Seizure Cases

Question 1

California v. Hodari (1991)

Issue, Holding

Answer 1

• Issue: Whether Hodari was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes at the time he dropped the drugs
• Holding: No, Hodari was not seized at the time he dropped the drugs because:
  1. No physical force was applied to him at the time or previously, and
  2. He had not submitted to the police officers’ assertion of authority

police chase after kid, kid threw the drugs in the bushes

Question 2

Torres v. Madrid (2021)

Issue, Holding

Answer 2

• Issue: Whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting
• Holding: Yes, a seizure does occur when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting
  (at least when applied to the narrow facts of Torres)

thought officers was stealing car, she then stole a car…

Question 3

Hodari two part test

Answer 3

1. any physical restraint, OR
2. Submission to a show of authority

Question 4

When was Torres seized?

Answer 4

• the officers seized Torres from the instant the
  bullet struck her.
• no continuing arrest, lasts only as long as the application of force
• driving away, not seized. writhing on the ground, seized.

Question 5

Whren v. United States (1996)

Holding, Issues

Answer 5

• Issue: Whether an arrest or other Fourth Amendment seizure, such as a traffic stop, made on probable cause may be nonetheless be “unreasonable” because of the police officer’s subjective motives.
• Holding:
  1. Police officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant
  2. So long as a traffic stop is supported by probable cause
  that a traffic violation has occurred, the seizure (traffic
  stop) is lawful under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of officer’s ulterior motives

pulled over for driving violation, believed that they did a drug deal

Question 6

Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001)

Issue, Holding

Answer 6

• Issue: Whether the 4th Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor
• Holding:
  1. No – probable cause standard, allowing a warrantless arrest, applies to all arrests
  2. If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a minor criminal offense in his presence, the
  officer may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender

Arrested for no seatbelt

Question 7

Under Atwater, can arrest for

Answer 7

traffic violations

Question 8

Spinelli v. United States (1969)

Holding, Issue, Test

Answer 8

• Issue: Whether a confidential informant’s tip is sufficient probable cause to support a search warrant?
• Holding: No here it doesnt. Out of all the info the cops knew the fact that the informant said that Spinelli was using certain phone numbers in an apartment to place illegal bets, was the only thing that gave probable cause. (Court found it wasn’t enough and did not pass the aguilar- spinelli test.)

Question 9

Aguilar-Spinelli Test

Answer 9

1. Basis of Knowledge- how did informant get the info?
2. Veractity Prong: Why should I believe this person?
   - Creditablity of the information
   - Reliability of the information

Question 10

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

Answer 10

• Issue: Whether a confidential informant’s tip is sufficient probable cause to support a search/arrest warrant
• Holding:
  1. 2 prong test is relevant, just with the totality of the circumstances
  2. Commits to standard of review of PC determinations: ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed

Letter saying couple is bringing drugs from Flordia with lots of detail

Question 11

Illinois v. Gates totality of the circumstances

Answer 11

1. includes consideration of basis of knowledge and veracity
2. Allows magistrate to consider seemingly innocent conduct in proper context
   - in area known for durgs?
   - timing of trip
   - driving on drug corridor?

Question 12

Maryland v. Pringle (2003)

Issue, Holding

Answer 12

• Issue: Whether police had probable cause to arrest the defendant
• Holding:
  Court applies a totality of circumstances test
  1. Time of day
  2. cash in car
  3. location of the cocaine
  4. “the three men failed to offer any information”
  5. If your drug dealing, wouldn’t invite an innocent person
  A reasonable officer could conclude there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession, either solely or jointly