Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Procedure > TEST 3 > Flashcards

TEST 3 Flashcards

1
Q

Chimel v California (1969)

A

“Grabable area”- LEOs have arrest warrant for Chimel for burglarizing coin shop; go to house, ask to look around, says no. LEOs decide search incident to arrest and searched the entire house, making wife move things to search; Was warrantless each of his home good as incident to arrest? SC said NO because incident to arrest is just search of grabable area- area w/i their control/around them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Draper v US (1959)

A

Informant says Draper is smuggling narcotics- detailed the guy as being light-skinned black, 5’8” tan zipper bag and walking fast; stops and arrests Draper and finds heroin; informant dies 4 days later; S.C. said good search because had PC to corroborate what informant said

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Florida v Bostick (1991)

A

on bus, searched and found dope; said he didn’t feel free to leave because if they got off bus, it would leave without them. SC said just because you m iss the bus doesn’t mean you are seized by the LEOs. Good seach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Florida v Royer (1983)

A

Royer stopped in airport; LEO takes ticket and ID, keeps it while asking Royer to follow him to private room for questioning etc; Royer did not feel free to leave because LEO had ticket and ID, therefore, unlawful seizure, with only RS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Franks v Delaware (1978)

A

warrant granted on basis of false statement; woman attacked in her home, calls LEOs and describes the guy; arrest him and search his apartment and finds weapons and other evid; said false statements in affadavit; SC said Franks had right to challenge veracity of sworn statement, so they reversed and remanded to prove whether or not there were false statements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Graham v Connor (1989)

A

NON DEADLY FORCE CASE; Graham is diabetic having reaction. Gets friend to drive to store for orange juice; line is too long, quickly leaves; LEO things he robbed so he follows car and stops him; Graham gets out and runs around trying to stay alert, LEO thinks he’s drunk; LEOs practically beat him up-serious injuries; Excessive force? YES. PREVIOUSLY USED 14th AMEND. SUBJECTIVE reasonableness but NOW uses 4th amend objective reasonableness standard!!!!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Illinois v Gates (1983)

A

Changed law from Anguilar-Spinelli to Totality of circumstances; informant-written letter saying Lance and Susan Gates dealing dope and lots of drugs in basement; not enough for RS so LEOs watched them until they had PC for search warrant- found drugs; SC said good search with good PC; Can’t judge veracity in anonymous letter, so can’t always use A-S test, so they switched to ToC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Illinois v Rodriguez (1990)

A

APPARENT AUTHORITY OBJECTIVE TEST; go to womans home and find daughter beaten up by lover- takes LEOs to “our” apartment where she has her belongings and has a key; no warrant, but she gave permission to search; find drugs etc; arrested; motion to suppress because she had moved out and had no authority to consent; SC reversed and remanded to look at question of objective reasonableness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Illinois v Wardlow (2000)

A

8 uniformed LEO in 4-car caravan in well known drug trafficking area; see wardlow holding opaque bag sees LEO and runs; pat down, squeezed bag and found gun; SC said LEO had RS to search

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Knowles v Iowa (1998)

A

Search incident to citation- Knowles stopped for speeding and given citation; LEO searched car based on citation and finds marijuana and pipe; arrest on drug charges; motion to suppress because not under arrest before search; SC said NOT good search because he only had citation, not arrested. Fully stopped cars can only be searched when officer safety is at risk, NOT for citation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Maryland v Garrison (1987)

A

if you reasonably believe you’re in the right place of the warrant, the search is good; LEOs have warrant to search 3rd floor apartment for drugs; didn’t know there were 2 3rd floor apartments and went to the wrong one where there was also drugs. Arrested. Motion to suppress because no warrant. SC said GOOD search because reasonably believed they were in right place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

McCray v Illinois (1967)

A

McCray arrested without warrant based off of PC gained from a trustworthy informant; SC said good search because veracity of informant proved PC, didnt need to identify informant, just prove veracity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

New York v Belton (1981)

A

LEO pulls over speeding car, smells marijuana; saw envelop labeled with drug name; gets teens out of the car and arrests them, checks passenger compartment and inside pocket of leather jacket on back seat; finds marijuana; search of jacket good incident to arrest? YES. SC said good to search contents of any containers in the passenger compartment of a car

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Payton v New York (1980)

A

Must have warrant to make non-emergency arrest in someone’s home- warrantless search of a home is presumed unreasonable- burden is on state to prove PC; LEO goes to house w/o warrant, knowing that the dude killed someone, breaks down the door and finds shell casings/evid. in plain view which he thought justified more searching; SC also dealing with Riddick case where 3 yo answered door and gave consent to enter; SC said search NOT good in either cases and changed NY law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Rakas v Illinois (1978)

A

Car pulled over for matching the description of a car used in a getaway; neither passenger owned the car; police found shotgun and shells in the back seat; can evidence be held to them if they didn’t own the car? SC said good search- they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a car that they did not own

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Richards v Wisconsin (1997)

A

Drug possession; no-knock entry; LEOs go to his hotel room with warrant (but not no-knock warrant) and knock saying its the custodian; Richards answers and slams the door on them; tries to flush evid.; deceptive act of LEOs good? SC said YES goo entry because they knew if they knocked and announced, they would lose evid.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Schneckloth v Bustamonte (1973)

A

LEO stops car for broken lights (PC); 6 men in car; only 1 has ID (not driver); got consent to search car and found 3 stolen checks; question of whether consent to search was voluntary- SC said GOOD search; didn’t have to tell them they had the right to not cooperate; CHANGED RULE from waiving rights to voluntariness test (whether the consent was voluntary)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Tennessee v Garner (1985)

A

DEADLY FORCE; kid breaks in to house; LEO gets call from neighbor and goes to investigate; found kid running out of house, didn’t appear to be armed; LEO thought he would jump the fence and escape so he shot Garner and killed him (good under the law of the time to shoot a fleeing felon); SC said good shot under current law BUT changed law to make that not allowed because of this case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

U.S. v Leon (1984)

A

GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION; warrant not based on PC, but LEOs didn’t know that. Therefore they acted IN GOOD FAITH and evid was admissible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

US v Mendenhall (1980)

A

plurality decision- girl walking through airport- DEA stopped and asked for ID and ticket- didn’t have same name; DEA asked to talk to her more, she said yes, frisked and found dope; question over whether she felt free to leave; DEA not req to tell her she doesn’t have to cooperate so NO VIOL of 4th

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

US v Robinson (1973)

A

Arrested for driving without license (misdemeanor); Did a frisk, found lump in pocket and pulled out heroin in cig. case; motion to suppress because no right to search- SC said GOOD SEARCH because you are ALWAYS allowed to search a person that you are authorized to take into custody. decision to search is discretionary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Whren v US (1996)

A

search incident to pretextual stop- Whren and Brown in high crime area, driving SUV. stop at stop sign for over 20 sec. unmarked cop car u-turns to check it out and they turned right without signaling and took off suddenly; pulled over for failure to signal; guy was holding drugs; question of whether it was a pretextual stop; SC said GOOD stop; pretextual stop is OK, pretextual arrest is NOT, as long as stop had PC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Wilson v Arkansas (1995)

A

Wilson selling drugs to undercover cop; set up a meeting where Wilson threatened cop with gun if she was a cop; LEOs later went to Wilson’s house with search and arrest warrants; main door was unlocked so they entered and found drugs and guns etc; tried to suppress because failure to knock-and-announce; SC said her right to privacy was violated so evid. was suppressed. Entry NOT reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Wyoming v Houghton (1999)

A

LEO stopped car for speeding w/ faulty brake light; officer noticed syringe in guy’s pocket; got him out of car and asked what syringe was for, he said drugs; asked to search car, said yes, looked in girlfriend’s purse and found more drug stuff; challenged the search of her purse; SC said GOOD search because good stop, PC from syringe to search, therefore the container in the car could be searched. Would have needed a warrant if only RS, but had PC so good to go

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Ybarra v Illinois (1979)

A

Informant says theres heroin at this bar and tells date and time of future sale; LEOs get warrant; LEOs enter and announce, warning they are going to do search for weapons; officer felt lump in guys pocket, continued to search others and came back to take out lump and found heroin; tried to suppress. SC said BAD search because general suspicion that drug dealing went on in the tavern by itself is not enough for RS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What are the 3 ways of contact between officers and people?

A
  1. consensual- stopped on street and asked to answer questions
  2. detained/detention- detained but not arrested- takes RS
  3. Arrested- need PC
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is an objective expectation?

A

would a reasonable person believe that are free to leave?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

When is someone arrested?

A

When they are taken into custody against their will and are not free to leave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

When do Miranda rights apply?

A

when yu are going to ask them incriminating questions; arrest does NOT automatically require miranda rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What are the 3 things to look at with arrests?

A
  1. duration
  2. location of holding
  3. how invasive?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

T/F: Probable cause is equal to articulable suspicion

A

FALSE- articulable suspicion is just RS

32
Q

What is PC?

A

enough facts and circumstances that based on LEOs training and experience he believes that a crime has been/is being/is about to be committed and that a the person in suspect has/is/will be committing that crime

33
Q

What is corpus delict?

A

body of the crime

34
Q

what are the 4 sources of PC?

A

observation
circumstantial evid
information
expertise

35
Q

What is observation

A

what you see/hear/smell/taste/touch; direct

36
Q

what is circumstantial evid?

A

points to one thing rather than something else; can’t prove you did it but the compiled evid based on circumstanced, we can conclude that ___

37
Q

what is information?

A

info from someone else ex: BOLO, another officer etc

38
Q

What is expertise?

A

specialization in area of expertise ex: burglary unit or gang unit

39
Q

What are the 2 combined, main sources of PC?

A

direct and indirect

40
Q

T/F: nervousness of the suspect alone is enough for RS

A

FALSE

41
Q

What is admitted ownership?

A

Direct source- says “its my purse” and it has crack in it, they admit that it is theirs so good PC

42
Q

What are false/improbable answers?

A

Form of direct source- “it’s not my purse” or “its not my car, its my cousins” but doesn’t remember his cousins name; not necessarily enough for PC but could possibly warrant further questioning;

43
Q

T/F: being present at a crime scene or in a high crime area is enough direct source to warrant PC

A

FALSE- but it could possibly warrant further questioning

44
Q

What is the joint possession rule?

A

ex: LEO goes to house b/c call from neighbor about noise from a party; door opens and weed smoke hits LEO hard, he has reason to enter the house now. Who is responsible for the weed? Everybody in that house, until someone confesses, therefore everyone is open to search and seizure

45
Q

T/F: Knowing that someone is a known criminal is reason for PC

A

FALSE even if LEO knows they’re associated with crime, doesn’t mean LEO has PC to arrest; past criminal conduct DOES NOT constitute PC for arrest

46
Q

T/F: failure to protest is enough for PC

A

false: more indicative if they don’t protest than someone who does, but NOT enough for PC

47
Q

T/F: PC can be based on hearsay evid in part or in whole

A

TRUE but hearsay is generally not admissible in court of law to determine guilt

48
Q

What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow hearsay to determine guilt?

A

ARE (Ar rule of evid) 803- availability of declarant is immaterial- doesn’t matter if person is in there to testify, can still have someone else say what declarant said
ARE 804- declarant is unavailable- how to get their word into court

49
Q

What are the 6 parts of ARE 803?

A
  1. present sense impression (statement someone makes about a certain thing WHILE it was happening)
  2. excited utterance (still under effect of situation so not probable they made it up
  3. Then existing physical/mental condition (evid of state of mind ex: woman watching phone convo between woman and husband, woman is scared, later woman is dead so witness can testify to the woman’s state of mind)
  4. statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment
  5. records of business
  6. reputation of character
50
Q

What are the 5 parts of ARE 804?

A
  1. previous testimony
  2. statement under the belief of impending death
  3. statement against interest (something against you making you liable to criminal/civil prosecution)
  4. family/personal history
  5. child hearsay (both criminal and civil-under age of 10)
51
Q

What is en camera?

A

no camera- child goes to judge’s chambers to answer questions

52
Q

What is the Anguilar-Spinelli test?

A

Test done until 1983 when turned over by Illinois v Gates; 2 pronged test to determine veracity of testimony- 1. veracity of person (track record) 2. basis of knowledge (whered they get their info)

53
Q

What are the 4 things to decide if ToC shows PC?

A
  1. officer will have to swear under oath (affidavit) that his statement is true
  2. victim/witness statement- does not need any corroboration- stands on its own
  3. CI (confidential informant) statement- needs to be corroborated- officer has to attest to reliability of CI
  4. Anonymous tip- needs corroboration by LEO
54
Q

What do the courts look at for manner of arrests?

A

PC and MANNER of arrest- can’t have excessive force, needs PC, need a warrant (sometimes)

55
Q

T/F: arrest warrants are generally not required contrary to search warrants

A

TRUE

56
Q

T/F: officer doesn’t need to observe the committing of a misdemeanor in order to arrest w/o warrant

A

FALSE- they HAVE TO OBSERVE

57
Q

T/F: you must have a warrant to make non-emergency arrest in someone’s home

A

TRUE (decided in Payton v NY)

58
Q

What are the 3 req for an arrest warrant to be reasonable?

A
  1. issued by a neutral magistrate (judge) who has determined PC
  2. officer swears in affidavit to facts and circumstances that make up PC
  3. warrant has to specifically identify the person to be arrested
59
Q

What are exigent circumstances?

A

emergencies- looks at what a reasonable person would consider an emergency situation, allowing LEOs to enter without a warrant (loss of evid or escape of suspect)

60
Q

What are the 3 ways to look at force?

A
  1. overcome resistance
  2. enforce compliance
  3. prevent escape
61
Q

What is serious physical injury?

A

Injury that can result in death

62
Q

What is the rule for 20/20 hindsight?

A

Cannot use 20/20 hindsight in court- can’t tell a jury what you did not know at the time; ex: can’t tell a jury you shot a blind unarmed man because you didn’t know he was blind/unarmed at the time

63
Q

What is the 3 step analysis for reasonableness?

A
  1. was it a search?
  2. was it reasonable?
  3. If not reasonable, should evid be suppressed?
64
Q

What are the 3 req for a valid search warrant>

A
  1. issued by neutral magistrate
  2. affidavit based on PC
  3. describe with particularity places to be searched/items to be seized
65
Q

What are the 3 things needed to invalidate a search warrant?

A

YOU NEED ALL THREE:

  1. show a false statement in Affidavit
  2. intentionally or recklessly included the false statement
  3. false statement was material to finding PC
66
Q

Who can execute a warrant?

A

LEO- rule 13.2- not just any citizen; must be without unreasonable delay

67
Q

T/F: w/ warrant, you must make your presence known before entering to execute

A

True

68
Q

What are the 3 exceptions to the knock and announce rule?

A 
3 P's
1. Protect officer
2. Prevent escape
3. Preserve evidence
(also useless gesture, like if the person is already outside, or hot persuit)
69
Q

Wht is a reasonable amount of time to wait after knocking and announcing if the person doesn’t answer before tou break down the door?

A

10-20 seconds

70
Q

For searches without a warrant, what are the 6 categories you can fall into in order to keep the search valid?

A
  1. search incident to arrest
  2. consent
  3. vehicle search
  4. stop and frisk
  5. exigent circumstances
  6. plain view
71
Q

T/F: for search incident to citation, the citation must be in lieu of arrest or it is not permissible

A

TRUE

72
Q

What is a consent search?

A

w/ no PC or warrant- don’t need it because you have permission to search

73
Q

What are the 4 things that one must look at with consent searches?

A
  1. was consent given?
  2. scope of the consent
  3. 3rd party consent
  4. was it voluntary? (determined by ToC)
74
Q

T/F: USSC has ruled on withdrawn consent

A

FALSE but almost all lower courts have and said it is ok- can withdraw consent at any point, can keep anything found before withdrawal

75
Q

what is 3rd party consent?

A

giving consent for somebody else’s stuff

76
Q

What are some examples of good 3rd party consent?

A
  • Spouse for spouse
  • lover for lover (in shared areas)
  • roommate to roommate (not personal stuff, but common area is good)
  • house owner for house guest (can’t search personal stuff but can search guest’s room- if suitcase is open, good to search)
  • parent to child
  • employer/employee (within reasonable expectation of privacy, like can’t search in desk drawers)
  • landlord/tenant (landlord cannot give consent to search rented out ares)
77
Q

What is the difference between actual and apparent authority?

A

Actual- SUBJECTIVE; does the person have a legal right to consent
Apparent- OBJECTIVE; reasonable for officers to believe the person has consent, even though they don’t?

Criminal Procedure (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions