Criminal Procedure Cases

Front 1

Week v. United States (1914)

Back 1

Cops illegally search the defendant's house for lottery tickets and related papers. Evidence obtained by federal officers in violation of the 4th amendment may not be introduced against the defendant at his federal trial.
Rationale: Judicial Integrity

Front 2

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Back 2

Searching for a person who they thought was hiding out. They search Mapp's whole house finding obscenity in the basement and want to use it against her. All evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court.
Rationale:
Judicial Integrity
Deterrence of officers

Front 3

Katz v. United States (1967)

Back 3

Police attach a listening device to the outside of phone booth to pick up what D is saying to a bookie in Miami. 4th amendment protects people not places. Search in an area where the D has a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Not what he knowingly exposes to the public.

Front 4

United States v. White (1971)

Back 4

Conversations in informant's home, in D's kitchen, agent hiding in his closet and transmitting to another officer outside. Court concludes no subjective expectation b/c there is always the chance of a false friend going to the police; and not objectively reasonable b/c he has knowingly exposed this to the public.

Front 5

Smith v. Maryland (1979)

Back 5

Police, via the phone company, install a pen register on D's landline to record the numbers dialed. Register revealed that he was dialing the victim's house. Get warrant go to his house and his phonebook is open to her page. No subjective expectation b/c people know the phone company has this info for billing, track down obscene calls, etc. Knowingly exposed to the public so not unreasonable.

Front 6

California v. Ciralo (1986)

Back 6

Growing marijuana in his backyard separated by two fences; 6-foot exterior; 10-foot interior shielded plants from ground view. Fly over observe mj at 1,000 ft and take 35mm pics. Not a search even thought observed his curtilage in a place they lawfully could be

Front 7

Bond v. United States (2000)

Back 7

Firmly squeezed overhead luggage in an exploratory manner above the respondent's seat. Felt a brick like object and searched it. This was a search for 4th Amendment purposes b/c a physical invasion is more intrusive than a visual observation.

Front 8

Kyllo v. United States (2001)

Back 8

Thermal imaging device giving police information about relative heat emanating from the house. Technology is not in general public use; and the information could not have been obtained w/o physical intrusion in the house. All details are intimate details.

Front 9

Alderman v. United States (1969)

Back 9

Unlawfully overheard conversations between A + B that implicate C. C cannot vicariously assert A or B's rights. However, if A + B were in C's house he would have standing.

Front 10

Rakas v. Illinois (1978)

Back 10

4 people driving in a car get pulled over. Order everyone out of the car, find a box of rifle shells in the locked glove compartment, and a sawed off shot gun under the passenger seat. They did not own the car, driver was the owner. Petitioners did not own the rifle shell or shot gun. Petitioners did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas searched even though they were legitimately in the car.

Front 11

Minnesota v. Olson (1990)

Back 11

Overnight guest has a legitimate expectation in the premises searched even though not legal authority to exclude. Vulnerable when we are asleep.

Front 12

Minnesota v. Carter (1998)

Back 12

3 people sitting at a table bagging up cocaine. 2 people did not live there, never been there before, present for approximately 2 1/2 hours for a purely commercial purpose. Simply being permitted on the premises is different from Olson and having a legitimate expectation of privacy; here no standing.

Front 13

Draper v. United States (1959)

Back 13

Informant tip that respondent would be returning from Denver on Sept 8 or 9th from Denver. Gave detailed description of him and his clothing; would be carrying a tan bag; and walked really fast. Having verified this information they had reasonable grounds to conclude that the final unverified information was true, that he had heroin.

Front 14

Spinelli v. United States (1969)

Back 14

Receive a tip from an untested confidential informant that Spinelli would be traveling across a particular bridge; entering a particular apartment building; and parking his car at the complex; apt had two phones; known to officers as a bookmaker and gambler; that the informant told them he is operating a bookie gig. Police verify all this information except that he is actually a bookie. Must be an adequate showing about informant's information: 1) Basis of knowledge; and 2) veracity. Must satisfy both prongs.

Front 15

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

Back 15

Anonymous handwritten letter stating Gates were drug dealers; they would go to FL to pick up drugs; stay one night; wife would fly back; and husband would drive car back. Verify some of this information, but wife did not fly back. Substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. Totality of the circumstances approach replaces Spinelli.

Front 16

Whren v. United States (1996)

Back 16

Officers observed petitioners waiting at a stop sign for a long time and looking suspicious. They failed to signal for a turn; officers pull them over and observe crack on the driver's lap as he approached. Search vehicle and find drugs. Subjective intentions of the officer do not factor into ordinary probable cause analysis. Objectively justified in making the stop so it is ok.

Front 17

Davenpeck v. Alford (2004)

Back 17

The arresting officer's subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause.

Front 18

Johnson v. United States (1948)

Back 18

Receive tip that D is smoking opium in hotel room. Go to room and smell opium smoke coming from the room. D opens door and denies opium smoke. They go int and search and find opium and smoking apparatus and arrest D. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent an exception or exigent circumstances.

Front 19

United States v. Watson (1976)

Back 19

Officers get signal from informant at restaurant that D has stolen credit cards on him. Move in and arrest him. Warrantless arrest for a felony in a public place is ok without a warrant when supported by probable cause.

Front 20

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)

Back 20

Lady arrested for children not wearing seatbelt. Maximum fine is $50 and statute authorized arrest w/o warrant. Probable cause to believe that even a minor criminal offense has been committed in his presence is sufficient to lawfully arrest the person.

Front 21

Andersen v. Maryland (1976)

Back 21

Lawyer fraud case. Warrant describes the location, and many documents and included a residual clause "together with other fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown." Particular enough when considering the complexity of the crime and the items subject to seizure could not be located in a more particular manner.

Front 22

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

Back 22

Officers get warrant to search 3rd floor apartment. Utility company only one bill, rang 7 door bells in a 3 floor apartment complex, also 7 mailboxes, McWebb downstairs and Garrison upstairs in hallway. Go into Garrison's apt and see drugs in plain view and immediately stop. Did not violate the 4th Amend b/c officers were reasonably mistaken as to the place to be searched.

Front 23

United States v. Grubbs (2006)

Back 23

Police set up controlled delivery of child porn tape. Warrant authorizes police to search once tape is delivered and taken into the D's house. Triggering event not included in the warrant. Must be a fair probability that the triggering event will occur and if it does that there is a fair probability that an item subject to seizure will be located in the place to be searched.

Front 24

Chimel v. California (1969)

Back 24

Arrest petitioner in his house with an arrest warrant. After the arrest they search his entire house, making his wife take out clothes, etc. Search incident to arrest may only be conducted in an are which is within the arrestee's immediate control. Where he might obtain a weapon or evidence that can be used against him.

Front 25

United States v. Robinson (1973)

Back 25

Officer arrests D after pulling him over. Feels an object in left breast pocket takes it out, it is a cigarette pack, opens it and finds heroin capsules. After a lawful arrest the officer, without any additional justification, may conduct a full search of the person and the area within his immediate control.

Front 26

New York v. Belton (1981)

Back 26

Pulls over car of four passengers smells pot, sees envelope w/ "supergold" takes them out of the car and arrests them. Searches entire passenger compartment, finds cocaine in a zipped pocket. Incident to a lawful arrest police may search the passenger compartment of the car of recent occupants and any containers, opened or closed, whether or not they are capable of holding evidence or a weapon.

Front 27

Payton v. New York (1980)

Back 27

Officers get arrest warrant for the two suspects. 1st guy: saw light and heard music coming from his apartment. Used a crowbar and broke in. 2nd guy son opens door; see suspect inside and arrest him in his room. A valid arrest warrant carries implicit authority to enter a private dwelling which the suspect leaves when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside.

Front 28

Steagald v. United States (1981)

Back 28

Cops get a tip that the suspect is staying at a house in Georgia. Saw petitioner and another guy standing outside. Go in and search for suspect do not find him but do find 43 pounds of cocaine.

Front 29

Maryland Pen v. Hayden (1967)

Back 29

Armed robber takes $363 dollars from a cab company and ran. Cabbies follow the guy to a house, call police, they arrive within 5 minutes, knock and tell the wife they believe a suspect is inside. Arrest suspect upstairs feigning sleep. Then still search for money or a man; find shotgun adn pistol in flush tank; find money and clothes in the washing machine. This search is permitted b/c it is as broad as the exigency.

Front 30

Vale v. Louisiana (1970)

Back 30

Two arrest warrants for D go to his house and set up surveillance and watch a drug deal. Arrest him on the front steps of his house; do a protective sweep of the house; mother returns home; then search the home and find drugs. Mother coming home does not create a sufficient exigency to justify the search.

Front 31

Illinois v. McArthur (2001)

Back 31

Wife told officer her husband had dope inside their trailer. He comes outside. They prevent him from going in and retain a search warrant. Did not violate the 4th amendment b/c they reasonably believed that he would destroy evidence if allowed back in.

Front 32

Chambers v. Maroney (1970)

Back 32

Two guys arm rob a service station. Make attendant put the change in the right hand glove. Two teens spot a man wearing a green sweater and getting into a blue station wagon and the other a trench coat. See car, guy wearing green trench coat, and black trench coat about an hour later and 2 miles away. They arrest them, drive the car to the station and find the gun and change in the glove. Probable cause to search the car for guns or money when the vehicle is readily mobile and in a public place.

Front 33

Texas v. White (1975)

Back 33

Arrested after exiting the drive-thru window. Officers search the car back at the station. Don't need additional justification to search the car at the station if you could search at the scene.

Front 34

Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)

Back 34

Obtain an invalid search warrant for the car and try to justify search of car back at the station thru the vehicle exception. Automobile exception inapplicable b/c they could not have searched the car at his house so not at the station when it was not impracticable to obtain a warrant.

Front 35

California v. Carney (1985)

Back 35

Guy in public parking lot exchanging drugs for sex out of a motor home. Knock on the door; go in; and find marijuana in the cupboards and fridge. Motor home falls within the vehicle exception when it is objectively being used for transportation.

Front 36

United States v. Chadwick (1977)

Back 36

Train from SD to Boston with the talcum powder footlocker. Arrest all three and take them and the trunk to the federal building. When no exigency exists to search the container police must obtain a search warrant. When it is under the control of the officers the justifications for something like the vehicle exception do not apply.

Front 37

California v. Acevedo (1991)

Back 37

Police observe respondent exit apartment and have probable cause to believe the bag he is carrying contains marijuana. HE Puts it in his trunk, begins to drive away, officers stop him; search the trunk; open the bag and find marijuana. You can search as far as probable cause takes you in the car.

Front 38

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)

Back 38

Stopped car for speeding and faulty break light. 3 passengers in front seat. Syringe in drivers pocket and says he has been using it to take drugs. Ordered them out of the car and search respondent's purse and wallet. Find meth. Probable cause allows officers to search a passenger's belongings if they believe that the car contains an item subject to seizure.

Front 39

South Dakota v. Opperman (1976)

Back 39

Ticket car twice in the same morning and tow it. Notice a watch and some personal items on the back floorboard. using a standard inventory form they open the car at the impound lot and inventory the contents of the car and find marijuana in the unlocked glove compartment. Must be conducted to standard inventory procedures and not as a pretext for criminal investigation then police can inventory the contents of the vehicle if less intrusive means are available to secure the property.

Front 40

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)

Back 40

Six people pulled over in a car. Owner's brother (not driving)says "sure go ahead" when officer asks to search. Finds 3 stolen checks and use it against one of the passengers. Consent is voluntarily given b/c it is not the product of duress or coercion.

Front 41

Ohio v. Robinette (1996)

Back 41

Guy pulled over for speeding. Officer was not going to ticket him but only give him a verbal warning. Warned him and then asked him for consent to search. Consent voluntarily given even though D was free to leave b/c officer objectively could have detained even though he wasn't.

Front 42

United States v. Matlock (1974)

Back 42

Arrest D in his front yard; and go to house and woman in a robe holding a baby in her arms gave them consent to search their room for guns and money. Find money in a diaper bag in the closet. Mutual use = common authority or other sufficient relationship to the premises to give consent valid against a co-occupant.

Front 43

Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990)

Back 43

Police go to victim of a beating's house and V tells them that the guy who beat her is at the apartment now. She has a key, rides over there with them, refers to it as "our apt", says she has clothes and furniture there. Opens door with her key and gave them permission to enter. Find cocaine and paraphernalia in plain view. Apparent is as good as actual authority as long as officer's belief was reasonable.

Front 44

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

Back 44

Split up husband and wife at front door accusing each other of using cocaine. HE refuses consent and she gives consent. Search of a shared dwelling over express refusal of a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him based on consent by the other resident.

Front 45

Horton v. California (1990)

Back 45

Coin robbery case. Search suspect's place do not find stolen property but also wanted to find guns which they do; along with coin club pamphlet. Plain view doctrine does not require the evidence to be acquired inadvertently.

Front 46

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Back 46

Bullet fired through apartment floor. Police get to apartment to find the shooter, any victims, and guns. Sees expensive stereo equipment, lifts up the turntable to read serial number, confirms it is stolen. This was a new search and a new invasion into suspect's privacy. The incriminating nature of the evidence must be readily apparent.

Front 47

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Back 47

Officer observes guys casing a shop. Walks up identifies himself, guy mumbles something, officer spins him around and pats down his out clothing and feels what appears to be a gun. Makes him take off his jacket and seizes the gun. When an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot and the person he is dealing with is armed and presently dangerous he may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing to discover weapons.

Front 48

Dunaway v. New York (1979)

Back 48

Pick up suspect at neighbor's house, take him into custody, not formally placed under arrest, taken to the station, read his Miranda warnings and questioned in an interrogation room. Probable cause is required for a seizure that is not substantially less intrusive than an arrest.

Front 49

United States v. Mendenhall (1980)

Back 49

Approached suspect who fit drug courier profile at the terminal. Ask for Ticket and ID they don't match identifies himself as an agent hands ticket and ID back and asks her to accompany him to DEA office. A person is not seized for 4th amend purposes unless they feel like they are not free to leave. Here not seized.

Front 50

Florida v. Bostick (1991)

Back 50

Officer boards bus looking for drugs with pistol in pouch, other officer stands in front of D seat the other in front of the bus. Ask for consent to search his bag, advise him he can refuse to consent. When a person does not feel free to leave for reasons unrelated to police pressure a reasonable innocent person must feel to terminate the encounter.

Front 51

California v. Hodari D (1991)

Back 51

Respondent takes off running and throws a crack rock just before the officer tackles him. Must submit to the officer's show of authority before he is seized.

Front 52

Brendlin v. California (2007)

Back 52

Officer pull over car with no probable cause. Passenger throws something out of the door. Goes to passenger side and arrests D after verifying he had an arrest warrant. Searches car and finds meth stuff. A reaosnable person in Brendlin's position would not feel free to terminate the encounter. He was seized by a show of authority that was partially directed at him and submitted to once the car was stopped.

Front 53

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)

Back 53

4th Car in police caravan observe respondent standing next to a building in a high crime area of Chicago holding an opaque bag. Looks in the officer's direction and runs. They cut him off and immediately conduct a patdown search for weapons. Squeezes bag and felt a hard heavy object and then find a .38. Presence in high crime area plus unprovoked flight gives reasonable suspicion to investigate further.

Front 54

Alabama v. White (1990)

Back 54

Anonymous tip about D leaving apartment at a particular time; driving a particular car; carrying a brown attache case carrying cocaine; headed to the Dobey Motel. Comes out gets in the car, not carrying the case; drives direct route to the hotel they stop her on the road the hotel is on and she consents to the search. Reasonable suspicion to believe she was engaged in criminal activity. Quantity and quality of information can be lower for reasonable suspicion determination.

Front 55

Florida v. J.L. (2000)

Back 55

Anonymous tip that young black male, wearing plaid shirt; would be standing at a bus stop and has a gun. Not enough for reasonable suspicion b/c it provided no predictive information only a description. Hint at requiring less than reasonable suspicion if reported that he had a bomb.

Front 56

United States v. Sharpe (1985)

Back 56

Blue pickup caravaning with other car; suspension maxed out; quilt covering the windows; follow for 20 miles; gets of interstate then back on; then pulls them over. DEA agent gets to the truck after 20 mins; steps on rear of the truck; puts nose against the glass smells mj; gets keys from ignition and opens camper and finds bales of pot. Detention was not too long b/c the officers acted diligently in dispelling their suspicion; delay was the product of the suspect's actions; detention was not indefinite.

Front 57

United States v. Montoya (1985)

Back 57

Alimentary canal smuggling case. 16-hour detention not unreasonable on reasonable suspicion.

Front 58

United States v. Place (1983)

Back 58

Flight from Miami to NY. Agents in Miami phone ahead to agents in NY and tell them that this guy is suspicious. Take his luggage to JFK airport and dog sniffs it 90 minutes later. Dog reacts positively and they then wait till Monday to get a warrant. Beyond the scope of the narrow authority allowed to briefly detain the luggage suspected of containing contraband. Big thing is officer diligence, they could have arranged for the dog to be present.

Front 59

Maryland v. Buie (1990)

Back 59

Arrest warrant for one of two men who armed robbed a Godfather's pizza. Call his house talk to a female and then him. Go to the house; one officer goes to "freeze" the basement and shouts down until somebody comes up. Arrests him. Another officer goes down there to make there wasn't anyone else down there and sees a red jogging suit that was worn during the robbery and seizes it. Can sweep the area of a house incident to arrest where there is reasonable suspicion that a person who poses a danger may be. Extends Chimel authority to closets and spaces immediately adjoining the area around the arrestee from which an attack could be launched.

Front 60

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Back 60

Seriously disturbed Mexican indigent signs statement saying he knowingly and voluntarily made incriminating statements. Court holds that all statements made during custodial interrogation are not admissible unless the suspect is apprised of his right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present, right to have one appointed, and that anything he says will be used against him. Must knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive these rights.

Front 61

New York v.Quarles (1984)

Back 61

Rape victim tells police that a black male, with "Big Ben" on his jacket, just raped her and went into the grocery store, and has a gun. They see him; he runs; they catch him and arrest him. Ask him where the gun is. HE replies that it is over there. There is a public safety exception that allows officer to ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. Like a little retarded girl.

Front 62

Dickerson v. United States (2000)

Back 62

Upholds Miranda as a constitutional decision and strikes down section 3501 of the US Code which tries to snap back to the Due Process requirement and legislatively supersede the Court's authority.

Front 63

Berkemer v. McCarthy (1984)

Back 63

Guy stopped after observed weaving. Asked him out of the vehicle and knew at that point he would be charged with a traffic offense, asked him if he was using any intoxicants. Said he had a couple of beers and a couple of joints. Placed him under arrest and took him to jail. Resumed questioning at the station. Entitled to Miranda regardless of the severity of the offense. Person temporarily detained for an ordinary non-coercive traffic stop is not in custody for Miranda purposes. Must be a formal arrest or its functional equivalent.

Front 64

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

Back 64

Wouldn't it be terrible if some little retarded girl found that gun with each other. Not subjected to interrogation unless it is express questioning or words or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Front 65

Illinois v. Perkins (1990)

Back 65

Set up an inmate and the agent asks if he ever did anybody.Suspect then incriminates himself. Strategic deception that illicits incriminating responses is not covered by Miranda b/c the suspect is speaking at his own peril and does not know that it is an officer.

Front 66

Colorado v. Spring (1987)

Back 66

Given Miranda warnings and Questioned on May 30th about selling illegal weapons and an unrelated murder. Says he shot another guy once. Then on May 26 they go to his cell and give him warnings and get him to confess about the murder. You do not have to know of every subject they will question you about to constitute an intelligent waiver. Must only know that the evidence will be used against you. Know that you have the rights. And waive them without coercion or duress implicit or implied.

Front 67

Michigan v. Mosley (1975)

Back 67

Give warnings and want to question him about the robbery he declines to answer any questions and the officer promptly ceased. Put him in a cell and 2 hours later different officer goes to interrogate about the murder. Take him to another location and give fresh warnings; he waives. At first he denies, they say that another guy named him as the shooter (false) and then he confesses. His right to cut-off questioning was being scrupulously honored.

Front 68

Edwards v. Arizona (1981)

Back 68

Suspect invokes the right to counsel after thinking about making a plea deal. Go to his cell the next morning; guard say he has to talk to them after he declines; and incriminates himself. After invoking the right to counsel a suspect is not subject to further interrogation until counsel is present unless he initiates further exchange, communication, or conversations with the police.

Front 69

Silverthorne v. United States (1920)

Back 69

Illegally seized documents given back. Then get another legal subpoena based on that information. Knowledge gained from an illegal seizure cannot be used at all.

Front 70

Murray v. United States (1988)

Back 70

Arrest and seize vehicles coming from warehouse containing marijuana. Unlawfully go into the warehouse and see bales of pot. Go get a search warrant, come back and seize the evidence. Illegally obtained knowledge not given to judge issuing warrant. Warrant must be based on untainted independent information. Officer's motivation in obtaining the warrant must not have been influenced by the illegally obtained knowldge.

Front 71

Nix v. Williams (1984)

Back 71

Christian burial speech leads officers to girl's body. Search crew was 2 1/2 miles and was the next quadrant to be searched. Freezing temps so the body would have been found in the same condition. Must establish by a POE that the body would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means in the same condition. Don't want to put police in a worse position.

Front 72

Wong Sun v. United States (1963)

Back 72

Hom Way (lawful arrest; lawful statement implicating Blackie Toy)-- Blackie Toy (Illegal arrest; illegal entry; statment implicating Yee)--Johnny Yee (illegal entry; heroin and statements implicating Sea Dog)Toy says Sea Dog is Wong Sun; Wong Sun (illegal arrest; comes back a few days later and gives statements)

Front 73

Brown v. Illinois (1975)

Back 73

Officer illegally enter his apartment and arrest him once he comes home. Incriminating statement at home and then back at the station after Miranda warnings. Statement given 2 hours after his illegal arrest; no intervening act of free will; intentional disregard by the police to violate the 4th; only purpose was for investigation.

Front 74

Oregon v. Elstad (1985)

Back 74

Go to 18-year-old's house suspected of neighbor's robbery of $150,000 of stuff. Told him he needed to come to the station and asked him if he knew the neigbors. Says yeah i heard they got robbed. Did you have anything to do with it? Yeah i was there. Then gave warnings at the station and he confesses. the initial Miranda violation, in the absence of coercion did not warrant exclusion of the second statement after new warnings. Warnings are ordinarily sufficient to remove the conditions of coercion of the earlier statement.

Front 75

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

Back 75

Woke up at 3:00 in hospital deliberatley questioned first at station for 30 to 45 minutes and gave 20 minute break. Then read warnings and questioned her about the previous admission and got her to confess. A reasonable person in the suspect's shoes would not have seen the second round of questioning as a distinct new experience that conveyed the message that she had a choice about talking. Warnings are ineffective and being undermined by this technique.

Front 76

United States v. Patane (2004)

Back 76

Arrest suspect for violating restraining order. Questions him about the Glock pistol. Persisted in questioning until he said it was in his bedroom. Violation of Miranda is not a violation of the 5th amendment so introducing fruit of that statement is not covered by any restriction since it is not a violation of the right against self-incrimination.