Const Miran

Front 1

mir1

Back 1

You have the right to remain silent

Front 2

mir2

Back 2

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.

Front 3

mir3

Back 3

You have the right to consult an attorney

Front 4

mir4

Back 4

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you

Front 5

Davis v. United States (1994) whispering during terry on sidewalk requires that an weak invocation of the Miranda rights to lawyers not enough to quiet a cop form investigating. They are allowed to change the questioner or the crime that they question you about under berghius v thompson 2010.That means the cops might have to be told a second firm time that you want a lawyer and dont want to talk. conviction allowed

Back 5

davis v u walking- whispering cops keep talking to you after miranda

Front 6

car terry Whren v. United States1996 traffic, minor traffic violations-with misdemeanor or greater acts

Back 6

car terry-you having traffic stops in a car ,conviction allowed if search all through the front of a car

Front 7

florida versus wells 1990

Back 7

florida v w car-a locked suitcase in a trunk gets away from the search

Front 8

Michigan v. Long (1983)

Back 8

how they can terry stop with wren car-grants the power to frisk a car interior, not a trunk.

Front 9

car-xtent of interior search no traffic vilation

Chimel versus California 1969

Back 9

car-xtent of interior search no traffic vilation how far?

Front 10

Chimel 2nd

Back 10

2nd one arms length searches allowed when they get you out of the car.

Front 11

oregon v elstad 1985 walking-tell what you did before the cops ask

Back 11

you walking to the cops and incriminating yourself conviction allowed

Front 12

stataionhouae 1 supreme 1992 salinas versus texas

Back 12

station house 1-first you being questioned by a different officer or different crime your silence used against u

Front 13

re-invoke 1 part b house 2 arizona versus edwards station

Back 13

re-invoke part b-1station house 2 - first you being questioned by a different officer or different crime part b

Front 14

station house 3 money moran burbine 1987 The police cant lie to you can lie about your paid attorney after retained

Back 14

station house 3 money -all waiver signed after attorney is paid for and calls in are dead

Front 15

station house 4 sell michigan versus jackson 1986 allows it

Back 15

station house -4 sell whispering in the station hous with waiver you not being told anything but the cops shoving a waiver of your rights at you to sign

Front 16

station house 6 COP KISS OFF michigan versus harvey 1990 like michigan versus washington give you permission to tell the officers to put the waiver in their breakroom locker

Back 16

station house 6 - COP KISS WHERE SUN DONT SHINEyou not being told anything but the cops shoving a waiver of your rights at you to sign part be they ask or threaten you to sign it

Front 17

**stationhouse-The importance here is repeated firm statements of lawyer and refusal to talk if police are allowed to continue any questioning anhyting they get partb- no tough talk well?

Back 17

**An accused's postrequest responses to further interrogation may not be used to cast doubt upon the clarity of his initial request for counsel 2

Front 18

syattion house 55 v Smith v. Illinois - 469 U.S. 91 (1984)c

Back 18

syation house 55- resell waiver waiver sell continue The importance here is repeated firm statements of lawyer and refusal to talk if police are allowed to continue any questioning anhyting they get
you re mjichican harvey 1986 under berghius

Front 19

berghius versus thompkins 2010 not self invoking

Back 19

if you refuse to use bad language or talk tough the supreme court judge has sold you out.

refuse to talk tough at the meeting and the station house??U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, noting that a suspect's Miranda right to counsel must be invoked "unambiguously," and that the same standard applies to invoking the right to remain silent.

Front 20

walk 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

Back 20

walk- the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation

Front 21

terry walk 2- the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation part c im a cop

Back 21

terry walk 2 The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries.

Front 22

terry walk part 3- prequarles If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her

Back 22

terry walk part 3 prequarles really about weapons cuz the heard

Front 23

Florida versus bostic 1991- bus move it moive it

Back 23

bus exception you have no 4th and 5ths on a bus

Front 24

illiniois v wardlowe 2000 and adam williams 1972

Back 24

madison fake reliancehigh crime neighborhood exception

Front 25

car-first ciop law-arbitrary police discretion stop any car

Back 25

delaware -prouse 1979

Front 26

Arizona v. Fulminante Case Brief 1991

Back 26

-ceorcion-threatened by a fake cop prisoner plant

Front 27

alabama v brown 1936

Back 27

aabama coercion -beating or threats thereof

Front 28

or when did you notify him verbally that this was no longer a traffic stop r Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980)

Back 28

cuFf no need for search,kentuck had a warrant , you on an it was o misdemeanor better yo had neither

Front 29

indiana v edmonds 2000 terry 4 go beyond the normal needs of standard search

Back 29

indian v edmonds walk- terry 4 as long as you dont say gun it bettr be a short terry

dead terry

Front 30

arizona versus edwards 1981 berguis adds

jjjjjj

10times im not talking to you 10x for alleged grook

Back 30

arizona v ed wardmust berguis adds

10 times because berguiz thompson overulesif they waive its go to be on paper

Front 31

ohio versus mapp 1961-rolled up ews as warrant

Back 31

Badge and talk somerolled upo bull feces A lying search a lying siezure a lying warrant throws out all evidence.

Front 32

terry 55 tell us the statement brother new york versus quarles 1984

Back 32

teryy 555

One exception to the Miranda rule permits officers to conduct a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the statement to serve as direct evidence.youre viloating his 5th amendment because it was poosible for him to read it then and there.

Front 33

rylands versus fletcher 1886

Back 33

he was on frolic

Front 34

commonwaelth v reske 1997

Back 34

selling multiple cars to the retarded man

Front 35

they city didnt mention these-no narrow taylor

Back 35

no narrow taylor--send him to alcohol detox or
253b-07 Mn. Stat. Ann.
§ 340A.902.drunkeness not a crime

Front 36

slander

Back 36

the un true statement about ,all the time the damage to his reputation for anyone who reads that

Front 37

Kolender v. Lawson 1983 strange nego

Back 37

strange nego--arrest you or make statements like i dont know who you are ,get you in the system.

Front 38

francona v traccan slope 2002

Back 38

Anticipatory repudiation your answer of no is good when i get it you telling me no on them is good for today forward .
nonconforming thats nonconforming acceptance thats non conforming goods you are voluntarily making yourself unable to perform Your answer of no was good when i received it ---



and we should proceed with the best information posssibel as to what they said and dis .

.the cops are not here, anticipitory repudiation .,Rav travelor versus the city iof saint paul marquies

Front 39

peamble aricl asc 1,10,1. im the judge you address

Back 39

No state shall pass bill of attainder post exfacto nor title of nobility