Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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.
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.
Execution standard: reas use of min. procedures on wiretap is a low bar.
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.
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.
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.