Probable Cause and Warrants

Question 1

What is probable cause?

Answer 1

Where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.

Question 2

Fellow Officer Rule

Answer 2

Officers can rely on the probable cause of another officer, if and only if, the information known to Officer 1 establishes probable cause.

Question 3

Collective knowledge doctrine

Answer 3

knowledge known to one officer, but not communicated to the other officer, is treated as if both officers have the knowledge for probable cause.

Question 4

What is required in a valid search warrant?

Answer 4

1. based on probable cause
2. supported by oath or affirmation

Question 5

Anguilar-Spinelli Test

Answer 5

An informant is telling the truth and learned the information in a reliable way if:
* basis of knowledge (self-verifying details)
* veracity prong (basis for thinking the informant is truthful)
* * credibility spur - track record of informant
* * reliability spur - reasons to think that the information is truthful absend a track record

Question 6

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

Answer 6

Reasonableness of probable cause determined by a magistrate if: based on the totality of circumstances, there’s a fair probability that evidence sought would be found.

Question 7

What does Illinois v. Gates add to the Anguilar-Spinelli test?

Answer 7

Adds the totality of circumstances

Question 8

McCray v. Illinois (1967)

Answer 8

Due process doesn’t require a judge to compel the disclosure of an informant’s identity in every probable cause or evidence suppression hearing.

Question 9

Franks v. Delaware (1978)

Answer 9

A defendant may challenge the trustfulness of statements made udner oath in an affidavit supporting a warrant under limited circumstances.

Question 10

Payton v. New York (1980)

Answer 10

Warrantless searches and seizures made inside the home are presumptively unreasonable.

Question 11

Gerstein v. Pugh (1975)

Answer 11

The 4th Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to the extended restraint of liberty following an arrest.

Question 12

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991)

Answer 12

A jurisdiction must provide a probable cause determination within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest, absent a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstances.

Question 13

Minnesota v. Olson (1991)

Answer 13

A warrantless intrusion may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or imminent destruction of evidence, or the need to prevent the suspect’s escape, or the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of the dwelling.

Question 14

Steagald v. U.S. (1981)

Answer 14

absent consent or exigent circumstances, such untested determinations are not reliable enough to justify a search of the home for objects absent a warrant.

Question 15

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Answer 15

Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to law enforcement or to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend the suspect doesn’t justify the use of deadly force to do so.

Question 16

Johnson v. U.S. (1948)

Answer 16

The 4th Amendment requires that the inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

Question 17

True or False: searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval, are per se unreasonable.

Johnson v. U.S. (1948)

Answer 17

True

Question 18

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (1979)

Answer 18

Probable cause of criminal activity must be present before the issuance of a warrant.

Question 19

What must a warrant require?

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (1979)

Answer 19

• must specifically describe the things to be seized;
• must be based on probable cause;
• must be issued by a detached magistrate.

Question 20

Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

Answer 20

The 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures contains and implicit knock and announce requirement

Question 21

When does the knock and announce requirement not apply?

Answer 21

When there are threats of physcial violence, following an escaping prisoner into their dwelling, or where there’s reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given.

Question 22

Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)

Answer 22

In order to justify a no-knock entry, police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futil, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime.

Question 23

How long must police wait after knocking and announcing their presence to justify forcible entry?

U.S. v. Banks (2003)

Answer 23

15-20 seconds

Question 24

What can officers do when executing a warrant?

Illinois v. McArthur (2001)

Answer 24

1. search containers large enough to hold the criminal evidence they’re searching for;
2. seize an object not described in the warrant if they have probable cause to believe it is a seizable item.

Question 25

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

Answer 25

information officers immediately learn before or during the search may narrow the search or require them to cease, notwithstanding the dictates of the warrant.

Question 26

Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)

Answer 26

Officers must have independent probable cause to search a person and some justification for conducting the search without a warrant before searching a person not explicitly named in a search warrant.

Question 27

Michigan v. Summers (1981)

Answer 27

A warrant to search a residence, founded on probable cause, to search for contraband carries with it a limited authoirty to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.

Question 28

Bailey v. United States (2013)

Answer 28

The right of detention doesn’t require law enforcement to have particular suspicion that an individual seized is involved in criminal activity or poses a threat to the officers; however, once an individual has left the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, the Summers rule doesn’t apply.

Question 29

Muehler v. Mena (2005)

Answer 29

The right to detain an occupant during a warranted search of a residence necessarily includes the right to use reasonable force to secure and maintain detention of the occupant.

Question 30

When are warrants required?

Katz v. U.S. (1967)

Answer 30

Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior judicial approval, are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established exceptions.