Exam 2 Flashcards
Florida v Bostick 1991
If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized
This decision is used to measure the coercive effect of the encounter
United States v Drayton 2002
“The 4th amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuses consent to searches”
Two black males, Florida to Michigan
*‘99 war on drugs
Police deny any coercion played a role
Stare decisis
A doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice
INS v Delgado 1984
The court held that INS agents’ wearing badges and questioning workers in a factory did not constitute a seizure
“While most citizens will respond to a police request, and the fact that people do so without be told they are free not to, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response”
California v Hodari D. 1992
An arrest (seizure) occurs when physical force has been applied to a person, or when a person submits to the assertion of authority.
Is a traffic stop considered a seizure?
In fourth amendment terms a traffic stop entails a seizure of the driver (and everyone in the vehicle), even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.
Brendlin v California 2007
Automobile passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop.
United States v Mendenhall 1980
a seizure occurs if “in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident , a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave”
Maryland v Wilson 1997
Held that during a lawful traffic stop an officer may order a passenger out of the car as a precautionary measure without reasonable suspicion that a passenger.
Arizona v Johnson 2009
The police may lawfully stop and detain an automobile and its occupants pending an inquiry into a minor traffic violation, and may conduct a pat down search of an occupant if the police reasonably suspect that the individual is armed and dangerous
United States v Place
seizing a persons luggage for an entire weekend until a warrant may be obtained violates the 4th amendment as beyond the scope of a valid Terry Stop. Also, a sniff by a well trained narcotics dog that does not require opening of the luggage is not a search for 4th amendment purposes.
New Jersey v T.L.O.
The search must be reasonably related in scope to the the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. That is not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
TLO scope requirement mandates that for a strip search there be “reasonable suspicion of danger or of resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing.”
Samson v California 2006
held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
Parolees have a lower expectation of privacy
Reasonableness of a search under the 4th amendment is assessed based on the totality of the circumstances.
Florida v JL 2000
held that a police officer may not legally stop and frisk anyone based solely on an anonymous tip that simply described that person’s location and what he or she might look like but that did not furnish information as to any illegal conduct that the person might be planning.
Illinois v Wardlow 2000
defendant fled after recognizing police vehicle
fleeing constitutes a stop and frisk
Florida v Royer 1983
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.
Schnekloth v. Bustamante 1973
in a case involving a consent search, while knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the state does not need to prove that the one who is giving permission to search knows that he has a right to withhold his consent under the 4th amendment
United States v Russell 1973
was the first time the US Supreme Court upheld (albeit narrowly) a conviction where the defendant had argued entrapment. there was no “intolerable degree” of police involvement, and the defendant was predisposed. there was no violation of due process.
Entrapment
entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.
Jacobson v United States 1992
the burden of proof is on the state to prove that a defendant is predisposed to violate the law before government interference. State could not provide burden of proof that Jacobson would order child pornography had it not been sent to him as part of a government sting (entrapment)
Betts v Brady 1942
was a landmark US Supreme Court case that denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state. It was famously overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright.
Georgia v Randolph 2006
the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.
United States v Matlock 1974
established “co-occupant consent rule” which permitted one resident to consent to search in absence of the co-occupant
Massiah v United States 1964
the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches (arraignment)
The Massiah rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings deliberately elicited by the police from a defendant after formal charges have been filed. The events that trigger the Sixth Amendment safeguards under Massiah are (1) the commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings and (2) deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents.
