Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Terry VS. Ohio (1968) |
Stop based on reasonable suspicion; frisk, if one can articule danger or weapons to the officer(s). frisk is only for weapons and not evidence of a crime or crime related.
|
|
|
Denver Justice & Peace (2005)
|
A pat down frisk (i.e. Terry Stop) is invalid unless it is supported by reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed and presently dangerous.
|
|
|
Tennessee VS Garner (1985)
|
Fleeing Felon Rule, cannot use deadly force against fleeing felons unless they are armed or are a threat to police or a third party.
|
|
|
Chimel VS California (1969)
|
Police can search the area within the immediate control of the person arrested; also known as the “wing-span”; “lunge rule”.
|
|
|
MAPP VS. Ohio (1961)
|
“Exclusionary Rule” applied to all jurisdictions. No evidence seized illegally can be used against a person.
|
|
|
U.S. VS Katz (1967)
|
Reasonable expectation of privacy concept outlined under the 4th Amendment during searches.
|
|
|
Payton VS New York (1980)
|
Officers need a warrant to arrest a person in their own home when NO EMERGENCY OR EXIGENCIES EXIST. Note: Even if officers have probable cause they must seek an arrest warrant when entering a person’s home without exigencies. The mere fact that a suspect may destroy evidence must be proven by the officer and an officer cannot make exigencies.
|
|
|
Chimel VS California (1969)
|
Police can search the area within the immediate control of the person arrested; also known as the “wing-span”; “lunge rule”.
|
|
|
Mincey VS Arizona (1978)
|
An officer must seek a search warrant at a crime scene after the emergency has passed. If you enter upon circumstances that amount to a emergency i.e. medical reason once the scene
|
|
|
U.S. VS Carroll (1925)
|
An officer can search the entire automobile and its contents without a warrant based upon probable cause alone. Probable cause established prior/after stop; automobile must be apparently mobile.
|
|
|
U.S. VS Robinson (1973)
|
An officer may conduct a full search of a person incident to an arrest of a person of a traffic stop.
|
|
|
United States VS Ross (1982)
|
Court rules that because the officers had probable cause to search the entire truck they could also search closed containers in the truck where evidence may be located.
|
|
|
Pennsylvania VS Mimms (1977)
|
Right to remove drivers of a motor vehicle for officer safety reasons.
|
|
|
Maryland VS Wilson (1997)
|
Right to remove passengers from a motor vehicle for officer safety reasons.
|
|
|
South Dakota VS Opperman(1976)
|
Allows inventory searches of vehicles; purpose is to limit liability to police and their employers against claims of theft or damage to arrestees property; any evidence found during an inventory search can be used against defendant in criminal case.
|
|
|
Arizona VS Gant (2009)
|
“Vehicle Searches Incident to Arrest” Officers are only allowed to search incident to arrest of a subjects vehicle when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of evidence, or the officer is looking for evidence relating to the arrest itself. Note: the court will not allow for poor officer safety to allow or justify a search in this case. Leaving a subject un-cuffed will not justify the search.
|
|
|
Miranda VS Arizona (1966)
|
The right of a suspect against compulsory self-incrimination.
|
|
|
People VS Barrow (2006)
|
Colorado law requires that police to acquire an express waiver (in writing) from a juvenile and parents prior to conducting an interrogation of the juvenile without a parent physically present. CRS 19-2-511
|
