MidTerm Deck

Question 1

Probable Cause Definition

Answer 1

Viewed in a totality of circumstances, there is a substantial basis for knowledge or belief.

Question 2

What does Probable Cause Do?

Answer 2

P.C. makes a search or seizure reasonable.

Question 3

Why is Probable Cause imprecise?

Answer 3

Probable Cause is necessarily imprecise because it must be particularized to the person who is to be searched or seized. A reasonable ground of guilt must be particularized, it deals with probabilities and depends on a totality of circumstances. (MD v. Pringle)

Question 4

MD v. Pringle

Answer 4

Definition of PC has evolved through Supreme Court decisions. The substance of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt and the belief or guilt must be particularized with respect to the person being arrested.

Question 5

Knock and Announce Rule

Answer 5

(Hudson v. Michigan). Officers must wait a reasonable time after knocking and announcing before entering. If officers violate this rule, it does not necesarrily trigger the exclusionary rule (by itself).

Question 6

IL v. Gates

Answer 6

(Substantial basis for belief.) The task of the magistrate is to make a practical, common sense decision whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Question 7

Spinelli

Answer 7

Two prong test: 1) Veracity, and 2) Basis of Knowledge.

Question 8

Notes about Probability

Answer 8

0% – very uncertain
Probable Cause– sufficient to issue a warrant
50% – about half certain
Preponderance of Evid. – Civil trial wins here
Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Criminal trial wins here
100% – Completely sure: not likely to happen

Question 9

Magistrate

Answer 9

Must be neutral and detached (Gates AND Coolidge)

Question 10

Executive Branch

Answer 10

Can’t issue warrants. Cops and Prosecutors aren’t neutral or detached.

Question 11

Shadwick v. City of Tampa

Answer 11

Magistrates must be:

1) Neutral and detached.
2) Capable of determining whether PC exists.

Question 12

Ybarra v. IL

Answer 12

A search must be particularized to the person being seized. (you can’t arrest someone simply because they are ‘near’ or proximate to a person for whom you have a warrant).

Question 13

Horton v. CA

Answer 13

(Plain view Doctrine) Plain view seizures are not necessarily required to also be inadvertent.

Question 14

At common law, a person may be arrested when:

Answer 14

Misdemeanor or felony witnessed by officer OR Probable cause that a felony has occurred, or is about to be committed.

Question 15

US v. Watson

Answer 15

A government official (postal inspector) may arrest someone without a warrant upon probable cause if they believe the person has committed a felony. Supreme Court allows for warrantless arrest when exigent circumstances, because “we’ve always done it that way.”

Question 16

Atwater v. City of Lato Vista

Answer 16

Illustration of Common Law Arrest. The officer witnessed the driver and her kids driving without seat belts.

Question 17

Gerstein v. Pugh

Answer 17

If arrested as a result of an officers’ on-scene determination of P.C., a timely determination of P.C. is a prerequisite for detention.

Question 18

The County of Riverside v. McLaughlin

Answer 18

Timely determination of P.C. for detention is defined as 48 hours (but this is not a brightline).

Question 19

U.S. v. Robinson

Answer 19

Search incident to arrest (SITA). A full search of the person in custody is allowed for 1) officer safety and 2) preservation of evidence.

Question 20

Types of searches allowed without a warrant.

Answer 20

1) SITA

2) Terry stop

Question 21

Chimel v. California

Answer 21

Wingspan, Grab area. Everything within a person’s immediate control. Purpose: 1) Officer Safety and 2) Preservation of Evidence.

Question 22

Peyton v. New York

Answer 22

It is unconstitutional to search someone’s home without a warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist. The court draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.

Question 23

Steagald v. U.S.

Answer 23

An arrest warrant does not justify entry to the home of a third party without a search warrant.

Question 24

MD v. Buie

Answer 24

A protective sweep is authorized for officer safety reasons. This is a limited-scope search… a cursory inspection to look for compatriots lying in wait. The officer cannot re-enter the danger zone. The sweep my last no longer than necessary to complete the arrest, dispel suspicion of danger, and depart the premises.

Question 25

Katz v. US

Answer 25

1) 4th Amendment protects people, not places.
2) REP
3) Subjective belief
3) Objective belief.

Question 26

U.S. v. Jones

Answer 26

GPS on vehicle is a trepass, because vehicle is an “effect” under the language of the 4th Amendment.

Question 27

Arizona v. Hicks

Answer 27

1) If an officers disturbs an item to view it better, a search has occurred.
2) If an officer believes there is an immanent threat, entry is justified.

Scalia: “The Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few, in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

Question 28

Vale v. LA

Answer 28

Arrest on the street does not justify a search of the home. . . because Supreme Court protects the home.

Question 29

Bond v. U.S.

Answer 29

Personal luggage is an “effect”. Physical mainuplation of bag is a 4th Amendment Search.

Question 30

Segura v. U.S.

Answer 30

1) Entry into a home is okay if in hot pursuit.

2) It is okay to secure the premises to preserve the status quo, if others are seeking a warrant in good faith.

Question 31

Brigham City v. Stuart

Answer 31

Emergency Aid Doctrine: You may enter a residence to render emergency assistance or to protect from eminent injury. Why? Preservation of human life is valued higher than the privacy of the home.

Question 32

Welsh v. WI

Answer 32

If not hot pursuit, you can’t enter a house w/o a warrant.

Hot Pursuit: Immediate or continues pursuit of a suspect from the scene of a crime to another location.

Question 33

U.S. v. Edwards

Answer 33

It is permitted for a reasonable amount of time to elapse when seizing evidence (SITA) because the result would be the same whether taken at the time of arrest or at a later time.

Question 34

Schmerber v. CA

Answer 34

DUI blood draw at a hospital: Permissible to draw blood at a hospital against wishes of defendant, if P.C. because of threat of destruction of evidence.

Question 35

Winston v. Lee

Answer 35

Bullet wound: Court ordered surgery to remove a bullet is not a reasonable search. In this case, they ruled against it, but the court should evaluate on a case by case basis. Weighing between individual’s interest in privacy and security vs. societies interest in conducting procedure.

Question 36

Knowles v. IA

Answer 36

Speeding citation in lieu of arrest: Officer found marijuana on a search that was considered unconstitutional because there was no threat to safety or preservation of evidence.

Question 37

Whren v. US

Answer 37

Pretextual Stop: Decision to stop an automobile is reasonable when officer has P.C. to believe a traffic violation has occurred.

Question 38

U.S. v. Calandra

Answer 38

Exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceeding. Why? Minimal deterrence . . . a prosecutor would not likely go to grand jury if a conviction could not be obtained.

Question 39

IL v. Krull

Answer 39

Evidence is admissible because the search was made in good faith.

Question 40

Groh v. Ramirez

Answer 40

If a warrant is facially deficient, evidence is inadmissible. A good warrant must contain 1) place to be searched, person or things to be seized.

Question 41

U.S. v. Leon

Answer 41

Evidence is admissible if police relied in good faith on magistrates PC warrant. Why? Deterrence purpose of exclusionary rule.

Question 42

Mapp v. Ohio

Answer 42

Applies Weeks to the states. All evidence obtained by illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in state courts.

Question 43

Weeks v. U.S.

Answer 43

Federal Exclusionary Rule

Question 44

U.S. v. Karo

Answer 44

Beeper in chemicals, no reasonable expectation of privacy because the beeper isn’t transmitting personal information, until it enters into the home where REP.

Question 45

Kylle v. U.S.

Answer 45

REP in home. Thermal imaging is a search.

Question 46

CA v. Greenwood

Answer 46

No REP of garbage on a street curb.

Question 47

Oliver v. U.S.

Answer 47

No REP in open fields, neither open, nor field.

Question 48

FL v. Riley

Answer 48

No REP by helicopter fly over.