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;
57 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Weeks v. United States |
Exclusionary Rule -- evidence illegally obtained in violation of the fundamental guarantees of the 4th shall not be used in legal proceedings against the Defendant |
|
|
Wolf v. Colorado |
The exclusionary rule does not apply to states because“other factors” serve to deter oppressive police conduct which are notapplicable in federal court |
|
|
Mapp v. Ohio |
The exclusionary rule does apply to the states through the 14th amendment and it provides a right to be free from arbitrary government intrusions and implies that evidence found in such intrusions are barred from trial. |
|
|
Herring v. United States |
Exclusionary rule is not an individual right, it applies only when it results in appreciable deterrence that outweighs the costs and police must act "recklessly" in maintaining the warrant system, simple negligence is not enough |
|
|
Katz v. United States |
In order for the 4th Amendment to apply, an individual must possess a reasonable expectation of privacy.
|
|
|
California v. Greenwood |
No expectation of privacy in trash left outside. Once the public has access to something, the police cannot be expected to advert their eyes to what everyone else can readily see.
|
|
|
Florida v. Riley |
Conduct public ordinarily engage in determines whether the police conduct leading to information is protected by public and is the defendant’s burden to show that people don’t ordinarily engage in this activity |
|
|
Kyllo v. United States |
There is a firm line drawn at the entrance of the home, the line must not only be firm, but it must also be bright which requires that if the police want to have any insight on any information coming from inside the home it is required that they get a warrant. |
|
|
United States v. White |
No reasonable expectation of privacy for conversations with third party regardless of how much defendant trusts that third party. |
|
|
United States v. Jones |
Government cannot break the law when an ordinary citizen cannot break the law to obtain information |
|
|
Hester v. United States |
No expectation of privacy in a place where the public can access (open fields doctrine) and is open to everyone.
|
|
|
Johnson v. United States (1948) |
Police are allowed to draw inferences fromcircumstantial inferences of criminal activity, as long as those inferences arebased on their experience and knowledge, but must still be shown to a neutral and detached magistrate to obtain a warrant. |
|
|
United States v. Prandy-Binnett |
Somewhere between "less than evidence which would justify conviction" and "more than bare suspicion" satisfies probable cause.
|
|
|
United States v. Valez |
An arrest is valid under the 4th A if the police have probable cause to arrest the person sought and the arresting officer reasonably believed the arrestee was that person |
|
|
Maryland v. Pringle |
Probable cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. Car passengers will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits or the evidence of their wrong doing. |
|
|
Spinelli v. United States |
If written affidavit is based on an informant's tip, then the affidavit must be reliable and informant must be credible.
|
|
|
Illinois v. Gates |
In situations in which the police receive an anonymous tip, it requires that they do something to corroborate that information. A strong showing of one prong of Spinelli can overcome a weak showing of the other prong. Probable cause is a "fair probability" that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. |
|
|
United States v. Morales |
Look at the nature of the information, the corroboration, independent verification, and the varacity and basis of knowledge.
|
|
|
Maryland v. Garrison |
Good faith exception to executing a warrant if the police officer makes a reasonable mistake but acts in good faith and acted reasonably. |
|
|
Lyons v. Robinson |
Sufficiency of address: 1.Whether the place to be searched is described with sufficient particularity to identify the premises with reasonable effort. 2.Whether there is any reasnonable probability that another premises might be mistakenly searched. |
|
|
United States v. Thomas |
Extends the good faith doctrine to warrants if the officer acts in good faith and makes harmless mistake. |
|
|
Richards v. Wisconsin |
No knock entry is justified if there is a reasonable belief that knocking would present a dangerous situation or lead to the destruction of evidence. |
|
|
Chimel v. California |
A search incident to an arrest is limited to the grab area (the space immediately surrounding the person) and can be done for officer safety (weapons) and to prevent the destruction of evidence that can be used to convict the individual. Consent may be given by a person that resides in a residency or someone who is authorized to give consent. |
|
|
Vale v. Louisiana |
A search is incident to a lawful arrest "only if it is substantially contemporaneous (timely) with the arrest and it is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest (where the arrestee was at the time of the arrest). |
|
|
Carroll v. United States |
A vehicle can be stopped and searched and items can be seized without a warrant if there was probable cause to believe that there is evidence present in the vehicle AND exigent circumstances to believe the evidence could be removed from the area before a warrant could be obtained. |
|
|
United States v. Robinson |
Right to arrest in automobile carries with it the automatic right to search incident to that arrest making it per se reasonable to search the car incident to a valid arrest. |
|
|
New York v. Belton |
Not only can you search the grab area, but you can also search all the containers of the car unless it is locked and a police officer can search the occupants of the vehicle and recent occupants of the vehicle as long as they have some sort of nexus to the car. |
|
|
Thornton v. United States |
Can search recent occupants even if accosted away from vehicle so long as there is reason to believe that evidence of crime might be found in vehicle.
|
|
|
Arizona v. Gant |
Police may search a vehicle incident to an arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense or arrest. but police may not if the scene is secured. |
|
|
Whren v. United States |
Police officer's pretext for why he stopped suspect is irrelevant for a 4th amendment analysis so long as the stop and arrest are lawful.
|
|
|
United States v. Hicks
|
|
|
|
Kentucky v. King |
Police cannot create the exigent circumstances but they can rely on it to determine the grab area for the basis of conducting a warrantless search.
|
|
|
United States v. Mendenhall |
A person has been seized only when, by means of physical force or showing of some authority, that the person's freedom of movement is restrained in some significant way. i.e. "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." |
|
|
Michigan v. Chesternut |
Officers must do something coercive in order for a reasonable person to believe that she is not free to leave.
|
|
|
Terry v. Ohio |
When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in ligh of his experience that criminal activity is afoot and the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous, he is entitled, for the protection of himself and others, to conduct a limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. |
|
|
Illinois v. Wardlow |
Police are not required to ignore relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the totality of the circumstances are sufficiently sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation.
|
|
|
United States v. Condelee |
The relevant inquiry is the degree of suspicion that attaches to a particular type of noncriminal act. |
|
|
United States v. Weaver |
|
|
|
Florida v. Royer |
Mere identification request by police does not convert the stop into a seizure without more, some level of objective justification. Person may choose not to answer questions and in fact may decline to even listen to questions or answer them and failure to do so does not furnish ground for the reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
Denson v. United States |
|
|
|
United States v. Drayton |
Police Officers are not required to advise defendants of their Mendenhall rights when they approach them on the street or other public places and putting questions to them if the Defendant is willing and consents to answering them. A mere intrusion occurs when a passenger on a bus being interdicted permits an officer to ask him questions and pat him down even though he is unaware of his Mendenhall rights and police are not required to tell you that you can discontinue the interaction at anytime. |
|
|
Florida v. Bostick |
When police actions do not restrict a person's freedom to leave more than the rights are already restricted, it is not coercive and consent can be obtained for a search. |
|
|
Commonwealth v. Vasquez |
|
|
|
United States v. Place |
When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may be traveling with narcotics in luggage, under Terry, police can engage in a brief detention to investigate the circumstances that aroused the police officer's suspicion, but that detention not only applies to a person but it also applies to property. Cannot seize the Defendant's property for an unreasonable amount of time to wait for the arrival of canines. |
|
|
Illinois v. Caballes |
Dog sniffs are permissible under Place and is a lesser intrusion because they only reveal illegal activity and if the search was conducted within the allotted time for a legal seizure in the first place the search is legal. |
|
|
Florida v. Jardines |
The front porch of the home is part of the home itself for 4th amendment purposes and police cannot go beyond what ordinary citizens would be entitled to under trespassory law.
|
|
|
United States v. Pierce (actual video in class) |
A bunch of non-criminal behavior can amount to reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
Miranda v. United States |
The Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of court proceedings and other formal proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
|
|
|
Yarborough v. Alvarado |
Interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody in a police dominated environment or at least with a measure of coercion and the defendant has not UNEQUIVOCALLY invoked his right to remain silent. |
|
|
JDB v. North Carolina |
Age should be considered for a juvenile suspect when deciding custody for Miranda purposes.
|
|
|
Illinois v. Perkins |
Miranda warning are not required when suspect is unaware that they are speaking with law enforcement because the element of coercion is not present and miranda concerns are not implicated. |
|
|
Rhode Island v. Innis |
The functional equivalent of interrogation occurs when officers should have known their words or actions will likely illicit an incriminating confession. |
|
|
Minnick v. Mississippi |
When counsel is requested, the interrogation must cease and officials may not reinitiate interrogation whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney. |
|
|
Berghuis v. Thompkins |
Must unequivocally invoke the right to remain silent in order to remain silent or right is waived |
|
|
United States v. Leon |
When the police act in good faith reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate who is mistaken in her determination of the probable cause, the exclusionary rule will not bar evidence seized even if Probable cause did not exist. |
|
|
United States v. Ciraolo |
No 4A protection in aerial surveillance in what the public can readily see b/c there is no expectation of privacy |
|
|
United States v. Dunn |
Curtilage is the proximity of the home that an individual takes the steps to keep private and enclose |
