person may have a weapon. Officer safety.

Question 4

Miranda v Arizona

Answer 4

Miranda warnings, you have to inform the criminal of his/her rights including the right to council.

Question 5

Mapp v Ohio

Answer 5

Evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment may not be used in court. Officers used a fake arrest warrant to search a home and found nothing.

Question 6

Good Faith Exception

Answer 6

Evidence collected in violation of the 4th amendment may be used if officers were acting in good faith believing the warrant was valid.

Question 7

U.S. v Leon

Answer 7

Established that evidence obtained in good faith by police relying upon a search warrant that subsequently is found to be deficient may be used in a criminal trial.

Question 8

Exclusionary Rule

Answer 8

Evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.

Question 9

Illinois v Gates

Answer 9

Established the “totality of circumstances” test in finding probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 10

Chimel v California

Answer 10

Search incidental to lawful arrest
Search of immediate area accessible to the actor

Question 11

Carroll v U.S.

Answer 11

(PC to search a car) Search a vehicle for contraband if probable cause exists. Vehicle is mobile. “Automobile exception”

Question 12

Michigan v Long

Answer 12

Limited search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle for weapons. Also “plain view” doctrine.

Question 13

Duran v City of Douglas

Answer 13

Profanities and obscene gestures directed at a police officer are free speech and conduct protected by the First Amendment

Question 14

Florida v Royer

Answer 14

Consensual Encounter) While it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their behavior, absent more, they cannot detain or search such individual without a warrant making it a Consensual Encounter.

Question 15

U.S. v Mendenhall

Answer 15

determined “seizure” occurs when an officer uses displays of authority to detain a person.

A person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave, and as long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person’s liberty or privacy as would require some particularized and objective justification

Question 16

Maryland v Shatzer

Answer 16

Police may re-open questioning if there has been a two-week break in Miranda custody.

Question 17

Creager v State

Answer 17

No written statement made by an accused as a result of custodial interrogation is admissible as evidence against him in any criminal proceeding unless it is shown on the face of the statement that he received Miranda warnings.

Question 18

Dyar v State

Answer 18

Peace officers must be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances to justify an arrest regarding “suspicious places “and “circumstances. Dyar v. State, Issue on appeal was whether this was a valid warrantless arrest and could a hospital be a “suspicious place?” Court holds that a hospital can be, and was a suspicious place, under the totality of the circumstances relied upon in this case.

Question 19

Payton v New York

Answer 19

The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest.

Question 20

Brigham City, Utah v Stuart

Answer 20

Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. Exigent Circumstances.

Question 21

Kentucky v King

Answer 21

Warrantless searches conducted in exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth amendment.

Question 22

Steagald v U.S.

Answer 22

An arrest warrant is not sufficient under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to search the home of a third party unless exigent circumstances are present.

Question 23

Brinegar v U.S.

Answer 23

PC to Arrest) While the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.

Question 24

Beck v Ohio

Answer 24

(Unreasonable search no PC) United States Supreme Court decision holding that the police arrested the defendant without probable cause, and therefore the evidence found on his person after taking him to the police station were found as part of an unconstitutional search.

Question 25

Brown v Texas

Answer 25

United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant’s arrest in El Paso County, Texas for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment

Question 26

New York v Belton

Answer 26

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 passenger compartment of that automobile.

Question 27

Michigan v Chesternut

Answer 27

The test of whether a seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is based off whether a reasonable man would have concluded that the police had restrained his liberty so that he was not free to leave. Under the reasonable man standard, Chesternut was not seized before he discarded the drugs because a reasonable person would not conclude the police attempted to chase Chesternut simply by accelerating to catch up with him, followed by a short drive alongside him.

Question 28

California v Hodari, D.

Answer 28

Addresses the question of whether a show of force constitutes a seizure;

considers the Mendenhall rule adopted by the Court, namely, that A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave and comments on its decision that police pursuit does not constitute a seizure.

Question 29

Whren v U.S.

Answer 29

(Traffic Violation can be used as pretext for stops) The temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective

Question 30

Pennsylvania v Mimms

Answer 30

established that police can order a driver out of a vehicle during a traffic stop without violating the Fourth Amendment

Question 31

Maryland v Wilson

Answer 31

the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that police officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle during a traffic stop

Question 32

Pryor v State

Answer 32

Twenty minute wait for drug dog is a unreasonable detention.

When traffic stop is over, must release the driver

Question 33

Ferris v State

Answer 33

After Completion of a Routine Traffic Stop, Separate Reasonable Articulable Suspicion Is Required to Support a Continued Detention or Seizure.

Question 34

New York v Belton

Answer 34

The Court held that a police officer can always lawfully search passenger compartment of a car and any compartments in that car after arresting its occupants.

Question 35

Graham vs State

Answer 35

When traffic stop is concluded the passengers are free to walk away.

Question 36

State v Varley

Answer 36

Officers mistake of Fact/Law will not make stop illegal.

Question 37

Chrisman v. State

Answer 37

Information from anonymous call was found to be reliable for an traffic stop

Question 38

Wright v State

Answer 38

Community Care taking

Question 39

State v Kurt

Answer 39

The question in this appeal is whether an Texas officer of the police department of a city has authority to stop a person for committing a traffic offense when the officer is in another city within the same county. We hold that the officer does not have such authority before 9-1-05. After 9-1-05 a Texas officer can make a traffic stop outside his jurisdiction.

Question 40

State v Kloecker

Answer 40

Officers can make a traffic stop of a vehicle driving on the raod in a unsafe condition.

Question 41

What is the The “corpus delicti rule” ?

Answer 41

states that a confession must be corroborated with independent evidence.

Question 42

In ____________ v. ______________ the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the detention was a seizure tantamount to an arrest, and since the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, it was an illegal seizure.

Answer 42

Florida v. Royer

Question 43

In ________________, the U.S. Supreme Court established that an informant’s tip must be accompanied by (1) some of the underlying circumstances on which the informant based conclusions and (2) some basis for concluding either that the informant was creditable or his information reliable.

Answer 43

Aguilar v. Texas

Question 44

In “__________ v. _____________” the U.S. Supreme Court extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”

Answer 44

Katz v. United States

Question 45

In _______________ the U.S Supreme Court first started actually enforcing the “exclusionary rule” against city, county, and state officials.

Answer 45

Mapp v. Ohio.

Question 46

Which court case strengthens Terry V. Ohio?

Answer 46

Minnesota V. Dickerson