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

36 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Seizure ******T/F
evidence is seized when there is a meaningful interference with someone's possessory interest in a piece of property; it is possible for a seizure to take place without a prior search; a warrant is preferred whenever it is practical to obtain one
Requirements for Search or Arrest Warrant to be Valid
it must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, probable cause must be set forth in the warrant, the warrant must conform to the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement
Neutral and Detached Magistrate ******T/F
part of requirements for search and arrest warrant to be valid; police officers, according to the court, cannot be considered neutral and detached; the same applies to any other official charged with executing the law (prosecutors); Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)- Supreme Court ruled that state attorneys general cannot issue warrants; no executive officials can issue warrants; most judges and some judicial officers are considered neutral and detached; a magistrate or judge can also be considered other than neutral and detached if he or she has a financial interest in the issuance of warrants
Probable Cause Showing ********T/F
part of requirements for search and arrest warrant to be valid; the law enforcement officer applying for a warrant must demonstrate that probable cause exists to search or arrest
Probable Cause in an Arrest Warrant
part of probable cause showing; exists when "the facts and circumstances within [the police's] knowledge and of which they [have] reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect has] committed or was committing an offense"
Probable Cause in a Search Warrant
part of probable cause showing; two parts: the officer applying for the warrant must show probable cause (sworn to by oath or affirmation) that the items to be seized are connected with criminal activity and the officer must show probable cause that the items to be seized are in the location to be searched
part of requirements for search and arrest warrant to be valid; the Fourth Amendment provides that warrants must "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized;" purpose is to prohibit "general warrants," such as those issued in England and the American Colonies
Particularity in an Arrest Warrant***********T/F
part of particularity; depends on whether the police actually know the suspect's name
Particularity in a Search Warrant ************
part of particularity; more complex than particularity for an arrest warrant; two parts: the warrant must clearly describe the place to be searched and the warrant must set forth with sufficient detail the items to be seized during the search;
Avoiding Particularity Requirement*********MC
part of particularity; plain view doctrine- if the police have probable cause that an item is evidence of criminal activity (even if it is not named in the warrant, and even if it is not discovered inadvertently), it can be seized it it is in plain view; "good faith" exception- Massachussetts v. Sheppard (1984): court upheld a warrant that authorized a search for "controllable substances (case)-" officer described the items to be seized with sufficient detail, but the judge neglected to fill out the appropriate form (holding)
stops- as in Terry stops- and arrests are different types of seizures; the Court has not been very clear on what constitutes an arrest versus a mere investigative stop; Terry v. Ohio (1968)- the seizure of a person occurs when a police officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, intentially restrains an individual's liberty in such a manner that a reasonable person would believe that he or she is not free to leave (investigative stop)
part of Arrest; occurs when a person confronted by the police is still free to leave; consensual encounters that amount to "nonstops" as well as investigative detentions (seizure, but not arrest), by themselves, are not considered arrests
When Arrest Warrants are Required*******MC
at common law, if a police officer had probable cause that either a person was committing or had committed a felony or a person was committing certain misdemeanors in the officer's presence, an arrest could be made without a warrant; the only situation where arrest warrants were truly required was when misdemeanors were committed out of a police officer's presence; since the Carroll decision, the Supreme Court has deviated only slightly from the rule that warrantless arrests can be made for almost all offenses; arrests in people's private residences cannot be made without a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist
When Arrest Warrants are Not Required*******T/F
most common type of arrest is one made without a warrant; two types of arrests do not require warrants: arrests in public and arrests in the presence of exigent circumstances
Arrest in Public
part of when arrest warrants are not required; warrants are not required for public arrests; U.S. v. Watson (1976)- Court upheld the common law rule that arrests made in public do not require warrants
Arrests in the Presence of Exigent Circumstances********T/F and MC
part of when arrest warrants are not required; warrants are not required in the presence of exigent (emergency) circumstances; Warden v. Hayden (1967)- "Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their live or the lives of others;" the Hayden decision thereby ushered in the "hot pursuit" doctrine; U.S. v. Santana (1976)- flight on the part of a suspect should permit warrantless arrest because of the potential for escape
Executing Arrest Warrants
the most significant restrictions concerning the service of warrants relate to the knock and announcement requirement, deadly force, and property damage during the service of search and arrest warrants
The Announcement Requirement*******T/F
part of executing arrest warrants; at common law, the police wre entitled to break into a house to make an arrest after announcing their presence and their reason for being there; the reasons for this announcment requirement are threefold: it helps in the prevention of needless property damage, it helps prevent violence resulting from surprise entries, and it helps preserve people's dignity and privacy; if exigent circumstances exist, the knock and announce requirement is not necessary
Use of Force
part of executing arrest warrants; The American Law Institute's use-of-force policy, which resembles those of many states, holdss taht a police officer "may use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, to enter premises to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person"
Deadly Force
part of executing arrest warrants; is only authorized when the crime in question is a felony and when such force "creates no substantial risk to innocent persons" and the officer "reasonably believes" that there is a "substantial risk" that the fleeing felon will inflict harm on other people or officers
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)******
part of executing arrest warrants; leading Supreme Court precedent concerning the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons; the Court further held that deadly force may be used only when it is necessary to prevent the suspect's escape and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a serious threat of death or serious physical injury to other people or police officers
Graham v. Conner (1989)*******T/F
part of executing arrest warrants; this case set the standard for the use of nondeadly force; Court declared that all claims against police officers involving allegations of excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; "objective reasonableness" test- requires focusing on what a reasonable police officer would do "without regard to teh officer's underlying intent or motivation"
Media Presence During the Execution of Arrest Warrants
allowing member of teh media to accompany police during the service of search warrants violates people's reasonable expectation of privacy (rule v. law)
Wilson v. Layne (1999)*******MC
part of Media Presence During the Execution of Arrest Warrants; First issue: Charles and Geraldine Wilson brought a Bivens lawsuit (a lawsuit against federal officials) against the Marshals, alleging the officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by bringing the media into their home; the court went on to state that although the law enforcement officers were authorized to enter the Wilsons' home, "it does not necessarily follow that they were entitled to bring a newspaper reporter and photographer with them;" because the reporters were in the Wilsons' residence for their own purposes, "they were not present for any reason related to the justification for police entry into the home" (reasoning-expectation of privacy); Second issue: concept of qualified immunity
Qualified Immunity******T/F
part of Media Presence During the Execution of Arrest Warrants; courts now recognize a qualified immunity defense for conduct that, while unconstitutional, prevents the police from being held liable; police officers charged with violating a plaintiff's constitutional rights may be entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not "violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known;" qualified immunity can be extended to state law enforcement as well as federal law enforcement officials
Executing Search Warrants
additional restrictions govern the service of search warrants: time constraints, the scope and manner of the search, and the procedure after service of the search warrant
Time Constraints*****T/F and MC
part of executing search warrants; the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure restrict the service of warrants to daytime hours, unless the issuing judge specifically authorizes service of the warrant at another time; "Daytime hours," according tho the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, fall between 6:00am and 10:00pm; search cannot last indefinitely; once the item or items named in the warrant are found, the search must be terminated
The Scope and Manner of the Search******T/F
epart of executing search warrants; usually, if property damaged during the service of a search or arrest warrant, the police will not be held liable; however, the Supreme Court has stated that "excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search not subject to suppression;" there are no clear decisions as to what constitutes appropriate conduct during a search
part of The Scope and Manner of the Search; where the police can look for evidence
Manner *********T/F
part of The Scope and Manner of the Search; refers to the actual physical actions the police can take to find the items named in the warrant
Michigan v. Summers (1981)
part of The Scope and Manner of the Search; a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted;
Ybarra v. Illinois, 1979 ****T/F and MC
part of The Scope and Manner of the Search; Michigan ruling does not mean that the people who are detained during the service of a search warrant can necessarily be searched; a frisk is permissible but can occur only if there is reasonable fear for officer safety; can detain, can't be searched, but can be frisked
Procedure After Service of a Search Warrant******T/F and MC
part of executing search warrants; after a search is completed, the police are required to inventory the items seized during the search; this helps protect against police theft and helps assure the person whose premises were searched that his or her property is accounted for; a copy of the inventory will then be given to the person whose premises were searched; if no one was present during the search, a copy of the inventory must be left in a conspicuous place; also, the Supreme Court has stated that failure to provide a list of items seized doesno invalidate the search under all circumstances- it is a matter of state law, not a constitutional concern
Search Warrants and Bodily Intrusions *******T/F
certain searches involving intrusions into the human body cannot be conducted simply because the police have a warrant; Rochin v. California (1952)- the Court ruled that the way the police handled Rochin "shocked the conscience," thereby violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process
The Warrant Requirement for Administrative Searches *******T/F
warrants are required for administrative searches; not issued on particularized probable cause; instead, they are issued once it is shown that the location to be inspected is chosen according to a prescribed plan, relying on neutral criteria; somewhat controversial because, when issued, they authorize the police to search for something on the belief that it will arrive, not on the belief that it is already in the place to be searched; this is somewhat akin to the problem of "pretext," where search warrants may be issued following a showing of probable cause that evidence will be found in a particular location but are then used as "pretext" to look for other evidence not named in the warrant
Anticipatory Search Warrants
warrants will be issued based on the expectation that evidence will be present or arrive at a particular location; a judge can issue a search warrant based on the expectation that the drugs will arrive, as long as the police have probable cause