Stop and Frisk Flashcards
Terry v. Ohio (S. Ct. 1968) (The Petitioner, John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.)
An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous.
Illinois v. Wardlow (S. Ct. 2000) (Defendant William Wardlow was stopped and frisked after looking towards police officers and then running in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking.)
Nervous, evasive behavior and location in a high crime area are relevant factors in determining the reasonable suspicion necessary for a Terry stop under the Fourth Amendment.
Whren v. U.S. (S. Ct. 1996) (A stopped vehicle attracted the attention of a vice officer. A subsequent chase and search revealed drugs.)
In a conventional civil traffic stop, the Fourth Amendment is met by the traditional common-law rule that probable cause justifies a search and seizure.
U.S. v. Mendenhall (S. Ct. 1980) (Once at the office, the agents asked if she would consent to a search of her bag and her person. She agreed. As she was undressing, two packages of heroin that Mendenhall was hiding on her person were discovered. They had given her her ticket back and she was free to go before this search took place).
A Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurs when a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave police custody.
Florida v. Royer (S. Ct. 1983) (Is moving a suspect detained pursuant to Terry to another location proper if the officers could have done the search at the initial location?)
Moving a suspect detained pursuant to Terry to another location is improper if the officers failed to diligently perform the search. Unnecessary delay suggests the Terry stop is more akin to an arrest, which requires probable cause.
Florida v. Bostick (S. Ct. 1991) (Does a police request for identification and consent to search private belongings amount to a seizure when the police inform the subject of the right to refuse consent to questioning and search?)
A police request for identification and consent to search private belongings does not amount to a seizure when the police inform the subject of the right to refuse consent to questioning and search.
California v. Hodari D. (S. Ct. 1991) (Does a Fourth Amendment seizure occur where an officer makes a show of authority but the subject does not succumb or surrender?)
A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs where the police exercise physical force over a subject or where a subject submits to an officer’s show of authority.
U.S. v. Sharpe (S. Ct. 1985) (Is a detention justified as an investigative stop if police diligently pursue a means of investigation that is likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly?)
A detention is not too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop if police diligently pursue a means of investigation that is likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it is necessary to detain the suspect.
Pennsylvania v. Mims (S. Ct. 1977) (man was pulled over for expired license, asked to step out of the car while the officer wrote the ticket. officer saw bulge and searched him finding an illegal handgun.
Officer safety outweighed the “minor indignity” suffered by a driver who is asked to step out of the car during a traffic stop.
Maryland v. Wilson (S. Ct. 1997) (During a routine traffic stop, the officer ordered both the driver and the passengers out of the car.)
In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. Interrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.
Simpler v. State (Md. Ct. App. 1990) (The officer approaches young people in the woods suspecting underage drinking. He asked for licenses, and he received them. He pats them down, finding narcotics. The officer patted down defendant because he remembers that during his last encounter with the defendant, the defendant had a carpenter’s blade.)
The court held that the pat down was unreasonable because the officer did not fear for his safety (since it was just underage drinking) and the officer had no reason for a pat down since he wasn’t planning on transporting the defendant. The defendant had never been hostile to officers.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (S. Ct. 1993) (May a police officer performing a patdown search for weapons seize other contraband detected during the search?)
A police officer performing a patdown search for weapons may seize other contraband detected during the search so long as the scope of the protective search is not expanded to an evidentiary search.
Michigan v. Long (S. Ct. 1983) (David Long was convicted for possession of marijuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers.)
The search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. The balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous
Plain View Doctrine requires:
(1) the police officer observed the object from a lawful vantage point, (2) the officer has a lawful right of physical access to the object, (3) the objects nature as contraband, fruit, or evidence is immediately apparent.
Search incident to a valid arrest, a “person” entails
the entire arrestee, including his or her pockets, containers within pockets, containers immediately associated with the arrestee (like a backpack) that are large enough to conceal a weapons or evidence of a crime.
