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;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
United States v Drayton
|
D was a passenger on a n intercity bus who was arrested after a search during a sweep of bus showed hew as carrying illegal drugs.
BLR: there is no seizure of a person if police does not do anything to suggest to a reasonable person that he or she can terminate theencounter. Issue: did the questioning an d pat down of the passenger on the bus pursuant to a routine sweep constitute a seizure? |
|
|
Florida v. Royer
|
Person may not voluntarily consent to a serahc of his property while he is illegally detained.
Fact: Royer was convicted of drug possession after his luggage was searched at an airport and marijuana was seized. BLACK LETTER: when officers have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime, they may temporarily detain the individual for questioning no longer than necessary to serve the purpose of the stop. |
|
|
Illinois v. Wardlow:
|
Unprovoked flight, in a high crime area, can be enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.
How a person goes about declining to talk to a police officer can contribute to reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
Florida v. J.L
|
in J.L, police received a tip that a young black male would be standing at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt.
Similar to white, there is a tip and corroboration, but J.L failed the test. The tip must be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. White predicted future events. The tip in J.L was not recorded. There is no record of the evidence leading to suspicion. |
|
|
Alabama v. White:
|
a tip said a woman would leave a apartent building at a time in a car and go to a hotel and be carrying cocaine. That alone was not enough to stop the car. However that information plus watching the events occur was enough to warrant a stop. Court said it was a "close case".
|
|
|
Reasonable Suspicion: defined:
|
less than probable cause: articulated facts. They want to aovid pretext. Has to be based on something legitimate that goes beyond harassment. Has to be more than a hunch.
|
|
|
Terry v. ohio:
|
Does the 4th amendment apply to short of arrest actions.
Facts: cop sees three guys, thinks they're going to rob a store. He stops them, frisks them. Finds a guns on two, nothing on the third. Third guy is let go. Cop said " crime was afoot." technically, they were innocent. At what point did the 4th apply? Before a search, there has to be a seizure. When they were stopped. Seizure: when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen. |
|
|
minnesota v. Carter
|
police look through blinds and see drugs. get a warrant and arrest a guest of the house. : Under the 4th, do household visitors have the same protection against unreasonable searches and seizures as do residents of overnight social guests?
• Holding: no legitimate expectation of privacy. "people who visit someone's home for a short time do not have the same protection against unreasonable police searches and seizures as to residents and overnight guests. • Somewhere between 2 hours ( not enough) and overnight guest (enough) a person gets a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ginsberg Dissent: when you invite someone into your home, you are extending your expectation of privacy. |
|
|
Spinelli v. United States:
|
Police received a tip that Spinelli was a bookie.
Agents provided information that they had seen FBI tracked Spinelli • crossing a bridge between Illinois and missouri multiple times and • had an apartment with two telephones and • operated a "handbook for accepting bets." Issue: Was the informer's tip as corroborated to the extent indicated in the affidavid, sufficient to provide the basis for finding of probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant? Holding: the tip was not sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. Reversed and remanded. |
|
|
ILLINOIS V GATES
|
overrules Aguilar and Spinelli.
Effect: old skool: informant tips must meet separate tests for veracity and basis of knowledge. New rule applies totality of circumstances. Of all the facts known to the police officer, and in the case of a warrant, written in an afidavid. If warrantless, all the facts known to the police officer at the time the search is performed. Facts( cars and planes and drugs, very detailed. ) Issue: is order for a warrant based on an anonymous tip to be valid, must the elements of veracity and reliability and basis of knowledge exist separately and independent. RULE: probable cause for a warrant resulting form an anonymous tip can be adduced under the totality of the circumstances. |
|
|
How is Totality of the circumstances applied:?
|
When evaluating the totality… the judge basicallyl has to go and say.. Ok, so the letter sounds like its suggestive.. How do we know if its reliable.. Predicting things that happen, and they actulally ahppened..
Still stort of doing an aguilar and spinelli analysis. 1. A/s no more . Weakness in one prong can be fixed by strengthening another prong. 2. What was wrong with A/s was it was too tehnical for the police, and for the magistrates. 3. 4. Post Gates.. Are magistrates being graded? Only if they are really really really wrong. "great defference to the magistrate's probable cause determination"/ 1. Appeals courts can review de novo. But they can use the standard of abuse of discretion. |
|
|
Maryland v Pringle
|
: fruit of the poisonous tree
facts: D was arrested after coke was found in the rear seat of the vehicle in which D was a front seat passenger. RULE: probable cause generally requires a reasonably particularized ground for belief of a defendants ' guilt. Issue: did the officer have probable cause to arrest [all three of them??] the d based on Contraband found in the backseat of a car in which he was a front seat passenger? Holding; yes. probable cause req a reasonably particularized ground for bleif of a d's guilt. here there was no doubt that a crim ehad been commited. ARG: if he weren't arrested, he wouldn't have been arrested.. So the arrest is tained and the fruit of that search. Pringle argues there was no reason to suspect the cocaine was his. |
|
|
Note case: Ybarra v. Illinois
|
: popo searched everyone in a tavern. Here they had probable cause to pat down everyone, and a search warrant for tavern and its present customers for drugs. Very Different From Pringle!!
• "those who share a car have a community of interest" De Re: illegal dealing in ration coupons. Popo arrested several people in a car. Di Re was sitting front passenger seat, same place as Pringle. In the back seat was an informant. Different from Pringle b/c they knew what they were looking for., driver did the deal. Tip was for the driver. Govt said " any inference that everone at a crime is guilty dissapears if informant singles out someone.". |
|
|
Maryland v. Garrison:
|
Facts; G(D appt was searched as a result of a lack of awareness that
his appt was seprate from the premesis identified in a search warrant. RULE: good faith factual mistakes do not invalidate an otherwise valid search warrant. If a reasonable POPO, in the position of the POPO who got the warrant, upon reasonable investigation would have reasonably believed it was the same area to be searched, then its ok. Dissent- blackmun. Analysis: this does nothing to deter future violations. Instead the exception excuses them. |
|
|
Richards v. Wisconsin
|
POLICE USUALLY HAVE TO KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE THEIR PRESENCE PRIOR TO
EXECUTING A WARRANT. Instant facts: police forcibly entered a hotel room without knocking an announcing their presence and seized drugs on the premesis. Thurshwell says this is about decency, not plausible deniability. Rule: in order to dispense with the knock and announce req. police must demonstrate their reasonable suspicion that application of the rule would be dangerous or futile or would result in destruction of evidence of the crime. |
|
|
United States v. Watson:
|
Instant facts: Watson was arrested without a warrant by a federal
postal inspector as authorized by federal statute. Rule: felony arrests may be made soley on the basis of probable cause, without a warrant. Facts: a reliable informant told a federal postal inspector that D had provided him with a stolen credit card and agreed to provide more at a meeting to be held several days later. At the meeting, the informant signaled the inspector that D had the cards, and D was arrested without a warrant as authorized by federal statue. D was convicted but the court of appeals reversed finding the warrantless arrest unconstitutional. Rationale: No. Fed stat. authorizes a postal inspector to make a warrantless arrest based on probable cause. 4th does not require a warrant to make a felony arrest. But cnnot insist upon reasonable grounds for the making the arrest |
|
|
United States v. Robinson
|
. [based on Terry v. Ohio] SIA: Search Incident to Arrest exception:
Fact: Officer arrested motorist, w/ probable cause. He searched him, finding a cigarette package, w drugs.Pretext arrest: officer has no probable cause, suspects the guy of dealing drugs. Finds a motor vehicle infraction Holding:: search was lawful. cops can search ANY container in the car’s passenger compartment incident to a lawful arrest (even if no probable cause). bright line rule: :”It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search[,” AND NO FURTHER JUSTIFICATION IS NECESSARY. |
|
|
Hodari D. ( note case)
|
guy sees police, runs, police say top, he runs, tosses the coke. Gets caught and convicted. He argues that he was seized made without reasonable suspicion. Surmounting to fruit of the poisonous tree and should be suppressed.
Rule " that a police pursuit in attempting to seize a person does not amount to a seizure within the meaning of the 4th.". "stop halt!' is not a seizure. D arg: the state is asserting a show of authority. P/Court: not a seizure, guy didn't stop. |
|
|
based on Robinson, Search is ok:
|
• To look for weapons
• To ensure the safety of the officer ( same same:) • To look for evidence… ( of which crime??) Evidence req. is justified by arguing the evidence could be destroyed. (similar to exig. Circ.) Can also search the area within the immediate controll of the arrestee. The "grab area" |
|
|
Cupp v. murphy:
|
guy went into a popo station, police noticed bloood under his fingernails. Took scrapings. Arrested him a month later. Not a SIA. Rather, warrantless search justified based on exigent circumstances.
|
|
|
Warrantless Searches:
|
1. SIA (Robinson)
2. Exigent (Cupp) 3. Inventory at jail. (Lafayette) [ note, this has nothing to do with criminal investigation, but 4th amendment still applies. Its reasonable because of safety. Like airport searches. ) |
|
|
Whren v. United States, 1996.
|
Facts: Police stopped a car for violating traffic regulations, and then searched it after seeing drugs in plain view.
Plane clothes cops in d.c. car stopped at a stop sign, then speed off. N eighborhood described as a "high drug area". Dark neisan pathfinder truck. [there was a time when neisan pathfinders were deemed to be a car for drug dealers.] Drugs were in plain view. No search. The traffic stop is what is at issue, the seizure. Facts: Police stopped a car for violating traffic regulations, and then searched it after seeing drugs in plain view. Plane clothes cops in d.c. car stopped at a stop sign, then speed off. N eighborhood described as a "high drug area". Dark neisan pathfinder truck. [there was a time when neisan pathfinders were deemed to be a car for drug dealers.] Drugs were in plain view. No search. The traffic stop is what is at issue, the seizure. Holding: valid traffic stop. As long as there is the traditional indicia to do a stop/search, their motives are irrelevant. A cop can do a pretextual traffic stop provided that he had probable cause. BLR: Probable cause makes a search and seizure “reasonable,” |
|
|
Individualized suspicion
|
reasonably focuses police attention on one particular individual or place as likley to be up to no good/committed a crime/local of contraband. can be reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
|
|
|
Untited States v. Place
|
RULE: previously a Chadwick case: container not in a car: if you have probable cause you can seize it and take it to a magistrate to get a warrant and open it.
FACTS: Man at airport. Police approach, luggage tags don’t match. When he lands, cops meet him. Say they suspect him of drugs. Seizure-->90 min-> dog sniff->2 days->warrant. ISSUE: Can it be seized on less than probable cause? YES terry stop for container is ok w/ reasonable suspicion. Terry stop was too long and too intrusive here though. no hard line, 20-90 min. Note: if a police officer lies about a suspect's rights, as a factual matter, there is an appeals issue |
|
|
Palko v. Connecticut
|
(1937) RULE: Fifth amendment prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to states through the 14th amendment.
FACTS: d convicted 2nd degree murder,(life not death) State appealed and got a new trial; 2nd trial proceded over objection, ended w/ palko convicted of 1st degree murder. BLR: only provisions of bill of rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are applicable to the states through the 14th. |
|
|
Ordered Liberty
|
Palko rejected the “total incorporation” approach. Instead, Palko directs the court to engage in a case-by-case inquiry, examining whether the right in question embodies a ‘principle of justice’ that is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” If it does, then the 14th Amendment prohibits it.
2. Principles of justice “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” include: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right of peacable assembly. Excluded are the right to trial by jury as well as immunity from prosecution except as the result of an indictment. (you can run a “civilized” court system without trial by jury). . Summary of Palko: Some guarantees in the Bill of Rights apply to states thru the 14th Amdt. Due Process Clause, and some do not. The way to determine which apply to the states is whether the right in quesiton is “implicit in concept of ordered liberty.” |
|
|
Adamson v. California:
|
14th does not require same protections against self incrimination as the 5th.
d convicted of murder 1, to death, did not testify at trial, made no effort to explain case against him. RULE (overturned 1964) 5th Amendment doesn't protect against self incrimination through 14th. self incrim not implicit to ordered liberty. Black's dissent: total incorporation, ( noone buys it) |
|
|
Justices score card:
ordered liberty v. total incorporation. |
- Ordered Liberty View: Frankfurter, Harlan, etc. pick and choose, some bill of rights are incorporated to the states, some are not.
Total Incorporation, Black. All of thebill of rights are incorporated to the states. There are no free floating parts that are protected by the dure process clause but not other amendments. |
|
|
Duncan v. Louisiana
|
(selected incorporation, current rule) 14th incorporates the 6th right to jury.
Facts: D denied request to jury trial on assault, because LA only provided right to jury for felonies. BLR: 6th provides all criminal d's right to jury. |
