Exam 2

Question 0

Florida v Bostick 1991

Answer 0

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

Question 1

United States v Drayton 2002

Answer 1

“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

Question 2

Stare decisis

Answer 2

A doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice

Question 3

INS v Delgado 1984

Answer 3

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”

Question 4

California v Hodari D. 1992

Answer 4

An arrest (seizure) occurs when physical force has been applied to a person, or when a person submits to the assertion of authority.

Question 6

Is a traffic stop considered a seizure?

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Brendlin v California 2007

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

United States v Mendenhall 1980

Answer 8

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”

Question 9

Maryland v Wilson 1997

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Arizona v Johnson 2009

Answer 10

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

Question 11

United States v Place

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

New Jersey v T.L.O.

Answer 12

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.”

Question 13

Samson v California 2006

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Florida v JL 2000

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Illinois v Wardlow 2000

Answer 15

defendant fled after recognizing police vehicle

fleeing constitutes a stop and frisk

Question 16

Florida v Royer 1983

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Schnekloth v. Bustamante 1973

Answer 17

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

Question 18

United States v Russell 1973

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Entrapment

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Jacobson v United States 1992

Answer 20

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)

Question 21

Betts v Brady 1942

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Georgia v Randolph 2006

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

United States v Matlock 1974

Answer 23

established “co-occupant consent rule” which permitted one resident to consent to search in absence of the co-occupant

Question 24

Massiah v United States 1964

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Escobedo v. Illinois 1964

Answer 25

criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial.

Question 26

Miranda v Arizona 1966

Answer 26

Custodial interrogation creates inherent coercion, miranda warnings are a “safeguard” to protect self-incrimination (5th amendment)
waiving of these rights must be knowing and intelligent

Question 27

JDB v North Carolina 2011

Answer 27

age is relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes. JDB 13 year old who was suspected of two robberies and called to the principles office during class