Criminal Procedure/con Law

Front 1

Challenging Search Warrants - two ways:

Back 1

1. On the FACE - facts as set out cannot establish PC
2. Going BEHIND the affidavit - FRANKS hearing - some or all averrments at least recklessly false and the redacted affidavit does not establish PC.

Front 2

Probable Cause Test - for ARREST WARRANT

Back 2

is there a "fair probability" under the "totality of the circumstances" that, (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) the person to be arrested committed the crime?

Front 3

Probable Cause Test - for SEARCH WARRANT

Back 3

is there "fair probability" under the "totality of the circumstances" that, (a) the items (to be seized) are evidence of criminal activity; and (b) the items are presently located at the specified place - PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT

Front 4

Expectation of Privacy - KATZ

Back 4

Is there (a) reasonable expectation of privacy, (b)has the person exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy; and (c) is that expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable? PHONE BOOTH CASE - you can be protected form the uninvited ear but if the uninvited ear is invited (an informant w/ a wire) you are not protected

Front 5

NO E of P - Misplaced Trust Doctrine - U.S. v. White

Back 5

If you tell a confederate a secret, you have no expectation of privacy that they won't narc on you.

Front 6

NO E of P - Open Fields Doctrine - Oliver v. U.S.

Back 6

Generally, if the public could see it on your property - or w/out extraordinary means - it's fair game for the police to see

Front 7

No E of P - Public Access to Private Material - CA v. Greenwood

Back 7

Trash case - D gave his trash over to the curb - therefore open to anyone - police do not have to avert their eyes to the trash

Front 8

No E of P - When Only Illegal activity can be detected - U.S. v. Place

Back 8

Dog sniff case - can only point out drugs/no drugs, drugs are illegal, therefore there is no E of P associated with the carrying of them. The minute they are detected, police have PC and may search/seize.

Front 9

Expectation of Privacy Cases - BOND

Back 9

BOND - squeezing luggage - any way of gaining info considered a search - outside security checkpoint

Front 10

Expectation of Privacy Cases - KYLLO (2001)

Back 10

Taking temp of exterior of a home - there are private facts that can be detected that police should not have access to - a specially protected place

Front 11

Expectation of Privacy Cases - KARO (1984)

Back 11

Police can stick a beeper on a car in public - they cannot gain info about the car where they otherwise wouldn't be able to - can't turn beeper on when in a garage

Front 12

Searches Incident to Arrest

Back 12

Scope - area of arrestee's "immediate control." If arrested in car - includes entire passenger compartment including locked glove box.

Front 13

Automobile Search

Back 13

Police may make a warrantless search of a car anytime they have PC to believe it contain E of a crime; Police may search closed containers w/in a car;

Front 14

Trunk of a Car

Back 14

P may not search unless there is reason to believe an item for which they have PC is there - PC follows the item.

Front 15

Inventory Search of Car

Back 15

P may do this but it must be (1) routine; and (2) limits officers' discretion

Front 16

Terry Stop - defined

Back 16

A brief detention justified by REASONABLE SUSPICION (crime is afoot and stopee is involved) for questioning that does nto convey that one will have one's freedom of movement controlled for an indefinite period (aka arrest)

Front 17

Terry Frisk - defined

Back 17

A 'pat down' of outer surfaces of clothing to determine whether suspect has weapons - cannot reach inside pockets - NOT A FULL BLOWN SEARCH - Reasonable Suspicion - stopee is armed (initial stop must be valid) - frisk flows from the STOP.

Front 18

Confessions - Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause

Back 18

Text: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Test: Was there (1) custody and (2) interrogation?

Front 19

Custody - defined

Back 19

Would a reasonable person in the suspect's situation feel they were not free to terminate the encounter to the degree of formal arrest?

Front 20

Interrogation - defined

Back 20

Did the police use words or actions, other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?

Front 21

Miranda Warnings - list

Back 21

(1) Right to remain silent;
(2) Anything you say may be used against you in court;
(3) You ahve a right to have counsel present during interrogation;
(4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

Front 22

Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Back 22

Text - in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to...the Assistance of Counsel for his defense
Test: did police deliberately elicit statements in the absence of counsel on a matter where D has been charged?

Front 23

Fifth v. Sixth A right to attorney

Back 23

Fifth - kicks in at the interrogation stage as to everything.

Sixth - while you are defending yourself on a particular charge - meaning you can be asked about something that isn't related to the charge.

Front 24

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

Back 24

Was the confession 'voluntary?'
*Actions of Police (violence, exhaustion, etc.
*Personality of subject (special susceptibility);
*Surrounding circumstances

Front 25

Is there ever reason to racial profile?

Back 25

(1) Efficiency of search - 100% of all terrorist attacks by air have been done by Arab nationals
(2)Magnitude of the harm - if we miss someone we are going to have another 9/11
(3)How much are you willing to pay for civil liberties - crime oriented v. due process

Front 26

The Exclusionary Rule - defined

Back 26

E collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law

Front 27

The Exclusionary Rule - Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Back 27

All E obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the C is inadmissible in a state court

Front 28

The Exclusionary Rule - U.S. v. Leon (1984) - the Good Faith Exclusion

Back 28

The Remedy Modified - E obtained by officers acting in REASONABLE RELIANCE on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found unsupported by PC is ALLOWED - unless there was police illegality

Front 29

When the Good Faith Exclusion does NOT apply

Back 29

(1)A must not include illegally obtained or knowingly or recklessly false info;
(2) Magistrate cannot have abandoned neutral and detached role;
(3) Affidavit cannot obviously lack indicia of PC;
(4) Warrant cannot be facially deficient in form;
(5) Searchers cannot rely on facially valid warrant where initial acquisition was illegitimate - first person lied to M and warrant on face looks legit - gives to second person - even if he acts in good faith - cannot pass this off;
(6)Searchers cannot exceed scope of warrant

Front 30

Hudson v. Michigan (2006) - KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE

Back 30

Reversal of "knock and announce" in part - whether Ex Rule should apply to K and A violations.
*Comes down to deterrence of P action and it doesn't here - You don't have to wait if you have reasonable suspicion S will destroy E or there is danger to the P
*Danger to officers of being wrong about whether they should have gone in

Front 31

Reilly Protected Area Approach

Back 31

There is a continuum from the open fields (no protection) to the curtilage (may be protected - fact sensitive) to the home (almost always protected).

Front 32

KATZ TEST

Back 32

1. Whether he had a subjective expectation of privacy in the place where the search took place, and 2. Whether the society is ready to accept this expectation as reasonable.

Front 33

KYLLO (2001) TEST - heat sensing case - CURRENT TEST

Back 33

(1)Were senses enhanced?
(2)Was info related to interior of home?
(3)Was info otherwise unobtainable w/out physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area?
(4) was the technology not in general public use?

Front 34

Difference between KATZ and KYLLO

Back 34

Whether expectation is reasonable enough to balance police and suspect's expectation of privacy - protected area type of privacy as long as you can w/in that protected area show that there is some sort of expectation of privacy

Front 35

U.S. v. Place (1984) - dog sniff case

Back 35

Katz analysis - a K9 sniff tells officers of absence or presence of narcotics - nothing else about luggage - you have no E of P regarding contraband

Front 36

Illinois v. Caballes (2005) - dog sniff of car during traffic stop

Back 36

Allowed - did not become more of an intense intrusion and was not a search. The person must be otherwise lawfully stopped

Front 37

Three Bases for Searching Someone

Back 37

(1)Probable cause - full blown search;
(2)Reasonable suspicion - frisk
(3) Administrative basis - not clear what you can do here

Front 38

U.S v. Johnson

Back 38

Police lawfully find white powder in a pkg originally opened by others and do an on-the-spot chemical test - NOT A SEARCH

Front 39

U.S. v. Knotts (1983)

Back 39

Use of beeper to track bottle traveling in a car - NOT A SEARCH. Visual surveillance would have rendered the same info - but if it was a round the clock thing - Court might revisit

Front 40

U.S. v. Karo (1984)

Back 40

Exp of Knotts - car w/ beeper installed trans to 2nd owner - NOT a search or seizure as the unmonitored beeper did not infringe on privacy

Front 41

Cell Phone Tracking

Back 41

FCC mandated all cell phone calls need to be tracked to w/in a 125 meter diameter - so 911 can pinpoint where callers are calling from - could use of this tech become a search?

Front 42

Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S. (1986)

Back 42

Aerial photos of co's plant NOT 4th A search - photos not so intimate to raise C concerns - remains limited to outline of buildings in complex

Front 43

Enclosed Space Detection System

Back 43

Designed to detect presence of people hiding in enclosed places of cars by identifying heart beats - is this as limited as the sniff?

Front 44

Emails

Back 44

Transmitter has reasonable expectation that police will not intercept email sent, but once it is delivered to recipient, the transmitter no longer has control over the message.

Front 45

MISPLACED TRUST DOCTRINE

Back 45

When you give info to a third party and they choose to turn it over to police - it is a risk you take in doing so

Front 46

Spinelli v. U.S. (1969) - Basis of Knowledge and Veracity

Back 46

Two-pronged test for Search Warrants:
(1)The magistrate must be informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an informant is reliable and credible.
(2)The magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information

Front 47

Analysis of Aguilar/Spinelli Test

Back 47

(1)Does the I's report establish (a) the basis of the I's knowledge and (b) either her credibility or reliability of her info?
(2)If not, does the tip as corroborated establish (a) basis of the I's knowledge and (b) either her credibility or the reliability of her knowledge?
(3) If not, is the info so detailed that it establishes (a) basis of I's knowledge; and (b) her credibility or reliability of her knowledge?

Front 48

Draper case

Back 48

When the I's info

Front 49

Illinois v. Gates - TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH

Back 49

So long as a magistrate has a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover E of wrongdoing, the 4th A requires no more. Veracity and basis of knowledge are closely intertwined issues - the A/S test has become too technical and rigid

Front 50

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPROACH CONTINUED

Back 50

Common sense approach should be used - should be fluid - a deficiency in one may be compensated for by a strong showing as to the other or by some other indicia of reliability. Lay people must make these determinations.

Front 51

Post-Gates - Probable Cause

Back 51

Under the Totality of the Circumstances, is it a fair probability that a crime has or will be committed?

Front 52

Review of PC cases

Back 52

Judicial Role:
-Initial Determination
-May make non-tech, common-sense judgments
-reviewing court - substantial basis
-not de novo
-was there a substantial basis for initial finding of PC?
-Deference paid to initial finding.

Front 53

MA v. Upton (1984)

Back 53

Explanatory case showing how A/S does not work but under Gates - the T of C test does

Front 54

Ambiguity of Time

Back 54

If we don't know when something is going to happen or when something was observed - there is no reason to believe there is a fair probability something will be found now or the S is committing a crime now.

Front 55

Ambiguity of Present Location of the Evidence

Back 55

What is the likelihood an object would be moved over the course of the intervening time stated? Is it likely to stay b/c it is hard to move or likely to go b/c of the notoriousness of the crime?

Front 56

Warrantless Arrests and Searches - defined

Back 56

Require PC as well but certain kinds do not as they involve a lesser degree of intrusion or interference and are permitted on less than PC

Front 57

ORAL SUPPORT for Warrant Issuance

Back 57

Warrants need not be solely supported by writing - even though this is preferred for future review.
-Warrants may not be cured by oral testitmony given after the fact when this info was know at the time of warrant issuance and NOT shared with the magistrate

Front 58

Probable Cause to ARREST

Back 58

Must be SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY that a crime has been committed and the person to be arrested committed it.

Front 59

Probable Cause to SEARCH

Back 59

Must be SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY that certain items are the fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime and are to be found at a certain place. Time cannot be STALE and a SUFFICIENT CONNECTION between place and items

Front 60

CHALLENGING A WARRANT - Franks v. Delaware

Back 60

Where a D makes a SUBSTANTIAL PRELIMINARY SHOWING that a false stmt knowingly and intentionally, or w/ reckless disregard for the truth was included in a warrant A and if the false stmt is necessary to the finding of PC, the 4th A requires a hearing to be held at D's request. If established by PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE and A's remaining content is insufficient to est PC, the warrant must be VODED and the search excluded.

Front 61

Informer's Privilege/Informant Disclosure

Back 61

Officers need not e required to disclose an informant's identity if the judge is convinced by E submitted in court and subject to x-exam that the P relied in good faith upon credible information supplied by a reliable informant

Front 62

Other Sources of Probable Cause

Back 62

(1) Info from alleged victim of, or witness to, a crime - prior reliability does not factor in;
(2) Direct observations by P - most troublesome b/c of chance of embellishment;
(3) Info and orders from official channels - P made arrest after hearing on radio that warrants had issued - later warrants proved to be false - arrest cannot be shielded from illegality of the act - but if it was valid it would be fine.

Front 63

What is needed for a SEARCH warrant to issue?

Back 63

(1)Neutral and Detached Magistrate
(2)Particular desc. of place to be searched;
(3)Particular desc. of things to be seized;
(4)Particular desc, reliance on affidavit;
(5)Neutrality, particularity, and good faith

Front 64

Execution of Warrants - TIME

Back 64

Generally w/in 10 days

Front 65

Sneak and Peek Search Warrants

Back 65

P may enter, look around, and leave w/out touching anything.

Front 66

Knock and Announce (possibly invalidated by Hudson - "exclusionary rule does not apply")

Back 66

May be waived when the P have (1) REASONABLE SUSPICION that doing so would be (2) DANGEROUS or (3) FUTILE, or inhibit investigation b/c of ease of destruction of E.

Front 67

Plain View Doctrine

Back 67

Items not listed in warrant may be seized when an officer is legitimately in a place (dictated by warrant); and sees items immediately identifiable as contraband or E of a particular crime

Front 68

Plain View Doctrine for Computers

Back 68

Once you stumble upon something that looks like contraband - then you can continue to look at it - as long as you were where you were supposed to be when coming across it.

Front 69

U.S. v. Banks (2003)-how long of a wait before police can enter

Back 69

Absent exigent circumstances, whether police feel person has had time to get to the door and therefore has refused entrance.

Front 70

U.S. v. Watson - postal officer makes warrantless arrest

Back 70

Postal officers have authority to arrest so long as there is PC - this is NOT a warrant exception here.

Front 71

Probable Cause as Objective Judgment

Back 71

4th A does not generally require anything that was in the officer's head, but only to impose a neutral observer of the FACTS themselves.

Front 72

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)

Back 72

D arrested for not wearing seatbelt or locking up her kid - statute said you could issue a citation or arrest. They arrest - you can arrest for a misdemeanor in the police's presence w/out a breach of peace.

Front 73

Tennessee v. Garner - Death By Seizure

Back 73

Courts won't look behind P decisions - so long as they are being broadly reasonable - you generally may not shoot someone to death to keep them from escaping.

Front 74

Warrantless Search - U.S. v. Robinson

Back 74

P pulls someone over, pats him down, feels object, reaches in and takes it out - cigarette packet. He opens the packet and finds heroin. Is this valid? YES - so long as he has PC to arrest b/c of the stop - he may do a full blown search incident to arrest

Front 75

SILA - why allowed?

Back 75

(1)P safety; and
(2)E preservation
~doesn't have to be proven
~to arrest you need PC and therefore you can intrude upon them - no greater an intrusion than the arrest

Front 76

Scope of SILA - where/how much

Back 76

In home - limited to one room - so long as there is a justification to make arrest in the first place.
Outside - generally a wingspan - close proximity to the person
For Cars - everything but the trunk

Front 77

SILA - when arrest found to be unlawful

Back 77

the full search will be most likely out - UNLESS it was just a Terry pat and officer felt a weapon and reached in to retrieve - this will probably be upheld

Front 78

Whren v. US - (1996) IMPORTANT CASE - understand this and understand the 4th A (unanimous decision)

Back 78

Only PC needed to make a minor traffic stop - police will ALWAYS have option of finding a minor traffic violation on someone - leads to possibility of PRETEXT to something else. The 4th A triggers w/ the decision to stop

Front 79

If your action is a search and the justification is REASONABLENESS, you are worried about pretext.

on the other hand...

Back 79

If the action is a search and the justification is PC, you don't need to worry about the state of mind of the officer.

Front 80

Should there be reasonableness balancing for 4th A cases?

Back 80

NO - you get reasonableness balancing once police show PC - the privacy issue is then outweighed by PC - if police have PC, they get to do anything except make extraordinary intrusions.

Front 81

Extraordinary cases for Reasonableness balancing and 4th A:

Back 81

Garner - seizure by death;
Warrantless entry into home;
Bodily intrusions; and
Unannounced entry - maybe (see Hudson)

Front 82

Elaborations on When/How Police May Search - U.S. v. Edwards (1974)

Back 82

Once D arrested and in custody, his effects at the place of detention that were subject to search may be searched at a later time w/out a warrant even though a substantial period passed. Must be connected to crime-PC and must not violate dictates of reason.

Front 83

Elaborations on When/How Police May Search - Knowles v. Iowa

Back 83

If you terminate an encounter by issuing a citation rather than arrest, you lose your SILA powers - if you choose to search first and then decide not to arrest - these SILA powers are preserved

Front 84

Limits on SILA - Chimel v. CA (1969)

Back 84

P had ARREST warrant - wife let them in home to arrest - when D came home, police do a full blown search on whole house - NOT ALLOWED - only extension to the area considered to be in the "possession" or under the "control" of arrestee

Front 85

IMMEDIATE CONTROL TEST

Back 85

Where the arrestee will have the ability to destroy evidence or get a weapon - not the basement, attic, upstairs bedroom - what is in IMMEDIATE CONTROL if A breaks free?

Front 86

PROTECTIVE SWEEP

Back 86

Police may do so of entire house for their protection and to preserve E. If the E is in plain view they can keep it - but they cannot look inside things - sort of like a Terry frisk of a dwelling.

Front 87

ASKING TO SEARCH

Back 87

If Police ask to search and the D agrees - they MAY - and the 4th A is NOT in play here.

Front 88

Securing of home until warrant issues:

Back 88

ALLOWED - so that E cannot be destroyed in interim

Front 89

Review - PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST

Back 89

*Offense may be minor and rarely enforced (Whren, Atwater);
*Officer need not announce intent to arrest;
*BUT if officer chooses to issue citation, may not after conduct full blown search - Knowles

Front 90

Review - SILA - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Back 90

*PC to arrest;
*Search substantially contemporaneous w/ arrest
*Scope does not exceed "grabbable area"

Front 91

Review - SILA - home or office

Back 91

Factors of Search of Premises:
*Size of room, handcuffed, A's size and abilities, locked containers; and officer to suspect ratio
*P get to search one room generally - but if suspect must move after arrest, P may stay at his elbow.

Front 92

Review - SILA - protective sweep

Back 92

Done w/out further PC or reasonable suspicion - may only look where confederates could be found.
Ex. Look in closet and see rifle bag - now in Plain view doctrine and if there seems to be a rifle inside, P may open it. Could not open a duffel bag in the closet

Front 93

Review - SEARCH OF PREMISES

Back 93

*If arrest warrant executed outside home - NO home search - unless EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE.
*To enter home or office to arrest, must have arrest warrant and reason to believe suspect present
*Search warrant automatically gets you in home

Front 94

Review - GENERAL EXIGENCY EXCEPTION

Back 94

If no categorical exception - argue PC and Exigency (danger to P or others, risk of destruction of evidence, risk of suspect flight - hot pursuit).

Front 95

Review - FURTHER EXIGENCY PRINCIPLES

Back 95

*P need not witness crime - witness report or police bulletin will do
*Search of premises limited to (1) where S could be found; and (2)time substantially contemporaneous w/ exigency - once exigency ends - you must stop search

Front 96

Review - MAY POLICE SEARCH UNDER PRETEXT?

Back 96

YES - Whren - whe there is PC there will be no inquiry into P's subjective motivations - but seizures and searches by extraordinarily invasive manner may receive subjective analysis.

Front 97

AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION - Carroll v. US

Back 97

Privacy interest in an auto are constitutionally protected, but the READY MOBILITY of the auto justifies a lesser degree of protection of these interests

Front 98

EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN AUTO

Back 98

there is a LESSER expectation of privacy w/ respect to one's auto than one's home or office - passenger compartment is open to plain view - the E of P flows from this. There is also pervasive regulations of cars capable of traveling on public highways

Front 99

California v. Carney - mobile home warrantless search

Back 99

ALLOWED - it is subject to Automobile Exception - readily mobile.

Front 100

U.S v. Chadwick (1977) - footlocker search - luggage and other personal effects

Back 100

Violated 4th A even though there was ample probable cause to believe it held contraband. Given higher level of privacy than cars - officers can seize and hold until they get a warrant - under this case you could open a trunk but not the luggage

Front 101

Florida v. White (1999) - when car is the contraband P seek to secure

Back 101

The car may fall under the auto exception - drug forfeiture - if the car is product of drug sales you can seize the car as you seize the person

Front 102

Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) - extension of Chadwick (footlocker case)

Back 102

Application of Chadwick Rule to apply to a suitcase actually being transported in the trunk of a taxi - warrantless search does not extend to the suitcase

Front 103

U.S. v. Ross - (1982) PROBING SEARCH case - maybe overrules Chadwick

Back 103

Closed containers in cars can be searched w/out a warrant b/c of their presence w/in the automobile. Auto Exception overwhelmed the Chadwick-Sanders exception

Front 104

California v. Acevedo (1991) - bag of pot placed in trunk

Back 104

*W/out a warrant the trunk can only be searched for the paper bag - but if something is in plain view during the search for the bag - fair game;
*Once bag is found - SEARCH MUST STOP;
*P cannot search any portion of the car that could not contain the object of the search

Front 105

CA v. Acevedo - Continued

Back 105

Any pkg found in a car can be searched under the Auto Exception - PC follows an item - if you know where it is - you no longer have any reason to be in the car - YES you can get inside a trunk

Front 106

CA v. Acevedo - DISSENT

Back 106

How can a privacy interest be diminished when the person takes it from PUBLIC view and puts it inside a privately owned auto?

Front 107

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) - individualized PC for items in car

Back 107

When there is PC to search for contraband in a car, it is reasonable for police to examine packages and containers w/out showing INDIVIDUALIZED PC. Reduced expectation of privacy w/ regard to transport property in cars. PC to search car does NOT include bodily search.

Front 108

TAKE YOUR PURSE

Back 108

Breyer concurs stating a purse should receive special protection when it is ON THE PERSON - if it is left - the P will search it.

Front 109

Ross Continued - two types of PC:

Back 109

(1)Car is part of the crime or PC w/ regard to the driver - arrest and SILA (not the trunk); and
(2)PC to an object - if it goes into the car or trunk - distinguishes whether or not you can get to the trunk whether or not you have PC to an object or to the car itself.

Front 110

Thorton v. US - passenger leaves car before stop

Back 110

P puts D into custody then searches car - ALLOWED - danger to P flows from arrest and arrest of a suspect next to a car presents concerns re: safety and destruction of E.

Front 111

Colorado v. Bertine (1987) - inventory searches

Back 111

Inventory search of car after D was taken into custody and car was moved to impoundment lot is allowable (so long as routine) even when not conducted pursuant to warrant based upon PC

Front 112

Terry STOP Test

Back 112

When (1)a man of reasonable caution (2)would find facts specific to the suspect (3)that he could articulate (4)which taken together w/ rational inferences, justify suspecting the person is committing a crime or is about to do so.

Front 113

Terry FRISK Test

Back 113

A frisk requires that (a)the stop is valid and (b)a reasonable prudent man (c)granting due weight to specific reasonable inferences based on the officer's experience (d)would be warranted in believing the suspect is armed and dangerous.

Front 114

Camera v. Municipal Court (1967) - official inspections

Back 114

There are some types of 4th A intrusions that are REASONABLE even though they aren't based on PC - fire dept checking extinguishers - ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH - not for criminal but regulatory purposes. BALANCE btwn govt legit interest v. privacy interest

Front 115

Florida v. J.L. - black man at bus stop w/ gun tip

Back 115

P find and frisk man after anonymous tip - must determine whether there was enough reasonable suspicion - from A/S test (sufficient reliability or basis of knowledge and veracity of the tip) - here NOT ENOUGH. Bare-boned tip might be overborne by EXTREME DANGER

Front 116

U.S. v. Wardlow - cruisers in high crime area - person sees them and flees

Back 116

Police catch up to S and do a pat and frisk of him and his bag - find a gun. Here, FLIGHT was significant - indication of nervousness