Exam 2 Court Cases

Question 1

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Answer 1

Miranda Rights

Question 2

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer 2

Made the exclusionary rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level

Question 3

Chimel v. California (1969)

Answer 3

Searches Incident to Arrest
-Officers can search the area in the Immediate Control of the suspect

Question 4

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

Answer 4

One resident gives permission but the other says no

Question 5

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Answer 5

Cannot move items to gain further information

Question 6

U.S. v. Grubbs (2006)

Answer 6

Anticipatory warrant valid even if the subject was not shown or informed of the triggering event (if they are in the affidavit)

Question 7

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Answer 7

Search of a person at the time of their arrest is not a violation- it has a legitimate purpose

Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be “casing a job, a stick-up.” The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Question 8

Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)

Answer 8

Refusing to provide officer with basic information (like your name) constitutes reasonable suspicion to search for ID

Question 9

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)

Answer 9

Created automobile exception

Question 10

Aguilar v. Texas (1964)

Answer 10

-The source of the informant’s information is made clear.
-The officer had reasonable belief that the information is reliable.

Question 11

Davis v. Dallas (1985)

Answer 11

Upheld educational requirements for law enforcement officers as constitutional

Question 12

Graham v. Connor (1989)

Answer 12

Established standard of objective reasonableness to assess officer’s use of deadly force in terms of “reasonableness at the moment”

Question 13

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Answer 13

Use of deadly force to prevent escape of fleeing felon only justified when the suspect reasonably through to represent a significant threat of serious injury or death to public or officer, and where deadly force is necessary to effect the arrest

Question 14

Idaho v. Horiuchi (2001)

Answer 14

Federal officers not immune from state charges (Ruby Ridge)

Question 15

Saucier v. Katz (2001)

Answer 15

Two pronged test- 1. Did defendant violate appellant’s rights? 2. Was that right clearly established?

Qualified immunity
Shields individual officers from constitutional lawsuits if unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law

Question 16

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Answer 16

Right to an attorney for any “significant proceeding” in an investigation

Question 17

Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

Answer 17

Physical Abuse during interrogation to produce a confession