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;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
D stopped by LEO on T.S., gave consent to search which produced stolen checks. ruled no 4th violation.
Knowledge of rt to refuse not required. was it voluntary. not in police"custody" |
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1979)- Bold
|
|
|
Checkpoint- handed out flyers over a hit and run, D arrested for DU after he eluded checkpoint
was only designed to solicit info not find crime. |
Illinois v Lidster (19 ) - Bold
|
|
|
D walked away from car after LEO witness traffic offense. D arrested on traffic violation only. Then search of car revealed 10-79, 10-49
grab area* WAS violation of 4th, * evidence must be related to original arrest (no DL not related to 10-79/10-49 in this caseNot related to original traffic stop. No "incident to arrest" exception, only areas accessible to arrestee. re-interpreted Belton adn Thorton. |
Az v Gant (2009) - Bold
|
|
|
D had switched tag. LEO saw him pull over and exit. -Terry Stop pat down (cosnent) 10-79, located gun after search in car
No violation of 4th AZ v Gant overruled this. |
Thorton v US (19 ) - Bold
|
|
|
Leo stopped vehicle. Smelled weed saw 'supergold' on floorboard, search of vehicle and D's jacket in backseat yielded cocaine.
Ruled no violation of 4th. search, after arrest, of car and contents is ok. Cited Chimel includes closed or open compartments, or luggage, but not TRUNK (would have to be inv. excep for this) |
NY v Belton (1981) - Bold
|
|
|
LEO acted on tip that D was selling 10-79 out of his trunk. D was stopped , trunked searched later at station. All w/o warrant. Brn bag and another closed container.
ruled no 4th violation. LEO had some PC that magistrat would have approved anyway. Every part of vehicle can be searched if trunk can. |
US v Ross (1982) - Bold
|
|
|
LEO received tip about D who arrived at airport w/ suitcase full of 10-79. LEO saw hiom get in taxi and stopped it ordering driver to open trunk. LEO opened suitcase w/o consent.
ruled a violation of 4th Had expectation of privacy. Luggage "is common repository of ones personal effects" CAL v Acevedo OVERturned this. |
AR v Sanders (1979) - Bold
|
|
|
D's loading footlocker, arrested on other charges, locker opened later w/o warrant and marijuana found.
4th was violated if there was PC and exigency otherwise no search of double locked locker. |
US v Chadwick (1977)- Bold
|
|
|
DEA in Hawaii allowed a package of weed to be mailed to D and notified authorities where D lived. They observed him pick it up go in Apt then place a bag in the trunk of car that could have possibly held same 10-79.
they stopped and searched trunk. ruled no 4ht vioaltion Probable cause already existed fro entire search and warranted not needed. cited Caroll. |
Cal v Acevedo (1991) - Bold
|
|
|
D was in 'weed for sex trade' LEO observed kid leave D's motor home. Sent kid back and when D came to door LEO arrested D.
ruled no 4th violation Motor home falls under warrantless w/ PC search auto exception. |
Cal v Carney (1985) -Bold
|
|
|
D's stopped and arrested in vehicle after description of them was given by circumstantial witness of robbed gas station. car taken to police station later for search.
LEO had PC to search @ scene not search at later time/another location w/o warrant. |
Chambers v Maroney (1970)
|
|
|
undercover buy from prohibitioner stopped after seen on road searched w/o warrant. LEO's already had info about their activities and just happen to see them on this occassion.
PC requirement- If you can get warrant go get it. (in this case they did not have time) Upheld search based on "mobility of car". Weeks 1914, Chadwick 1977. |
Caroll v US (1925) - Bold
|
|
|
D stopped under suspicion for LEO impersonation. D was arrested for recording stop which was a violation of state law privacy act.
USSC ruled PC to arrest does NOT need to be closely related to the offense the LEO identifies @ time of stop/arrest. LEO state of mind irrelavent. Objective Std not Subjective Std. |
Davenpeck v Alford (2004) - Bold
|
|
|
Evidence seized during commission of search warrant was not listd on warratn but was part of crime- D's robbed coin collecter at home.
No 4th violation. evidence was in plainview and initial warrant was valid. Inadvertently Found |
Horton v Cal (1990) - Bold
|
|
|
D arrested based on evidence seized in apt during investigation of a shooting where the bullet had gone through the floor of his apt. LEO moved stereo while in home and ran serial number revealing it was stolen in robbery.
Violation of 4th based on object being moved to get ser#. Warrantless search must be within bounds of hwat justify its initiation. ( Mincey v AZ 1978) Must be in plain view. |
Az v Hicks (1987) - Bold
|
|
|
Plainview upheld in this case. D convicted of babysitter murder. LEO got warratn for home and house from Att Gen. Seized car.
1st Issue - AG issuing warrant violated 4th (neutral and detached ...) 2nd issue - "Plainview" upheld. where LEO are lawfully at can seize other evidence of incriminating character. |
Coolidge v New Hampshire (1979) - Bold
|
|
|
D was described by a taxi driver as robber and which house he entered officers allowed in and seized robbery evidene. Officers arrived minutes later after crime.
No violation of 4th Speed of arrest and detention of robber in building, seizure of weapon and clothes were no violation. |
Warden, MD Penitentiary v Hayden (1967) - Bold
|
|
|
D stopped for speedng, issued UTTC then carefully searched. potpipe found and arrested. state law for UTTC could have arrested.
4ht violated No actual arrest - "no SITA" LEO electing to issue UTTC instead does not constitute search. |
Knowles v Iowa (1998) - Bold
|
|
|
D was arrested fro traffic vioaltion then searched, where a gun was found on his person. Heroin found in a cigarette packet.
No 4th violation SITA applies to traffic offense and absent suspicion of crime or armed and dangerous. |
US v Robinson (1973) - Bold
|
|
|
D arrested with arrest warrant @ home. D showed up later while LEO waited for him. refused consent to search further. LEO claimed search incident arrest exception. and found fruits of possible crime. (coin shop 10-37_
Search of entire house upon arrest unreasonable - Grab area only - Officer safety (sweep) |
Chimel v Cal (1969)- Bold
|
|
|
warrant served on premise where occupants sought after had moved out months earlier. Naked in bed. left w/n 5 mins of mistake.
mistakes tolerated/ Objective Std |
LA County v Rettele (2007) - Bold
|
|
|
D's apt was searched by mistake. Search warrant was fro an adjacent apt. LEO then wne to next apt.
no 4th violation -Vague warrant on which apt was not invalidated Honest mistakes tolerated. |
Maryland V Garrison (1987) - Bold
|
|
|
D was detained during a search(w. warrant) of premise. D was handcuffed
no 4th violation Search for weapons and questioning of immigration status was reasonable fro handcuffing. |
Muehler v Mena (2005) - Bold
|
|
|
Leo was with a search warrant. D was walking from house where drugs later found. D challemged detainment heroin in his pocket on later search of him. Court - search warrant entails detainment of occupants.
|
Michigan v Summers (1981) - Bold
|
|
|
D lived on a ranch. Concerned citizens gave info about weaponry. ATF got warrant that was less specific thatn the warrant application. Paticularly of place and things were not in warrant as in App.
No charges were filed Qualified Immunity not granted |
Groh v Ramirez (2004) - Bold
|
|
|
D contended that evidence seized in his corporate office that was evidence of other crimes not specifically listed in search warrant cannot be seized.
4th not violated catch-all luggage did not make warrant over broad. |
Andreson v. Maryland (1976)- Bold
|
|
|
D stopped for traffic violation by LEO Vice and drugs were found.
No 4th violation Officer subjective motivation irrelavent. "Objective Std" |
Whren v. US (1996) - Bold
|
|
|
D passenger was arrested with other occupants and the driver after money in glove box and 10-79 in back arm rest. He signed a confession and argued no PC for HIS arrest.
was paraphernalia in back of car cause for HIS arrest? yes proximity not a factor All occupants excercised dominion and control "common enterprise" |
Maryland v Pringle (2003)
|
|
|
Informanr credibilty/ basis of knowledge
Source of information/veracity is person credible STD still used but 'Gates' also applied |
Aguilar '65 - Spinelli '69
|
|
|
Totality of the circumstacnes
couple in long distacne drug trade anonymous letter to police police confirm details through investigation and corroberation probable for search warrant did exist. |
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
|
|
|
D stopped for speeding , K9 found drugs, dog sniff on car no violation.
can be unlawful if held prolonged time detects substance subject should not lawfully have |
Illinois v Cabelles (2005)
|
|
|
Pen register no 4th violation
D made threatening ph calls to victim he had robbed. 'trapp and tracr"- identifies ph number excludes contents of communication |
Smith v Maryland (1979)
|
|
|
D convicted based on initial investigation involving thermal imaging w/o warrant
violation of 4th -general use -home -intimate activities |
Kyllo v US (2001)
|
|
|
D manufacturering ecstacy.
Monitoring to/from IP and email messages not a 4ht violation |
US v Forrester(2010)
|
|
|
D convicted of misdemeanor w/o jury
Supreme ct ruled violation of 6th Am of rt to jury trial does apply through 14th Am |
Duncan v Louisianna(1968)
|
|
|
D charged w/ murder did not expressly exercise rt to Miranda
After 3 hrs of silence D gave incriminating statements no violation of 5th D did not invoke rt simply by being silent. |
Berguis v Thompkins (2010)
|
