Pretextual Stops

Question 1

Whren v US

Answer 1

Facts: cops had suspicion that men were doing a drug deal so they saw them stop at a stop sign to long and pulled them over for a traffic violation and saw cocaine

Holding: Pretextual stops are not unconstitutional

Question 2

What is the Plain view doctrine

Answer 2

Another exception to the warrant requirement that allows officers to seize items that are in plain view

Question 3

What are the plain view requirements?

Answer 3

1. Officers mut be lawfully located in the place where she can gain access to the object
2. The items incriminating character must be immediately apparent (as soon as officer sees it, they must know its incriminating)

Question 4

Horton v California

Answer 4

Facts: Police had search warrant to look for proceeds of the robbery but instead saw a gun

Holding: Plain view doctrine established

Question 5

Minnesota v Dickerson

Answer 5

Facts: officers patted down D and felt a hard pea shape object, they believed it was crack and it was

Holding: Plain touch is analogous to the plain view doctrine

Question 6

What is the automobile exception to the warrant requirement

Answer 6

an officer can search a car as long as they have PC to believe it contains evidence of criminal activity (Carrol v US)

Question 7

C(ar)arrol v United States

Answer 7

Created automobile exception

Question 8

Can police search a car without a warrant at the police station if they believe the car contains evidence of criminal activity?

Answer 8

Yes: Chambers v Maroney

Question 9

Arizona v Hicks

Answer 9

Facts: Police entered D’s home and saw a stereo that looked out of place, they turned it over to find serial #s and learned that it was stolen

Holding: Plain view doctrine doesn’t apply, this was a seizure

Question 10

What are the 3 Exigent Circumstances

Answer 10

1. Hot pursuit
2. Police or public safety
3. Risk of destruction of evidense

Question 11

T or F: Hot Pursuit cannot apply where the suspect doesn’t know they are being pursued by the police

Answer 11

True

Question 12

What is the risk of destruction of evidence as an exigent circumstance

Answer 12

evidence will be destroyed in the time it takes to get a warrant

Question 13

What are the dorman factors that are used to determine the risk of destruction of evidence

Answer 13

gravity or violent nature of the offense
whether suspect is reasonably believed to be armed
a clear showing of PC that the suspect committed the crime
strong reason to believe that suspect is in the premises
likelihood suspect will try to escape
peaceful circumstances of the entry

Question 14

California v Acevedo

Answer 14

Facts:

Holding: allows warrantless search of cars when believe car contains contraband AND allows warrantless search of containers in the car when police have PC that the container contains contraband

Question 15

If police have PC to believe drugs are in a container in your trunk, can they search it

Answer 15

Yes

Question 16

After finding drugs in a container in your trunk, can the police search the rest of your vehicle

Answer 16

No

Question 17

If police have PC to believe there are drugs in a container in your trunk and they don’t find it in the trunk, can they search the rest of your car

Answer 17

Yes

Question 18

US v Chadwick rule for moveable objects (luggage, purses, etc)? (there are 2)

Answer 18

1. In order to seize a movable object the police don’t need a warrant if they have PC
2. In order to search a movable object the police need a warrant

Question 19

What is the police and public safety exigent circumstance?

Answer 19

warrantless searches or seizures if there is an objective reasonable basis for PC to believe that someone is in danger

Question 20

Kentucky v King

Answer 20

Police can create exigent circumstance

Facts: Officers went to wrong apartment to arrest someone for cocaine and knocked/announced and heard people moving inside quickly

Holding: even though police created a exigent circumstances it will still hold up in court