Key Cases

Question 1

Katz v. United States

Answer 1

Police bugged a phone booth. Court held this to be an unreasonable search and seizure (Katz kept phone booth shut). Led this two part test…
1. A person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy
2. Expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

Question 2

Terry v. Ohio

Answer 2

Officer patrolled same street corner for 30 years and had Reasonable suspicion of daytime robbery when he saw two guys walking up and down street suspiciously and looking into jewelry store. They joined with third party and walked away from store. Officer stopped people, they mumbled something about what they’re doing; officer frisked them; found revolvers. Court upheld stop and frisk.

Question 3

Terry Stop

Answer 3

“Stop and Frisk”: Police, when they have Reasonable Suspicion of criminal activity, may stop someone w/o a warrant. If police have RS that person may have weapon, they may also frisk the person to try and find weapons.

Question 4

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 4

Police go to Mapp’s house to search for evidence that was used to construct a bomb. They ask to search the house and she said No. They told her they had a warrant (which was a lie). She grabs the paper from it. Police search the house and find pornographic material, not the bomb.
Police ended up charging her under Ohio law that prohibited possession of obscene materials.
Court held that the constitution required the exclusionary rule.

Question 5

Massiah v. United States

Answer 5

Two suspects are arrested for importing drugs. One suspect agrees to cooperate with government, the other invokes right to counsel. Police put a radio in the car. They have a conversation and the other suspect Massiah gives incriminating statements.
The court holds that because the undercover agent was deliberately eliciting incriminating statements outside the presence of the lawyer. Once someone has been indicted, police cannot interrogate in the absence of counsel.

Question 6

Miranda v. Arizona

Answer 6

Prosecution may not use statements (exculpatory or inculpatory) stemming from custodial interrogation unless prosecution demonstrates procedural safeguards were used to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

Question 7

Miranda Warnings

Answer 7

1. he has right to remain silent (must be told this when taken into custody)  This lets the defendant know that they are not under coercion.
2. any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;  Lets the defendant know that there are costs and benefits of making statements
3. he has the right to presence of an attorney  Comes from the need to protect the fifth amendment right to counsel.
4. if he can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed to him