Exceptions to the Warrant Flashcards
What are the exceptions for making an arrest without a warrant
- PC that the person has committed a felony and is in public
1a. Or if you are in your home and you give them consent - The person is committied a misdemeanor and you have PC to believe they won’t be apprehended unless you arrest them immediately OR they will cause harm to people (have to see it)
2a. The person has committed a misdemeanor in officers presence
T or F: A custodial arrest is reasonable if the officer has PC of criminal violation
True (even for traffic violations)
United States v Watson
Facts: Informant told police that D had a stolen credit card and setup a meeting with D so police could observe. D was arrested and found the credit cards
Holding: Police had PC to believe that D had committed a felony, so warrantless arrest was okay
T or F: Can deadly force be used to prevent the escape of a felon if they don’t think it’s necessary to prevent the suspect from escaping AND PC that they pose a threat to others
No
What are deadly force requirements
Necessary to prevent escape AND PC that they pose a threat to others
What are the Factors of the Graham Balancing Test for deadly force
- Severity of the crime
- Whether suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others
- Whether D is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight
Scott v Harris
Facts: D was driving “erraticly” through the streets driving away from cops
Holding: Deadly force was justified
Counter: Using the graham balancing test you could argue that he doesn’t meet factors of Severity of crime (this was a traffic violation) or posing a threat to others
What are the exceptions for the Warrant requirement
- arrests
- Stop and Frisks
- Search Incident to Arrest
- Plain View and Plain Touch
- Automobiles
- Exigent Circumstances
- Special Needs
- Consent to Search
Can an officer immediately after knocking and announcing and not hearing any response in 10 seconds storm in?
No, it has to be within a reasonable time
What is a purpose of the Knock and Announce rule
protects against needless destruction of property
protects individuals privacy interest
Gerstein v Pugh
Facts: D was arrested without a warrant and help for a month before PC screening
Holding: holding someone for 30 days was a violation…NEED PROMPT screening
After arresting someone without a warrant, police need to go to magistrate to determine if there was PC
Payton v New York
Facts: Police had PC to believe D committed a murder but no warrant. Police knocked and announced and got no response, so they used a crowbar to open the door
Holding: Unconstitutional, exception to the warrant requirement for public arrests DOESNT extend to arrest in the home (absent exigent circumstances)
If officers don’t have a warrant and knock and announce at your hotel room and you don’t answer, can they bust in?
No - Payton v New York rule
If a suspect lives with a 3rd party or is a visitor at a 3rd parties home, will an arrest/search warrant suffice
YES
Terry v Ohio
Courts use a balancing test to determine what is reasonable. Need reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot or RS that the person is armed and dangerous
When can officers stop someone
When there is RS that criminal activity is afoot
When can officers frisk someone
When they have RS that they are armed and dangerous
What is a the downside of a stop and frisk
it can impact minorities greatly, because it gives alot of discretion to the officers
Pennsylvania v Mimms
Bright line Rule: Ordering people out of their vehicles
Holding: Officers in a course of a legal stop of automobile have an AUTOMATIC right to order someone out of their vehicle
Can officers in the course of a legal stop of an automobile, order the passengers out of the vehicle?
Yes; officer safety is a concern
Officers (can or cannot) perform a frisk of a passenger, when the driver has been lawfully detained?
Can, if they have RS that the passenger is armed and dangerous
Based on the ____ ____ ______ officers must have particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity
totality of circumstances
In order to justify a stop, an officer must point to ______ to show that criminal activity is afoot
articulable facts
Alabama v White
Facts: officer received a anon tip ad officer corroborated
Holding: Anon tip was enough for reasonable suspicion because it was corroborated by an investigation
Is an anon tip without officer corroboration sufficient for RS to justify a stop and frisk
NO - anon tip alone is not enough
Are face to face tips enough for RS
Yes they are more reliable than anon tips
Illinois v Wardlaw (Rule)
Flight + high crime area = reasonable suspicion
Minnesota v Dickerson (Rule)
Terry frisk are ONLY justified for protective purposes - NOT for actually searching for evidence
Can frisks be used to search for evidence
No - Minnesota v Dickerson
Can mistake of fact give rise to RS or PC
Yes - US v Valez (Latino case)
Kansas v Glover
Facts: police ran license plate of a truck spotted while on patrol and realized owner of truck had his license revoked. Officer initiated a traffic stop
Holding: Officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate traffic stop
Navarette v California
Facts: anon tip came in that a driver ran someone off the road and gave them their license plate. Officers found the car and followed them for 5 min (noticed no impaired driving) and then smelled weed arrested D
Holding: anon tip was reliable and can support RS for a traffic stop if it has adequate indica of reliability (detailed description)
Counter: anon tips must be corroborated otherwise anyone can call in a tip and that be used as RS
Can innocent conduct be RS
Yes, some innocent activity can rule in favor of RS
If your conduct conforms to the law and the police make a reasonable mistake, can the police still stop and search you
Yes
Heien v North Carolina
Facts: D had a broken tail light and NC law was confusing, but it was legal for him to drive with only 1 tail light. Officer pulled him over for the tail light (thinking it was illegal) and searched car and found drugs
Holding: If there was a reasonable mistake of law, there can still be RS
Counter: Gives cops to much leeway, and they can always lie about “not knowing” the law
Chimel v California
Allowed to search room where person was arrested
Facts: Officers had arrest warrant but didn’t have search warrant for D, however officers proceeded to search D’s ALL throughout home
Holding: Violation of 4A, can’t search the whole house….only can search the “GRAB AREA”
In a search incident to arrest, the officers are allowed to search the ______ _____, which is the area within the suspects immediate control
Grab area
What is the “Grab Area”
in a search incident to arrest, the officers have an automatic right to search the area that is within the suspects immediate control
What are Chimel’s considerations on search incident to arrest?
- prevents D’s from reaching for weapons (protects police)
- Prevents D’s from destroying evidence
US v Robinson
Cigarette case
Facts: After arresting D, officers searched D and found a cigerette package and looked inside and it was drugs
Holding: Officers have an automatic right to search an arrestee’s entire person when police make an arrest (More expansive than a Terry stop)
Do police have an automatic right to search an arrestee’s entire person after they are arrested
Yes
After Robinson, where cops can search an entire person after an arrest, what are the implications?
It is more expansive than a Terry stop search, so it gives the officers more power
Arizona v Grant
Facts: Grant was arrested for driving with suspended license and officers searched the passenger compartment and found gun and found cocaine in jacket that was in the backseat
Holding: Police may not search an individuals vehicle when the arrestee is not within reaching distance of passenger compartment at the time of the search
Grant Rule: When can the police search the passenger compartment of the car incident to arrest?
- If police have RS to believe that passenger compartment contains evidence of the offense for which they have been arrested for
- The passenger compartment is within the grab area of the arrestee
Atwater v City Lago Vista
Facts: Soccer mom case; D was arrested for a seatbelt violation
Holding: Custodial arrest are always reasonable if officer has PC of criminal violation
T or F: It is never reasonable for officers make custodial arrest when they have PC of criminal violation
False; its always reasonable
Riley v CA
Facts: riley stopped for driving w/ expired plates, when riley was arrested officers seized phones and searched it (pursuant to Robinson)- and found gang evidence on the smartphone
Holding: Officers need a warrant to go through an arrestee’s phone. The privacy interest outweighed the govt interest of: destruction of evidence and safety risk
Officers (need/ do not need) a warrant before searching a cellphone found on an arrestee
They need a warrant; OR show an exigent circumstance
Can police officers arrest people for misdemeanors without a warrant that they saw committed even if it is only a fineable offense
Yes: Atawater case (soccer mom arrested case for seatbelt)
You (do or do not) need a warrant for a blood test? Why?
You need a warrant, because the individuals interest is higher because it is an intrusive test
You (do or do not) need a warrant for a breath test? Why?
You do not need a warrant, because the individuals interest is low because it is minimally intrusive
What is a counter argument for not giving a blood test or breath test to drunk drivers after they have been arrested.
There is no need to test them because they have already been arrested
B(reath)irchfield v North Dakata
Facts: D was arrested for drunk driving and refused to do a warrantless blood test and other D refused to do a breath test, both were arrested
Holding: law requiring breath test doesn’t violate 4A and is constitutional (balance govt interest v individuals interest
+
Law requiring blood test is unconstitutional (balance test) = Individual interest wins (blood drawl is more invasive and can reveal more things)
