Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

CRJU 485 EXAM #2 > EXAM 2 > Flashcards

EXAM 2 Flashcards

1
Q

Tennessee v Gardner when deadly force is reasonable

A
  1. “Use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”
  2. Deadly force is Reasonable:
    A) “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others,”
    B) “It is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Tennesse v Gardner basic facts about the case

A

Officer shot bleeding burglar

Is the statue constitutional

Interest in deaths unmatched the defendant fundamental interest states that

Government deadly force is killing them and bringing them to overt snf rvryonr decider cj killing person shortens the circuit

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

so was it reasonable or unreasonable ( Tennessee v Gardner)

A

So, it is NOT reasonable under 4A to shoot and kill an unarmed residential burglar fleeing over a fence.

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

what was the ruling of the case

A

“Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, wherefeasible, some warning has been given.”

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

Graham v Connor 1989 the issue of whether there was excessive force under 4A

A
  1. Any use of force, whether deadly or not, must be reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances” of the case.
  2. Factors to assess reasonableness:
    a
    b
    c
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what are the factors of assess reasonableness under Graham v Connor 1989

A

A) Severity of crime at issue
B) Whether suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer’s or others’ safety
C) Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by leaving the scene

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

what are the factors in Graham v Connor

A

A) Apply objective “reasonable officer” standard (subjective motivation of the particular officer is NOT relevant)
B) View as officer would on the scene and “make allowances” for
1) Split second judgments and
2) tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations

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

Search Incident to Arrest (SIA)

A

A search incident to an arrest is reasonable under the 4A because it accompanies a particular seizure of the person, the arrest. (Arrests can be dangerous for officers, so they are allowed to search in part for their safety).

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

SIA is based solely on the existence of a?

A

lawful arrest, no warrant is required.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

SIA an exception to the ____ ______

A

warrant requirement

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

Searches can occur during an ____ the most intrusive seizure of a person on the street

A

ARREST

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

what does SIA mean?

A

Search Incident to Arrest

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

Suppose an officer illegally arrests a person. What happens if a judge agrees that the police committed an arrest in violation of the 4A?

A

The case is NOT dismissed, but

ANY EVIDENCE RECOVERED AS A RESULT OF THE ARREST IS TAINTED AND INADMISSIBLE.

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

The USSCT analyzes all warrant exceptions in TWO stages:

A

1) “Justification” or reason for allowing an exception, and

2) “Scope” or boundaries of the search power given by the exception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. Upon a LAWFUL ARREST, an officer may search for:
A

A) Weapons arrestee may use to resist arrest and harm the officer (This is “officer safety”), AND
B) Evidence arrestee may conceal or destroy (This is case safety)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q
  1. upon a lawful arrest an officer may search for

2. On:

A

A) Arrestee’s person, AND

B) “Area of immediate control” (Grabbable/lungeable space)

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

UPON A LAWFUL ARREST, AN OFFICER MAY SERCH FOR:

WHY?

A

Because police, since common law, have been allowed to protect themselves and recover evidence during an arrest

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

SIA’s “Contemporaneousness” Requirement:

A
  1. SIA’s search need only be “Contemporaneous” (around the same time), NOT “simultaneous” (at the exact same time) of the search.
  2. The Search may actually PRECEDE the arrest if:
    A) The officer has probable cause to ARREST before the search, AND
    B) The arrest follows immediately “upon the heels” of the search.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Officer’s Presence During Arrest:

A

An officer may remain “at the arrestee’s elbow” throughout the arrest.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Constitutional Basis of the search authority for SIA:

A
  1. SIA is based on the existence of a lawful arrest.
  2. A lawful arrest requires the existence of probable cause TO ARREST but does NOT need probable cause TO SEARCH.
  3. Bottom line: If the arrest is lawful, NO additional justification is required.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Maryland v. Buie (1990) – “Protective Sweeps”

A

Search for dangerous persons other than arrestee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)

A

Search incident to arrest during an arrest for a minor offense lacking breach of peace

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Knowles v. Iowa (1998)

A

Search incident to arrest: Custodial arrest v. Citation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Birchfield v. North Carolina (2016)

A

Biological intrusions under search incident to arrest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Riley v. California (2014)

A

Search of smart phone incident to arrest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

MARYLAND V BUIE (1990) PROTECTIVE SWEEP

Police can search for dangerous persons other than arrestee, incident to arrest:

A
  1. By looking “into closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could immediately be launched”
  2. Even if police lack probable cause or reasonable suspicion for anyone being present
  3. But, BEYOND this area, police need “articulable facts” (reasonable suspicion) that:

A) Area to be swept harbors individual posing danger to those on the scene.”
B) Then can perform a “cursory inspection” where “a person may be found.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Search incident to arrest during an arrest for a minor offense lacking breach of peace

A
  1. 4A allows full custody arrests for crimes lacking “breach of peace”
  2. So long as legislature has given the office authority for such arrests.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Search incident to arrest: Custodial arrest v. Citation

A
  1. If a State law gives an officer a CHOICE between:
    A) Performing a full custody arrest, OR
    B) Merely issuing a citation for a particular offense,
  2. And the officer chooses to ONLY ISSUE A CITATION,
  3. Then officer CANNOT perform SIA
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Biological intrusions under search incident to arrest

A
  1. Police can perform a BREATH TEST SIA for a person arrested for DUI
  2. Police CANNOT perform a BLOOD TEST SIA for person arrested for DUI
30
Q

Search of smart phone incident to arrest

A
  1. Generally, police must obtain a search warrant before searching smart phones, so phones ARE NOT included in SIA
  2. Because there is a distinction between”
    A) “Physical objects” that are within SIA, and
    B) “Digital content” (such as cell phones) which is NOT within SIA
31
Q

PRE GRANT CASE LAW

New York v. Belton (1981)

A

A) Created a BRIGHTLINE RULE that

B) Police can ALWAYS SIA a vehicle’s “Passenger Compartment”

32
Q

PRE GRANT CASE LAW

Thornton v. United States (2004)

A

Police can perform SIA of a vehicle in which the arrestee was a “recent occupant.”

33
Q

ARIZONA V GANT

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest ONLY IF:

A

1) The unsecured arrestee is “within reaching distance” of the passenger compartment at the time of the search,
- OR-
2) It is “reasonable to believe” that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest

34
Q

Inventory Searches Upon Booking Into Custody at Jail

A
  1. 4A allows, as part of a “routine procedure” incident to incarcerating arrestees,
  2. An “Inventory Search” following “established” procedures.
  3. This “administrative” procedure prevents:
35
Q

Illinois v. LaFayette (1983)

3. This “administrative” procedure prevents:

A

A) Police theft
B) False claims of police theft, and
C) Dangerous items entering the jails

36
Q

A “Stop and Frisk” is TWO SEPARATE INTRUSIONS:

A

STOP + FRISK

37
Q
  1. “STOP” = “Seizure” of the person or body
A

A) Need “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect is connected to crime, whether about to commit, is committing, or has committed
B) “Reasonable suspicion” is specific and articulable facts (under the totality of the circumstances) that would cause on (objectively) reasonable officer, with this officer’s experience and expertise, to believe a person is involved in criminal activity

38
Q
  1. “FRISK” = “Search” of a person or body
A 
A) Need to establish, independently of stop, reasonable suspicion that the detainee is “armed and dangerous”
B) Only then can officer:
1) Pat down
2) Outer clothing
3) For weapons
39
Q

An officer performs a “Plain View Seizure” and so acts “Reasonably” under the 4A, When:

A
  1. The officer is lawfully located to both:
    A) Observe, AND
    B) Seize the item, AND
    [So, 1. In Public, 2. Executing Warrant, OR 3. Within Warrant Exception]
  2. It is “immediately apparent” (interpreted as having probable cause) that the item is “subject to seizure.”
40
Q

Plain Touch During Terry Stop and Frisk

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

A
  1. Extends “plain view” doctrine to “plain touch” or “plain feel” because:
    A) Plain touch is sufficiently reliable to support a seizure of an item
    B) Touch is no more intrusive than vision
  2. Court applied “plain touch” to a Terry Stop and Frisk in Dickerson:
    A) Lawfully positioned?
    B) Immediately apparent?
41
Q

Terry’s Stop and Frisk, as with all searches accompanying seizures of the person, is an…

A

EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUREMENT.

42
Q

The USSCT analyzes all warrant exceptions in TWO stages:

A

1) “Justification” or reason for allowing an exception, and

2) “Scope” or boundaries of the search power given by the exception

43
Q

“Justification” for Stop and/or Frisk:

Adams v. Williams (1972)

A

A) Reasonable suspicion can be based on information NOT personally perceived by the officer
B) A “Hearsay Informant” can supply information to officer when the informant is personally in officer’s presence
C) [“SCOPE” ISSUE: A frisk can, in this case, go under the belt, if facts support this specific search of this particular area.]

44
Q

“Justification” for Stop and/or Frisk:

Alabama v. White (1990)

A

A) Police can base reasonable suspicion on information from an ANONYMOUS TIP if informant is credible under “The totality of circumstances”
B) Credibility is established with:
1) Details
2) About future events (showing “inner circle” knowledge)
3) Corroborated by police
C) These three factors are “Indicia of Reliability” lending credibility that “criminal activity” exists

45
Q

“Justification” for Stop and/or Frisk:

Navarette v. California (2014)

A

In Navarette, the Court found sufficient “indicia of reliability” in a tip from an anonymous person to support reasonable suspicion.
Here, the anonymous tipster, who was run off the road by a reckless driver, had “eye-witness knowledge” of the criminal behavior.

*** Found marijunia in the road. There are all these details from the anonymous person. Stronger when the informant Is a witness or is a participant

rumor, witness, and active participant —-) in that order from bottom up , bottom being rumor and participant up

46
Q

Terry Justification

Florida v. J.L. (2000)

A

An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun, without more, does NOT ALONE satisfy reasonable suspicion.

47
Q

Terry Justification

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)

A

A) “Unprovoked flight” from police, under the totality of circumstances, is a valid circumstance for building reasonable suspicion.
B) Stevens’ Concurrence/Dissent:
Noted that the Court wisely avoided ruling that police can “always stop” a person when have flight, and so there is NO “PER SE” Rule here.

48
Q

Terry Justification

United States v. Arvizu (2002)

A

A) Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, where all facts are weighed together
B) So, the Court REJECTED a categorical approach where some facts are weighed in isolation.

49
Q

Terry Justification

United States v. Sokolow (1989)

A

A) “Drug courier profiles” are NOT prohibited for forming reasonable suspicion
B) So long as police explain how they support reasonable suspicion

50
Q

Terry Justification

Heien v. North Carolina (2014)

A

An officer’s mistake of law regarding the basis of a seizure of a suspect CAN BE REASONABLE, and therefore STILL support the lawfulness of the seizure, although wrong.

Officer has made a mistake of law
The supreme court decided whether a officer mistake of law be reasonable
Mistake of fact
Mistake of law

In north Caroline if driver has a broken tailgate its fine they gotta have both tailgate broken to stop a driver

51
Q

Terry Justification

Kansas v. Glover (2020)

A
  1. When a police officer initiates an “investigative traffic stop” after running a vehicle’s plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked license,”
  2. The stop is “reasonable” if the officer “lacks information negating an inference that the owner is the driver of the vehicle.”
52
Q

Once a Terry Stop and Frisk is justified, then the USSCT must decide if the officer stayed —————-of his/her authority under the stop and frisk.
This is a question of “——”

A

Once a Terry Stop and Frisk is justified, then the USSCT must decide if the officer stayed IN THE BOUNDS of his/her authority under the stop and frisk.

This is a question of “SCOPE.”

53
Q

Cases Where Officers Exceeded Terry’s Scope

lorida v. Royer (1983) & Kaupp v. Texas (2003)

A

A) An initially lawful Terry Stop can evolve into an unlawful arrest IF police elevate the seizure to an arrest while lacking probable cause.

                                       Arrest		 				
                                  Prob. Cause
 		Terry Stop
             Reas. Susp.   CE None
54
Q

The “Brevity Requirement” for a Terry Stop or “Detention”

A

If a Terry Stop goes on too long, it becomes an arrest.

55
Q

United States v. Place & United States v. Sharpe Brevity Test:

A
  1. Time on clock (20 minutes v. 90 minutes)
  2. Whether police are diligently pursuing their investigation
  3. The suspect’s contribution to delay
56
Q

The Scope of Terry’s Stop & Frisk:
“Order-Outs” at Traffic Stops

Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) & Maryland v. Wilson (1997) Test:

A
  1. Officers have absolute, “per se,” authority to order
  2. Both driver and passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle
  3. For any reason or no reason at all.
  4. Because officers need protection from armed occupants inside car and from passing traffic

LOOKED AT HOW LONG A SEZIURE CAN OCCUR

57
Q

The Scope of Terry’s Stop & Frisk

Michigan v. Long (1983) – “Frisks” of Vehicles

A
  1. Officers may search the passenger compartment of suspect’s vehicle FOR WEAPONS
  2. IF officer has reasonable suspicion that a recent occupant:
    A) Is dangerous, and
    B) Gain control of weapons
58
Q

Amendment IV

(4A)
Warrant Clause

A

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, AND no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

59
Q

Reasonableness Clause

A
  1. “Reas” is in 4A text, but is not explicitly limited by the Warr. Cl.
  2. Without Warr Cl, reas alone could create boundless official power.
  3. If reas were “unconfined,” 4A protection “would reach the evaporation point.”
60
Q

Warrant Clause

A
  1. 4A text does not explicitly make Warr Cl control Reas Cl.
  2. USSCT had to make an inference that warrants control and define
    “reasonableness” of searches and seizures.
  3. Warr Cl provides objective criteria for measuring reas, but is too limited to predict and handle every officer-citizen encounter.
61
Q

The Warrant Requirement

A

Where “a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, … reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant.” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton,515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995)

62
Q

So, in order to admit evidence from a search or seizure, police generally need to get a warrant, or _________________

A

So, in order to admit evidence from a search or seizure, police generally need to get a warrant, or explain why not (the existence of a warrant exception).

63
Q

Kinds of Warrants

A
  1. Search Warrant

2. Arrest Warrant

64
Q

Definition of a Warrant

A
  1. “A court order authorizing” (allowing) law enforcement to search a specified place or seize specific items or person.
  2. Issued “Ex Parte”
  3. Under Oath or affirmation.

**2. Means like permission. The judge is only meeting with the police. The police do not invite the offended to come. It tips off the offender.

65
Q

“Ex Parte”

A

Means =One sided

66
Q

Reasons for Warrant Requirement

A
  1. “Warrant” is specifically mentioned in 4A
  2. USSCT prefers warrants because they involve judges (as sober second thoughts) into the process early
  3. A judge, or “magistrate,” acts as a “buffer” between the citizen and the ”zealous” officer
67
Q

Definition of “Detached & Neutral Magistrate”
Shadwick v. Tampa (1972)
A “Detached & Neutral Magistrate” is:?

A
  1. ”Detached” = Is independent of law enforcement
    - AND-
  2. Is Capable of determining probable cause
68
Q

Definition of “Detached & Neutral Magistrate”

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

A

Is not detached and neutral he’s become the leader of the search warrant. And gotta describe the things that need to be seized. This was a blank warrant. This is not a detached and neutral magistrate.

69
Q

Definition of “Detached & Neutral Magistrate”

Connally v. Georgia (1977)

A

piece work. Pay someone to do it and it take more work to not sign the warrant. Court said were not acting attached

70
Q

Warrant Challenges

1. Motion to Quash

A

Is a facial challenge, attacking the warrant as flawed “on its face” or “within its four corners.”

SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN

71
Q

Warrant Challenges

2. Motion to Traverse

A

Is a challenge that goes beyond “the four corners” of the warrant, attacking the creation/process of getting the warrant.

Doesn’t look at all four corners of the warrant.
May look great but behind it isn’t

CRJU 485 EXAM #2 (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions