Final: Chapter 5- Policing Legal Aspects Flashcards

1
Q

Bill of Rights purpose

A

designed to protect citizens against abuses of police powers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Chief Justice Earl Warren + Supreme Court decision making

A

focused on guaranteeing individual rights during criminal prosecution
- strict procedural requirements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Miranda V. Arizona

A

established precedent for proper procedure
- “Miranda rights”
- advisement of rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

When must Miranda Rights be read?

A

custodial arrest + interrogation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Checks and Balances purpose

A

holds branches accountable for one another and ensures that one does not hold more power than others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Landmark Cases

A

cases that produce significant changes within the justice system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Rule for illegally seized evidence

A

cannot be used in court/trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Exclusionary Rule

A

evidence illegally obtained by police cannot be used in a trial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Weeks v. US

A

(1914) applied exclusionary rule to federal officers ONLY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Writ of Certiorari

A

writ issued from appellate court for purpose of obtaining lower court records for the case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine + Example

A

evidence developed as a result of illegal search/seizure is excluded from the trial
Ex. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v US

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Silverthorne Lumber Co v. US

A

set precedent for Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Mapp v. Ohio

A

made exclusionary rule applicable to state offficers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Exceptions to exclusionary rule

A

stop + frisk, consent, plain view, exegent circumstances, hot pursuit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Searches incident to arrest meaning

A

searching only places in immediate control of person while they are under custodial arrest or detained

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Chimel v. California

A

search is limited to area in suspect’s immediate control

17
Q

Minnesota v. Olson

A

extended protections against warantless searches to overnight guests in the name of another
- privacy in another home when not affiliated

18
Q

Georgia v. Randolph

A

officers may not conduct a warrantless search if one resident gives permission and another refuses

19
Q

Burger Court

A

conservative w/ more police support and “greater good era”

20
Q

Rehnquist Court

A

protected the interest of those living within the law, broadened police power

21
Q

Good Faith exception to Exclusionary Rule

A

evidence seized based on good faith but later shown to be a mistake, may still be used in court

22
Q

United States v. Leon

A

(1984) surveilled suspect for drug trafficking, then policer applied for search warrant based on this. Belief that they were operating according to the law

23
Q

Probable Cause

A

a set of facts/circumstances that would induce intelligent/prudent person to believe that a particular person has committed a specific crime
- also reasonable ground to make the accusation

24
Q

Illinois v. Krull date

A

1987

25
Q

Massachusetts v. Sheppard date

A

1984

26
Q

Illinois v. Rodriquez date

A

1990

27
Q

Plain-View Doctrine

A

police officers have the opportunity to seize evidence w/o a search warrant if it is visible
- must have legal right to the area
- must have reason to believe it is associated with crime

28
Q

Harris v. US

A

determined objects falling in plain view of officer, who has right to position, are subject to seizure + to be evidence

29
Q

US v. Irizarry

A

determined that officers could not move objects to gain view of evidence that is otherwise hidden

30
Q

Horton v. California

A

Inadvertence (attention) is not needed for evidence to be legitimate

31
Q

3 reasons for an emergency search w/o warrant

A

-danger to life
-danger of escape
-danger of removal/destruction of evidence

32
Q

No knock policy grounds

A

under circumstances considered dangerous, or that would inhibit investigation an officer has clearance not to knock

33
Q

Anticipatory Warrant

A

issued on basis that evidence of a crime, while not at located there at the time will be when the warrant is served

34
Q

Free to Leave Tests Precendent

A

US v. Mendenhall (1980)

35
Q

US v. Robinson

A

upheld officers right to warrantless search for safety + use of fruits of search when finding contraband

36
Q

Terry v. Ohio

A

upheld officers right to warrantless search for safety
- standard for brief stop + frisk

37
Q

Minnesota v. Dickerson

A

limited officers ability to seize evidence from pat-down for protection when the search itself was only off suspicious and did not reveal a weapon

38
Q

Smith v. Ohio

A

individual has right to protect belongings from unwarranted searches

39
Q
A