Exam 2 Flashcards
Terry vs. Ohio (1968)
Stop and frisk. Police have the authority to frisk for weapons w/o probable cause
What does a stop do?
Prevent criminal activity
US vs. Sokolow (1989)
totality of circumstances determined reasonable suspicion
A frisk does not…
Automatically follow a stop
No warrant for stop and frisk…
Can lead to arrest
Minnesota vs. Dickerson (1993)
Frisk is a pat down of clothing “plain feel”. Illegal stop
Penn vs. Mimms (1977)
Motorist can be stooped for reasonable suspicion, driver can be asked to step out car, frisk would need reasonable suspicion
US vs. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)
Balloon swallower, rectal examination
Florida vs Royer (1983)
You don’t have to answer questions, but refusal can give a cop a right to frisk
Hiibel vs. 6th Judicial Court Nevada (2004)
required to provide name to officer, can be arrested if you don’t
Dunaway vs. NY (1979)
Must have probable cause to interrogate
Michigan vs. Chestnut (1988)
Ran from the police and threw something out on the ground. Probable cause was there for the seizure to happen
Florida vs. Bostick (1991)
A person doesn’t have to hand their bag to an officer if there is no reasonable suspicion
Wilson vs. Arkansas (1995)
if there is a potential for danger to officer or people inside the house police do not have to knock and announce their entrance for warrants
Peyton vs NY (1980)
in the absence of emergency circumstances or consent, the police may not enter a ho e to make a warrantless arrest when there was time to get a warrant and nobody gave permission to the search
Brigham City, Utah vs. Stuart (2006)
??????
Warden vs. Hayden (1967)
Yes because of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Hot pursuit
Welsh vs. WI (1984)
warrantless nighttime entry to a person’s home to make an arrest for a nonjailable traffic arrest is unconstitutional
US vs. Verdugo-Urquidez
the 4th amendments against unreasonable search and seizure applied to whether not an alien’s home could be searched
US vs. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
Fixed checkpoint stops are legal
US vs. Brignoni-Pounce (1975)
Driving while Mexican is not a reason to stop someone
US vs. Robinson (1973)
Officers can search a person after a frisk for evidence
Chimel vs. California (1969)
Searches within a persons wingspan is legal
Vale vs. Louisiana (1970)
Officers cannot come back the next day to search, it must happen at the same time as arrest
NY vs. Belton (1981)
the police may conduct a search and includes containers, enclosed or open glove compartments, consoles, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and similar items in the passenger compartment. Vin number is not protected
US vs. Ross (1982)
Officers can search trunk with probable cause
Maryland vs. Buie (1990)
Reasonable suspicion officers can do a protective sweep
Tennessee vs. Gardner (1985)
Cannot shoot a person for running for cops
Scott vs. Harris (2007)
Officers can bump cars off the road if they have potential danger to others
Graham vs. Connor (1989)
Objective
Russell vs. US
Looked at prior disposition to make the drug before, even though the agent supplied one ingredient
Olmsted vs. US (1928)
Wire tapping Not if they are done properly without trespassing into a constitutionally protected area
Katz vs. US (1967)
Privacy is expected when on a public phone
Zurcher vs. Standford (1978)
Searches of property not suspected of crimes is permissible , even if you don’t think they had anything to do with the crime
Scope of search and seizure
Driven by what you are looking for/ what specified in the search warrant
MI vs. Summers (1981)
Police may detain a person on the premises while a search is conducted
Stoner vs. California (1964)
a. The police cannot search your hotel room without a warrant just because the hotel clerk lets them in
NJ vs. T.L.O (1985)
2 girls smoking in the bathroom. Principal needs reasonable suspicion to search students bags
Stafford United School vs. Redding(2009)
Searched Redding’s undergarments unreasonable
US vs. Matlock (1974)
a. When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search, it is okay to obtain permission from a third part who contains common authority
GA vs. Randolph (2006)
a. Police may search a house when a co-tenant that is present specifically refused to allow a search
Illinois vs. Rodriquez (1990)
a. Police show up & a third party lets them in the house to search but they did not have commons authority to allow for this
Bell vs. Wolfish (1979)
Rights are stripped away in prison
Hudson vs. Palmer (1984)
????????
Griffin vs. WI
a. It is constitutional for probationers to search probationer’s home based on reasonable suspicion
Schmerber vs. CA (1966)
c. Considered an exigent circumstance & it is legal & they did not need a warrant for the blood sample because the BAC will go down
Kyllo vs. US (2001)
Using a heat index device/thermal imaging is unreasonable if you do not have a search warrant because of the whole detecting something from outside the home
US vs. Place
a. If the police use a dog, they must be legally in the place where the search takes police
FL vs. Harris (2013)
Dog gave officer probable cause to search the vehicle
FL vs. Jardines
Must be legally at a location in order to search.
Carroll vs US (1925)
68 bottle of gin and whiskey were found in a search. Officers can search cars with probable cause
Deleware vs. Prouse (1979)
Cannot make a random stop to check drivers license and registration
MI Depatment Police vs. Sitz (1990)
Checkpoints are legally if all vehicles are stopped
Penn vs. Muiz (1990)
Physical evidence is not protected by the 5th amendment
AZ vs. Grant (2009)
Serched car after suspended license arrest. Not legal
SD vs. Opperman (1976)
Routine inventory of car after it was compounded and found marijuana
Coolidge vs. New Hampshire (1971)
a. Warrantless searches of cars which are on private property & not in use at the time of the search are unconstitutional
California vs. Carney (1985)
Mobil home was on public property so the police could search it without a warrant
