• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/76

Click to flip

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;

76 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132
Police may search and seize any illegal property hidden in a vehicle
1.During a lawful arrest or
2.when the Police have a reasonable belief that an illegal substance is hidden in the vehicle.
Chimel v. Ca
A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest may generally extend to the area that is considered to be in the possession or under the control of the person arrested.

There is ample justification for a search of the arrestee's person and the are “within his immediate control”--construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
Katz
2 part test:
1. The person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; and
2. That expectation must be reasonable.

- Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places from unreasonable intrusion.
Horton
If an article is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy.

The fact that an officer is interested in an item of evidence and fully expects to find it in the course of a search should not invalidate its seizure if the search is confined in area and duration by the terms of a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement.
Knotts
A beeper placed to track associate to suspect's cabin was did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy and therefore was not a Fourth Amendment violation.
Mendoza-Ruiz
The "community caretaker" doctrine allows admission of evidence discovered without a warrant when law enforcement engages in "community caretaking functions" intended to promote public safety.
Bertine
Officers may open closed containers while conducting a routine inventory search.

No probable cause is required for an inventory search.

Inventory searches protect the owner's property while in custody of the the police from vandalism and theft; there is a diminished expectation of privacy; and it protects officers from danger.
Royer
An investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.

The investigative methods should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time.'
Camara
Barring emergencies, a search warrant must issue for administrative searches if the occupant refuses to allow entry.
Prouse
Motorists cannot be randomly stopped to check their license and registration but can only be stopped when there is a reasonable suspicion or probable cause that they are involved in criminal activity.
United States v. Watson
A peace officer can arrest a person for felony or misdemeanor when it takes place in his presence and he can arrest a felon when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the felony took place.
Terry v. Ohio
a patdown search of outer clothing for weapons during an investigative stop premised on reasonable suspicion is limited in scope and not unreasonable under the circumstances.

Standard whether the frisk was valid: Whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.
Bustamonte
(Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver-totality of the circumstances) When the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. (voluntariness-state not required to show knowledge of right to refuse)
Hiibel
State statute authorizing arrest of a person who refuses to disclose his name during a valid investigating stop based upon reasonable suspicion does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

As long as the officer has reasonable suspicion to make the initial stop and as long as the statute is not unconstitutionally vague then questions concerning a suspect's identity are accepted party of many Terry stops.
Olson
(exigent circumstances exception to warrant) A warrantless intrusion may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or imminent destruction of evidence, or the need to prevent a suspect’s escape, or the risk of danger to the police or to other person inside or outside the dwelling.
Georgia v. Randolph
When two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional.
Los Angels County v. Rettele
Officers conducting a valid search warrant have the right to take reasonable precautions to secure the premises and ensure their own safety. (naked detention reasonable)
Schmerber v. California
A blood alcohol test does not violate a persons fourth amendment right.
California v. Greenwood
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection on the street because there was no subjective expectation of privacy in the garbage that society accepted as objectively reasonable.

"what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not subject of Fourth Amendment protection." (Katz)
California v. Acevedo
The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to open a container in a vehicle simply because they lack probable cause to search the entire car.

Police may search an automobile and containers within it where they have probable cause to believe evidence is contained.
New York v. Burger
A warrantless inspection of a closely regulated business is reasonable if (1) there is a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme authorizing the search, (2) the warrantless inspections should be necessary to further the regulatory scheme, (3) and the regulatory statute must provide an adequate substitute for a warrant.

A warrant substitute is adequate if is informs the owner of the search and the scope of that search, and it must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmund
A checkpoint that has the primary purpose of the general interest in crime control violates the Fourth Amendment.

Suspicionless stops at roadblocks might be appropriate in situations of "special needs," such as in an emergency situation or for searches that are supported by a vital and particular governmental interest. (e.g. safety of the roadway and DUI checkpoints)
Earls
A search unsupported by probable cause may be reasonable if there are special needs that make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.

Fourth Amendment rights are different in public schools than elsewhere; the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.

There is no constitutional need to show specific or pervasive drug problem before supiciousness drug testing may occur.
T.L.O.
A search of schoolchildren is given a greater latitude. It depends on reasonableness under the circumstances. To determine reasonableness one considers whether the action was justified at it inception and whether the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference. (strip search not reasonable)
California v. Hondari
"seized-"in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. A person has been seized "only if," not that he has been seized "whenever"; it states a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for seizure, or, more precisely, for seizure effected through a "show of authority."

"show of authority-"objective test: not whether the citizen perceives that he is being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer's words and actions would convey that to a reasonable person.
Ferguson v. City of Charelston
When the immediate objective of the search policy is to obtain evidence for law enforcment purposes, the special needs exception does not apply. (i.e. patient's blood taken pursuant to hospital policy violated the Fourth Amendment)
Maryland v. Buie
The Fourth Amendment permits a limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest where the arresting officer possesses reasonable suspicion that the area harbors dangerous 3d parties.

SCOPE:A sweep entails cursory inspection of areas where a person might be found. Precautionary search must last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.
Illinois v. Rodriquez
(Consent)Warrantless entry in a house is valid when based on consent of a 3rd party who police, at time of entry, have an objective reasonable basis to believe possesses common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not.
Rochin v. California
The manner in which the officer effectuated the arrest by breaking into the defendant's home, forcibly trying to remove capsules from his mouth, then having his stomach pumped "shocks the conscience" and violates the Due Process Clause.
Arizona v. Gant
The search of a car incident to arrest is valid only if arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of the search, or, there is reason to believe the car might contain evidence relevant to the crime for which the arrest is made
United States v. Mendenhall
A person is seized only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained and a reasonable person believes that he is not free to leave.
United States v. Flores-Montano
Searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border. The US has a paramount interest in protecting its territorial integrity.
Illinois v. Lidster
Judged by reasonableness standard. Look to the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. (the stop was brief and helps the police in the investigation (information-seeking stop)).
Sherman v. United States
Entrapment Test:

* Defendant must produce some evidence of government inducement.
* Prosecution must show that the defendant had a propensity to commit the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Merely be an addict or merely having a history of committing a crime is not enough to show a propensity. There has to be more.
Brown v. Mississippi
The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is violated when a confession obtained via physical torture is used to convict a defendant.
Colorado v. Spring
The Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amend. privilege.
- A valid waiver does not require that an individual be informed of all information “useful” in making his decision or all information that might affect his decision to confess.
Jacobson v. United States
The entrapment defense has two parts: (1) the government's inducement of criminal behavior; (2) by a defendant who was not predisposed to commit the crime

The Supreme Court held that the government may afford opportunities and facilities for crimes—However, the government may not originate a criminal design and implant it in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
* Miranda warnings must include a statement that the individual has the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against the individual in court, that the individual has the right to an attorney, and that at the request for an attorney, the interrogation must cease until one is provided.
* If an individual wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. Likewise, if an individual requests an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
* Pursuant to Miranda, a waiver of Fifth Amendment rights must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent.
* Miranda violations can be subject to habeas corpus review, even when the defendant has had a full and fair chance to litigate. (Withrow v. Williams)
Massiah v. United States
Law enforcement officials may not attempt to interrogate and deliberately elicit a confession from a defendant after indictment without the presence of counsel. This would violate defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel.
Edwards v. Arizona
When a suspect in custody invokes his right under Miranda to consult with an attorney, the police must cease the interrogation until the suspect's attorney is present unless the suspect initiates further “communication, exchanges, or conversations” with the police.

-The Edwards rule is intended “to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights” and applies to all interrogation, including questioning about crimes other than the one for which the suspect is in custody. However, the Edwards rule does not apply unless a suspect unambiguously asserts his right to counsel. (Arizona v. Roberson)
Haynes v. Washington
Whether the confession was obtained by coercion or improper inducement can be determined only by an examination of the totality of the circumstances.


Coercion does not require there to be a threat. It can also come about due to the use of techniques such as secret and incommunicado detention (denial of request to communicate) and interrogation.
Davis v. United States
(unambiguous invocation) A suspect must unambiguously request counsel so that a reasonable police officer knows defendant is invoking his Miranda Rights. (maybe I should talk to a lawyer is not enough)
Thompkins
A suspect must unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent. (silence is not enough)
Brewer v. Williams
There is no per se ban under Massiah on police questioning of defendants, although deliberate elicitation of statements by undercover agents is banned.

Police must obtain a Sixth Amendment waiver; if no waiver is obtained, then police may not seek deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements.
California v. Prysock
Police warnings to the accused of Miranda rights, are not required to be virtual incantation of precise language contained in the Miranda opinion.
Mincey v. Arizona
Statements that are not the product of a rational intellect and free will can be a violation of an individual's Due Process rights.
Stansbury v. California
The determination of custody for the purpose of Miranda depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogation officer or the person being questioned.
Patterson v. Illinois
In the absence of a request for counsel after the right attaches, the police are permitted to seek from the accused a waiver of his right to counsel.
A waiver of a Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. (Johnson v. Zerbst) In a case arising under the Fifth Amendment the requirement is that there is a “full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.
The key inquiry in either case is: Was the accused, who waived his Sixth Amendment rights during post-indictment questioning, made sufficiently aware of his right to have counsel present during the questioning, and of all the possible consequences of a decision to forgo the aid of counsel?
McNabb
Court created an exclusionary rule allowing the courts to exclude confessions obtained in a suspicious context, where a federal officer delayed an arrestee's appearance in court so as to perform an interrogation before counsel was appointed.
Mallory
Allowed the court to invalidate a confession in a case where the officer delayed arraignment for over four hours, used that time to procure a confession at police headquarters, and refrained from informing the arrrestee of his rights to counsel, his right to a preliminary examination before a magistrate, his right to keep silent, and his right to know that any statement made by him may be used against him.

(Corley) Recognized statute that extended time to six hours after arrest.
Michigan v. Mosley
-Once a suspect exercises his right to remain silent, he may later be interrogated on another subject as long as reasonable time has passed and a new warning given.
-The Miranda requirement that police interrogation must cease when the person in custody indicates that he wishes to remain silent, neither creates a per se proscription of indefinite silence, nor imposes a blanket prohibition against the taking or the admission in evidence of voluntary statements made by the defendant after his invocation of silence.
- The admissibility of incriminating statements obtained after a person in custody had initially decided to remain silent depends on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored.
When does an arrestee become an actual defendant?
The arrestee becomes an actual defendant when a complaint is filed in a magistrate's court.
When an individual violates more than one criminal statute during one act which statute can they prosecute under?
When an act violates more than one criminal statute, the government may prosecute under either so long as it does not discriminate against any class of defendants. United States v. Batchelder,442 U.S. 114 (1979)
What is a true bill from a grand jury called?
An indictment
What must the defendant show to prove selective prosecution?
Similarly situated individuals of a different race or class were not prosecuted.
What occurs at an initial hearing?
the accused is informed of: charges, right to remain silent, right to request or retain an attorney, fact that any statement may be used against the accused; review pretrial release, right to a preliminary hearing; reasonable time to consult an attorney, and setting or denying bail
At what proceeding does the right to counsel start and what does this mean for what police may or may not do?
At the initial appearance but the initial appearance is not regarded as a “critical stage” under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel; but, the police interrogation about the charged offense is precluded; however police can interrogate about other crimes (McNeil v. Wisconsin)
Probable cause
1. The standard for arrest is probable cause, defined in terms of facts and circumstances “sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect committed or was committing an offense.
What's the purpose of a Gerstein hearing?
Whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense.
When must a probable cause/Gerstein hearing occur and may police delay in order to obtain additional evidence to justify an arrest?
Within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. A delay for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify an arrest is an unreasonable delay
Back-ward looking model used in preliminary hearing.
a. Primarily concerned with the legality of the arrest and validity of the detention
b. Focus is factual rather than legal
c. Quality of evidence is based on probable cause
d. Hearsay and illegal obtained evidence is admissible
e. There is no right to counsel
f. There is no right to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses
Forward looking model used in a preliminary hearing.
a. Concerned with whether there is a sufficient probability of conviction at trial
b. Court should dismiss case lacking probable cause
c. Focus on the probability of legal rather than factual guilt or innocence
d. Trial-type standards are imposed
e. Rules of evidence apply
f. Hearsay and illegally obtained evidence would be excluded
g. Accused has right to counsel; right to cross examine witnesses, testify, and present witnesses
When may preliminary hearing evidence be used at trial?
If it was given under oath; the declarant is unavailable; if a reasonable opportunity (whether exercised or not) for cross-examination on substantially the same issues were afforded to the opposing party.
Information
A written accusation of crime prepared and presented by the prosecutor.
Direct complaint
A written complaint by which the prosecutor swears under oath to the veracity of the contents of the charging document – and the grand jury process.
What factors are used to determine if the area is "cartilage"
1. the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home,
2. whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home,
3. the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and
4. the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. (United States v. Dunn)
United States v. Place
A canine sniff does not expose non-contraband items that would otherwise be hidden from view thus there isn't any privacy issue that would entail a Fourth Amendment violation.
Ciraola
Officers occupy a "public thoroughfare when they fly over a property and they need not shield their eyes. The activity is exposed to the flying public, including officers
Kyllo
Obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area” constituted a search-at least where the technology in question is not in general public use.

The Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house.”
Factors for magistrate to consider in relation to a an application for a search warrant base don an informant.
1. Is the information reliable
2. is the informant reliable.
Illinois v. Gates
Anonymous tip requires a view of the totality of the circumstances including reliability
Explain the plain view exception and the primary case that established it.
Horton v. California
1. The item be in plain view;
2. its incriminating character must be immediately apparent.
3. The officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen; and
4. he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.
・It is not required that the discovery be inadvertent
When may an officer arrest an individual?
(Watson)A peace officer can arrest a person for felony or misdemeanor when it takes place in his presence and he can arrest a felon when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the felony took place.
What is the automobile exception?
When the police have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of crime, they may search the vehicle without warrant. (includes mobile home that is mobile)
Interrogation
(Rhode Island v. Innis)- Interrogation refers also to any words or actions on the part of police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
Missouri v. Seibert
Midstream recitation of warnings following an interrogation and unwarned confession are inadmissible. However, If the two-step interrogation method is used then the statements are excluded unless curative measures are taken prior to the postwarning statement being made. Curative steps should lead a reasonable person to understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning and the Miranda waiver.