Legal Guide for Police, 7th Edition Flashcards
By way of the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS uses the ____ _______ clause to establish minimum standards to be followed by all LEOs.
due process
The question in Malley v Briggs, 475 US 335 (1986) is whether a _______ ____-_______ officer in petitioner’s position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.
reasonably well-trained
When a civil action is initiated against a police officer or a police administrator, it is generally brought against the ____ ____ of the jurisdiction.
tort law
The plaintiff in a tort action must prove what (4) four things?
- the defendant had a duty;2. the defendant breached that duty;3. there was a casual connection between the breach of duty and the plaintiff’s injury; and4. the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the breach
Judgement in a tort action may be rendered by a ______ jury. It only requires preponderance of the evidence to be found liable.
nonunanimous
The civil rights statute that provides civil remedies for official misconduct was enacted by Congress in 1871 and is now codified as Title ___ United States Code § ____ and often referred to as _____ actions.
Title 42 United States Code § 1983, 1983
To successfully pursue an action in federal court under § 1983 the person who claims injury must establish what (2) two things?
- the defendant deprived the injured party of “rights, privileges, or immunities” secured by the Constitution; and2. the defendant acted “under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.”
When initiating an action under § 1983, the plaintiff alleges what?
the defendant acted under “color of law” and deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that ______ ______ protects government officials in performing ______ ______ from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a _____ _____ would have known.
qualified immunity, discretionary functions, reasonable person
Determining whether qualified immunity is entitled, the court provided what two-step analysis?
- whether the law governing the official conduct was clearly established2. whether, under the law, a reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct was lawful (objectively reasonable)
A state law that immunizes government conduct otherwise subject to suit under § 1983 is preempted by the _____ _____ of the US Constitution.
supremacy clause
The civil rights statute that provides for criminal charges was enacted in 1886 and is now codified as Title ___ United Stated Code § _____.
Title 18 United States Code § 242
Title 18 § 242 requires that a federal prosecutor introduce evidence to show what three things?
- person charged acted under color of law;2. there was a deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the US; and3. the defendant acted willfully or intentionally to deprive a person of their rights
Title 18 § 242 (criminal ) differs from § 1983 (civil) by adding the third requirement that the officer who acted under the color of law did so _____ or _____.
willfully or intentionally
The defendant acted willfully if he did so _____, as opposed to _____ or _____.
deliberately, accidentally or negligently
Under the _____ _____ doctrine, a master is liable for the acts of a servant.
respondeat superior
Vicarious liability makes it essential that supervisors and agencies provide appropriate _____ and _____.
training and oversight
A __ ____ policy cannot be established by one act of an officer who is not acting in an official decision making capacity.
de facto
If a cause of action is based on accusation of inadequate training, a _____ must be established or substantial proof that the policy was established or acquiesced in by a municipal policymaker.
pattern
The doctrine of _____ _____ is inapplicable to § 1983, but municipalities are considered “_____” within the meaning of § 1983 and may be held liable if constitutional harm suffered was a result of official policy, custom, or pattern.
respondeat superior, persons
The courts have recognized that municipalities and police administrators have an affirmative duty to ____ the police officers they employee. A breach of that duty, which proximately causes injury to the plaintiff, can result in _____ _____ on the part of the administrator or liability on the part of the agency.
train; person liability
SCOTUS agreed with the trial court that a city can be held liable under § 1983 for inadequate training of its employees, but only where the failure to train amounts to _____ _____ to the rights of people with whom the police come into contact.
deliberate indifference
In order for municipal liability to attach, there must be a _____ ______ between the failure to train and the ultimate injury and the deficiency in the city’s training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury.
causal connection
In order to hold the city or agency liable under § 1983 for failure to train, the plaintiff must introduce evidence that shows what three things?
- the municipality failed to train the officer for the specific duty assigned;2. the failure to train amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of person with whom the police officer came into contact; and3. the deficiency in the city’s training program was closely related to the ultimate injury
Supervisors may also be liable under § 1983 if they were personally involved in the violation if they ____, ____, or ____ caused the deprivation of the constitutional right by his own action or failure to act.
knowingly, willfully, or recklessly
In Samuels v LeFevre, a federal court said that a supervisor can be held liable under § 1983 as being personally involved in what three circumstances?
- failed to remedy the wrong after hearing of a violation through report or appeal2. created a policy or custom under which the constitutional violations occurred or allowed a custom or a policy to continue; or3. was grossly negligent in managing the subordinates who committed the violations.
In 1914, in Weeks v. United States, SCOTUS established the _____ ____. This intially only applied to ____ officers, but was changed in 1961 to include ____ courts also.
exclusionary rule; federal, state
SCOTUS noted in Nix v. Williams that the rationale for the exclusionary rule is that the ____ of the unlawful police conduct should be excluded to prevent constitutional breaches.
fruits
The state’s police power is limited by what three things?
- rights guaranteed by the Constitution;2. necessity of a legitimate public purpose; and3. a reasonable exercise of that power
What article of the Constitution mandates that all executive and judicial officers, federal and state, be bound by oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution?
Article VI
Which amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures of persons or property?
Fourth Amendment
Which amendment assures that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to be confronted by witnesses against him, and the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense?
Sixth Amendment
Which amendment provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself, and no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?
Fifth Amendment
Which amendment adds that STATES shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? Previously it only applied federally under the 5th Amendment.
14th Amendment
Constitutional jurisprudence provides for what 3 types of contact between citizens and the police?
- consensual encounters2. brief detention under Terry v Ohio3. full-fledged arrest
An investigative detention, or ____ ____, justifies a seizure if articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts support reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a crime.
Terry stop
A detaining officer must have knowledge of ____, ____ facts that, if taken together with rational inferences from these facts, reasonably warrant the stop.
specific, articulable
Reasonable suspicion can be based on what 4 things?
- info from reliable persons;2. reports from other agencies;3. the individual is in an area of expected criminal activity; and4. unprovoked flight from officers
____ v ____ provides that an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop.
Terry v Ohio
What case provided that officers are justified in suspecting that a defendant was involved in criminal activity based on the combination of their presence in an area of frequent narcotics trafficking and the defendant’s unprovoked flight upon noticing them?
Illinois v Wardlow
Unprovoked flight upon seeing a police officer DOES / DOES NOT in and of itself justify reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and, therefore, justify a Terry stop.
does not…it is, however, a factor to be considering along with being in a high crime area.
What case by SCOTUS in 1981 made it clear that the Terry stop reasoning applied to automobile situations?
US v Cortez
What SCOTUS case concluded that setting up roadblocks in search of drug trafficking violated the 4th Amendment?
Indianapolis v Edmond
What SCOTUS case concluded that setting up a roadblock at the same time, date, and area of a hit/skip was constitutional as a way to find out if there were any witnesses to the crime?
Illinois v Lidster
What are three Supreme Court cases that deal with roadblocks and checkpoints?
Michigan Department of State Police v Sitz (DUI)Indianapolis v Edmond (drugs)Illinois v Lidster (hit/skip info)
It is the command of the _____ Amendment that no warrants shall either for searches or arrest be issued except for _____ _____.
4th, probable cause (Henry v US 1959)
What are three elements of an arrest?
- Intent. intent of officer to take the person into custody2. Authority. real or assumed authority of the arresting officer3. Custody. person arrested must come within custody and control of the law
In Michigan v Chesternut (1988), SCOTUS said that police can be said to have seized an individual “only if, in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed..” what?
he was not free to leave
What are seven requirements of a valid arrest warrant?
- supported by probable cause2. supported by oath or affirmation3. person to be seized must be particularly described4. state nature of offense5. must designate officer or class of officers directed to comply6. must be named in US or a particular State7. must be issued and signed by a neutral and detached judge
Illinois v Gates in 1983 established the “_____ __ __ _____” approach for a magistrate to issue a warrant. In this case, the Supreme Court abandons the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
totality of the circumstances
What are six requirements relating to the execution of an arrest warrant?
- must be specifically named or come within the class designated in the warrant2. must be executed within jurisdictional limits3. arresting officer should make his purpose known4. must show warrant or advise arrestee of the warrant5. must have reason to believe the suspect is present in the home6. absent exigent circumstances, an arrest warrant cannot be executed in the home of a 3rd party
A warrant issued in one state may serve ______ as a basis for an arrest in another state.
indirectly
An out-of-state warrant may serve as the basis for for issuing a _____ warrant in another state.
fugitive
In _____ v _____, a federal court commented that an arrest warrant founded on PC implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter the dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe that the suspect is within.
Smith v Tolley (1997)
In _____ v _____, SCOTUS held that absent exigent circumstances or consent, police may not enter the home of a suspect or a 3rd party to make a routine felony arrest without an arrest warrant.
Payton v New York (1980)
In Minnesota v Olson (1990), SCOTUS observed that what elements can constitute exigent circumstances for warrantless intrusion?
- hot pursuit of a fleeing felon2. imminent destruction of evidence or prevent a suspect’s escape3. risk of danger to police or others inside or outside of building
In 1991, in County of Riverside v McLaughlin, SCOTUS determined that a probable cause hearing must be held within ___ hours of the arrest.
48 hours
A PC determination may be delayed past 48 hours, but burden is upon the government to show what?
emergency or extraordinary circumstances existed
Many states have adopted the _____ _____ _____ ___ permitting LEOs from other states to enter their state in fresh pursuit to make an arrest.
Uniform Fresh Pursuit Act
Officers may not enter the home of a third party to serve an arrest warrant unless one of three conditions exist. What are those conditions?
- search warrant2. consent3. exigent circumstances
____ v____ held that evidence obtained through illegal searches would be inadmissible on the state and federal level.
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
The _____ rule, established in 1914 at the federal level, provides that evidence obtained in an unreasonable search and seizure will not be admissible in court.
exclusionary
In Nix v Williams, SCOTUS held that the exclusionary rule only applies in _____ procedings
criminal
What are five exceptions to the exclusionary rule?
- Good faith2. Impeachment purposes3. Grand Jury proceedings4. Non-criminal proceedings5. Inevitable discovery
The good faith exception is typically limited to errors made by who?
a magistrate
In US v Leon, SCOTUS established what?
good faith exception
In Nix v Williams, SCOTUS established what?
inevitable discovery & exclusionary rule as it pertains to right to counsel
What are three general requirements under which a search warrant can be issued?
- based on PC2. supported by oath or affirmation3. place to be searched and things to be seized are particularly described
The _____ _____ doctrine allows the introduction of evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search but later obtained independently from lawful activities untainted by the initial illegality.
independent source
In Illinois v Gates, SCOTUS held that probable cause to support a search warrant must be determined by examining the _____ __ __ _____.
totality of the circumstances
In _____ v _____, SCOTUS abandoned the two-pronged test established in Aguilar v Texas and Spinelli v US in favor the totality of the circumstances test.
Illinois v Gates
According to State v Mitchell, officers can seize articles not described in the warrant under what three circumstances?
- observed in plain view where an officer is in a place he has a right to be;2. discovery is inadvertent; and3. it is apparent to the officer that he is viewing evidence
In executing a search warrant, what are five guidelines an officer must follow?
- executed by officer(s) so commanded2. executed within certain time limitations3. only necessary force must be used4. prior notice and demand should normally proceed forcible entry5. only property described may be seized
In US v Arttieri (1974), the court listed what three exceptions to the knock and announce rule?
- person’s within already know of the officer’s authority and purpose;2. person’s within are in immediate danger of bodily harm; or3. those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside, are engaged in activity that lead the officer to believe that an escape or destruction of evidence is taking place
In US v Banks (2003), the court established that police need only wait a ____ amount of time before breaking down the door when notice has been given without response. The court found that ___ seconds was reasonable.
reasonable; 20 seconds
As established by SCOTUS, the Fourth Amendment requires that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence. This is known as the _____ ___ _____ rule.
knock and announce rule
A search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed due to what two factors?
- protect the arresting officer2. prevent the destruction of evidence
What are four requirements before a search incident to an arrest may be made?
- must be lawful2. only certain articles may be seized3. search must be made contemporaneously with arrest4. arrest must be in good faith
In Arizona v Gant (2009), SCOTUS decided that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest under what two circumstances?
arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which he/she was arrested
In _____ v _____, SCOTUS held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach/control of the person.
Chimel v California (1969)
In _____ v _____, an officer has the proper authority to make an arrest may make a full search of the arrestee, although such evidence has no direct connection to the arrest.
US v Robinson (1974)
In Mincey v. Arizona (1978), SCOTUS said that there is no _____ _____ exception to the 4th amendment.
murder scene
In Maryland v. Buie (1990), SCOTUS said that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited _____ _____ in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a _____ _____ based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. These searches are limited to a ____ ____ of the premises.
protective sweep, reasonable belief; cursory inspection
In New York v. Belton (1981), SCOTUS held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the ____ ____ of that automobile. Must also follow more recent Arizon v Gant (2009) ruling.
passenger compartment
What are four considerations for determine whether consent to search is valid?
- must be voluntary2. limited to exact words or meaning of consent3. consent may be withdrawn4. person giving consent must have capacity to do so
In US v Robinette (1996), SCOUTS held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to inform a motorist during a traffic stop that they are “___ __ __” before asking questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop.
free to go
In US v Matlock (1974), SCOTUS held that the consent of one who possesses _____ _____ over the premises or effects is valid against the absent, non-consenting person with whom the authority is shared.
common authority
In Georgia v Randolph (2006), SCOTUS held that police CAN / CANNOT search if one person consents and other person, who is also present, does not.
CANNOT
If an adult child has a room that he/she uses exclusively, allows no one else in the room, and the child is paying rent specifically for that room, the parent CAN / CANNOT give consent to search.
CANNOT
In Commonwealth v Lowery (1982), however, SCOTUS said that if an adult child has access to the entire house, never manifested an expectation of privacy in his room, and both child and parent have joint control and access over the room, the parent CAN / CANNOT provide consent even if the child pays rent.
CAN
