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;
103 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Weeks v. US
|
can't search a house w/o warrant
|
|
|
Olmstead v. US
|
phones aren't in 4th am, no search/seizure (listening isn't tangible)
|
|
|
Katz v. US
|
Test- subjective expec of privacy that society considers reas; 4th protects people and places
|
|
|
CA v. Greenwood
|
no reas expec of privacy in curbside trash bags b/c held it out to the public
|
|
|
US v. Karo
|
monitoring beeper in location not open to visual surveillance violates 4th am b/c it reveals critical fact about interior of premises; reas exp of priv in home
|
|
|
FL v. Riley
|
no reas exp of priv 400ft above house b/c plain view by anybody legally travelling at that height
|
|
|
Kyllo v. US
|
test- can't use sensor/enhancing technology no in general public use to get info-only obtainable thru physical entry
|
|
|
MN v. Carter
|
business visitors will normally not have standing against uncon searches
factors: length of time, commercial, relationship |
|
|
US v. Verdugo-Urquidez
|
4th am doesn't apply to actions by US officials that takes place in a foreign country and involves a foreign national
|
|
|
US v. White
|
bugging an informant doesn't violate 4th b/c D's expectation is that it may not be private -sig. risk
|
|
|
US v. Place
|
drug-sniffing dogs can enable a brief and limited detention and investigation
|
|
|
IL v. Caballes
|
no legitimate privacy interest in criminal activity. dog only detects drugs.
|
|
|
Franks v. DL
|
informant's info not subject to challenge. cop's statement subject to challenge. 3 req for invalidity: falsehood, intent'l/reckless, material
|
|
|
US v. Banks
|
after knocking, cops only need wait a short period of time. can then barge in to protect their safety, destruction of ev
|
|
|
Muehler v. Mena
|
can detain people while search is on
|
|
|
Mincey v. AZ
|
"murder scene exception": security sweep of murder scene is OK to make sure no peiople, dangerous weapons.
|
|
|
Welsh v. WI
|
Minor offenses do not provide suff ev to justify warrantless entry into a hom. Only act as broadly as emergency calls for.
|
|
|
IL v. McArthur
|
Warrantless serach is "reas" b/c not longer than needed to get W, and in interest of preserving ev. (supplants emergency exc w/reas
|
|
|
AZ v. Hicks
|
Cops can observe what's in PV from a legal viewpt. Can't move objects
|
|
|
Carroll v. US
|
Exigency of car's mobility justifies warrantless serach of car
|
|
|
Chambers v. Maroney
|
Can subsequently search car at police station b/c could've legally done it on street (safer).
|
|
|
US v. Chadwick
|
"container doctrine": for parcells/packages need a W; even if contact w/trunk of car.
|
|
|
Senders
|
Should've stopped package before taxi and gotten warrant. need warrant now that in moving car (overruled by Acevedo)
|
|
|
US v. Ross
|
If PC to serach car, search may extend to any part of car and any packages that might contain the object of the search.
|
|
|
CA v. Acevedo
|
Can seize bag in car w/o warrant if PC, even if no PC for rest of car.
|
|
|
Wyoming v. Houghton
|
Search extends to passenger's packages b/c passenger has reduced expec of priv in other car.
|
|
|
US v. Robinson
|
Cops can serach person as thoroughly as possible during arrest.
|
|
|
Chimel v. CA
|
After arrest, can serach person and "area around him w/in his immediate control."
|
|
|
MD v. Buie
|
Can't search whole house during arrest, but can do protective sweep for accomplices.
|
|
|
NY v. Belton
|
After arrest, cops can search passenger compartment: everywhere w/in wingspan of person in vehicle, even if person no longer in vehicle.
|
|
|
Thornton v. US
|
Can search car if "recently" left it b/c exigent circum- safety, destruction of ev.
|
|
|
Knowles v. Iowa
|
No car erach if no arrest (traffic violation).
|
|
|
Co v. Bertine
|
Suspicionless inventory searches are okay for impounded vehicles + objects.
|
|
|
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
|
Consent is based on "voluntariness" given totality of circum (this case: no duress, coercion)
|
|
|
OH v. Robinette
|
Totality of cirum: unrealistic to force cops to tell people they're free to go before getting consent.
|
|
|
US v. Drayton
|
Consent valid of bus search even though not told don't have to consent. (totality)
|
|
|
US v. Watson
|
Dont need warrant for felony arrest in public.
|
|
|
Atwater v. Lago Vista
|
Misdemeanor + in cop's presence = no W necessary
|
|
|
Terry v. OH
|
Cops can stop person for less than PC using knowledge and experience. Can reas frisk for safety. Later courts = RAS.
|
|
|
Dunaway v. NY
|
If person brought to station + detained for questioning, need more than RAS; need PC
|
|
|
FL v. Royer
|
Stop turns into arrsest by moving suspect (need PC).
|
|
|
US v. Place
|
RAS can justify temporary seizure of package.
|
|
|
US v. Sharpe
|
Stop v. Arrest: cts look at duration, degree of intrusion, amt of force.
|
|
|
FL v. JL
|
Uncorroborated anonymous tip insufficient to justify stop + frisk (no RAS). innocent facts.
|
|
|
FL v. Bostick
|
Consensual encounter": consider totality of circ to det whether reas person would feel free to disregard cops and go about their business.
|
|
|
Spinelli v. US
|
For PC on informant tip, need reliability, basis for knowledge (character of corroboration).
|
|
|
IL v. Gates
|
Substitutes Spinelli req's w/ "totality of circ" approach (less than PC) looking at overall reliablity of a tip: a deficiency in one prong may be compensated by strong showing in another.
|
|
|
AL v. White
|
Can use tip for RAS from info by informant that's less reliable than for PC, but can use for RAS when tip about future behavior.
|
|
|
IL v. Wardlow
|
Unprovoked flight from cops in a hgih-crime area is sufficient for RAS + stop.
|
|
|
US v. MArtinez-Fuerte
|
Balancing test of gov't need v. privacy intrustion; substitute balancing test for PC.
|
|
|
DE v. Prouse
|
Cops can't randomly stop person's car to ceheck registration; need RAS or PC.
|
|
|
MI dept of state police v. Sitz
|
Checkpt program for sobriety is CON b/c (using balancing test for PC) + no police discretion.
|
|
|
Indianapolis v. Edmond
|
Can't set up chekpoints for purpose of general crime control.
|
|
|
IL v. Lidster
|
Can set up checkpt to gather info about earlier crime.
|
|
|
Mapp v. OH
|
DPC applies rth am to states; Excl rule implicit in concept of ordered liberty (overrules Wolf)
|
|
|
Wong Sun v. US
|
1) where ev discovered b/c of initioal illegality, it's suppressed (but for). 2) if sufficiently removed form illegality, it's admissible.
|
|
|
US v. Leon
|
Excl rule doesn't apply when cops 1) act in good faith + 2) reas rely on W. Never been applied to warrantless searches, but does narrow excl rule.
|
|
|
Scott
|
Execution standard: reas use of min. procedures on wiretap is a low bar.
|
|
|
Keith
|
For electronic surv of a nat'l security domestic matter (in US, US threat), need W.
|
|
|
Padilla v. Rumsfeld
|
Can US arrest US citizen w/o 4h Am protections if he's agent of war?
|
|
|
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
|
US citizen held as enemy combatant must be given meaningful opp to contest his detention.
|
|
|
Rasul v. Bush
|
Even non-citizens have some CON rights; grants district cts jxn over habeus corpus claims.
|
|
|
Bram v. US
|
Convession must be "voluntary"- gov't can't create hope/fear. Also, 5th Am regulates out of ct proceedings before crim proc takes place
|
|
|
US v. Hurtado
|
DP if long-established proc (can evolve over time). DP phrases: "shocks the consc" "fundamental fairness" "implicit in concept of ordered liberty"
|
|
|
Brown v. MS
|
If confession extorted thru brutality + violence, it's involuntary.
|
|
|
CO v. Connelly
|
Confession consdidered voluntary unless police coercion, no matter how irrational (crazy) the suspect's deicision to waive Miranda rights. Cops prove thru preponderance of ev.
|
|
|
Powell v. AL
|
"Scottsboro boy". If D needs it, state must provide counsel at "1st formal adverarial proceeding" (arraign/indict) and beyond. "special cirum rule" gov't has to find you a lawyer if difficult/special circ (this part later overruled/extended).
|
|
|
Johnson v. Zerbst
|
Waiver of Con right msut be 1) voluntary + 2) known relinquishment of that right. Also, if felony-- lawyer.
|
|
|
Betts v. Brady
|
DP didn't apply 6th Am to states.
|
|
|
Gideon v. Wainwright
|
Every D has right to atty by state in state proceedings (overrules Betts)
|
|
|
Massiah v. US
|
Right to atty at any "critical stage"- no intterrogation w/o lawyer. If 6th Am and confession, gov't must prove either 1) lawyer present, or 2) D waived right to lawyer.
|
|
|
Escobedo v. IL
|
Narrow! 6th Am can apply tprior to indictmet where interrogation + asked for and denied counsel, targeted suspect, counsel denied acces.
|
|
|
Brewer v. Williams
|
Implied waiver of 6th Am right is CON inadequate.
|
|
|
MI v. Jackson
|
Invocation of right ot atty only broken if waived while lawyer is there, unless D initiates conversation + cops get waiver.
|
|
|
US v. Henry
|
Gov't (informant) can't start conversation to elicit info.
|
|
|
Kuhlmann
|
Informant OK b/c passive, not initiating conversation.
|
|
|
Maine v. Moulton
|
Informant can ask about crimes not charged w/yet b/c 6th Am doesn't apply to them.
|
|
|
Miranda v. AZ
|
"custodial interrogation" is inherently coerced if not warned of rights. Proxy safeguards.
|
|
|
Berkemer v. McCarthy
|
Miranda warnings not req in routine encounters b/w motorists and cops. Brief and public.
|
|
|
MN v. Murphy
|
People already under gov't control (probation) have lower CON rights.
|
|
|
RI v. Innis
|
Interrogation is any words/actions cops know is reas likely to elicit info.
|
|
|
Perkins v. IL
|
Miranda protections don't appply if suspect doesn't perceive he's being questioned by gov't agent.
|
|
|
AZ v. Fulminante
|
Not all trickery OK. Gov't informant created DP problem w/overly coercive environment.
|
|
|
PA v. Muniz
|
Routine booking questions are not interrogation under Miranda. Anythign seeking testimonial answer is testimony. (slurred speech would be physical ev)
|
|
|
NC v. Butler
|
Valid waiver of 5th Am right can be implied from suspect's conduct. This case: chose oral instead of written.
|
|
|
Moran v. Burbine
|
No Miranda req to keep suspect informed of status of legal rep.
|
|
|
Miller v. Fenton
|
Pyschological trickery (false facts) is OK and doesn't invalidate waiver.
|
|
|
MI v. Mossely
|
Exception to right to reamin silent: sig time later, new miranda warnings, 2nd crime.
|
|
|
Edwards v. AZ
|
Any statement after invoking right to counsel is inadmissible unless counsel present or initates and waives.
|
|
|
Davis v. US
|
Must clearly + unequivaclly invoke 5th Am right to silence/counsel. if ambiguous/unclear, cops can continue questioning.
|
|
|
Schermber v. CA
|
Blood test iin custody Not Testimony b/c phys ev. Testimony test: truth, lie, silence (testimony).
|
|
|
Hilibel v. 6th District Ct of NV
|
Identifying yourself is not testimony.
|
|
|
US v. Dickerson
|
Miranda is Con rule taht applies to states. Too fundamental in society to overrule.
|
|
|
NY v. Quarles
|
Exception to Miranda: cops can use noncoercive (voluntary) questioning w/o Miranda warnings when reas prompted by a concern for public safety.
|
|
|
NY v. Haris
|
Even if invalid Miranda confession, it can still be used to impeach D.
|
|
|
OR v. Elstad
|
Proper Miranda confession is OK, even if afetr a Miranda=violated confession (so long as not coerced).
|
|
|
MO v. Seibert
|
1st confession was egregiously manifpulated, therefore 2nd confession is FOPT b/c an intentional abuse of Miranda thru overt police coerciveness.
|
|
|
Tucker v. MI
|
FOPT for 5th Am violations doesn't apply to testimony from independently acting 3rd party.
|
|
|
US v. Patare
|
FOPT for 5th Am vilation doesn't apply to phys ev resulting form non-Miranda confession b/c phys ev is non-testimonial.
|
|
|
Hester
|
Open fileds are nto private
|
|
|
US v. Oliver
|
Reas expec of priv in curtilag.
|
|
|
US v. Dunn
|
Difference b/w curtilage + open fields: factors- 1) proximity to home, 2) whether area is w/in an enclosure surrounding the home, 3) nature of the areass uses, 4) steps taken to protect area from observation.
|
|
|
AZ v. Roberts
|
Right to counsel is more fundamental than right to silence.
|
