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;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Terry Stop |
Terry V. Ohio An LEO may conduct a pretextual stop, without probable cause, if the LEO has reasonable suspicion (i.e. hand to hand, independently corroborated tips) the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that person may be armed and dangerous. Allows Pat downs with reasonable suspicion. A pat down may be conducted with weapons drawn when deemed necessary to protect officers or prevent suspects from fleeing. Personal experience: stop subject leaving trap house on 20th Street for bike violation, notice subject is wearing thick jacket during summer night, subject admits to having weapons charges in past, conduct pat down and hear clink of glass pipe, search and find pipe, and Molly. Subect also had a warrant. |
Terry Stop |
|
|
Pretextual Stop |
Whren v. United States US Supreme Court decision allowing LEO to conduct a traffic stop, with a lawful infraction as probable cause for the stop, although the LEO may be more interested in searching the car and/or it's occupants. Personal experience: State V. Erskine: I witnessed a hand to hand with a known drug dealer in a high crime area, conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle for having driven on the wrong side of the road, and found crack cocaine in plain sight. Pretextual stops are useful in units like POPS because they are investigative means to properly identify and write search warrants on suspected drug houses, or drug dealers. |
Take aways |
|
|
Pat down/Frisk |
A pat down is outside of the clothes. The Leo must have independent reasonable suspicion the subject is armed. The bulge must be clearly seen as a weapon or on a call in which a weapon is involved. Plain feel requires an leo to articulate based off what is felt during the pat down. An leo cannot frisk someone for simply being at the scene of a crime. Must be able to articulate what is felt, such as fruits of a weapons search, does cocaine feel like a weapon? Did you identify it as cocaine prior to reaching in and taking it? |
|
|
|
Consentual Encounter |
Supported by US vs Mendenhall and JCW vs State An officer may approach someone in public and ask questions or to check identification without the encounter turning into a seizure of the fourth amendment so long as the stop is not forceful, intimidating, or oppressive. |
|
|
|
Informants Probable Cause |
Informant+reliable+basis of knowledge=probable cause Does the informant have past accurate information? Are they making a declaration against their own penal interest? Can you confirm details of informants story? |
|
|
|
Informants basis of knowledge |
Did they speak from personal knowledge? Did officer observe conduct involving the criminal activity about which the informant gave info? |
|
|
|
Rachel's Law |
A confidential informant must have the same level of protection as an LEO. An informant must receive some sort of explanation or training. An informant should not be promised any leniency in sentencing or the dismissal of any charges. |
|
|
|
Illegal search and seizure |
Norman V. State A consent to search, given after illegal police conduct, is presumptively tainted and is deemed involuntary due to break in chain of official illegal action. |
|
|
|
Seizure |
Ones freedom of movement is restrained and a reasonable person would have believed that they were not free to leave, whether by means of physical force or show of authority. A seizure can be threatening presence of several officers, display of a weapon, physical touch, or tone of voice or language used that might compel compliance. |
|
|
|
Identification requirements |
Hiibel V. Nevada If a person is stopped based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause then the person must identify themselves. Harper v. State An officer may search a detained defendants wallet for a form of ID |
|
|
|
Exigent circumstances |
Immiment use of a deadly weapon, destruction of evidence, protect individuals, assist victims, investigate a felony in progress, or signs of impending danger. Maryland v. Buie A protective sweep based off exigent circumstances protect an officer or evidence found |
|
|
|
Belton v. New York |
Can search a person or car if probable cause is provided.
When a law enforcement officer lawfully arrests the occupant of a vehicle, they may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to arrest. LEO stops a speeding car, no one in the car knew the owner, the LEO could smell marijuana, and he saw an envelope on the floor marked super gold, which he could see contained marijuana. LEO ordered occupants out and arrested them. He searched the car and found cocaine in a pocket of Beltons coat. A Nexus is required between the vehicle and the person arrested with or in the vehicle prior to the arrest. |
|
|
|
Arizona v. Gant |
Cannot search car if subject has a warrant or for driving offense unless fruits of crime for the warrant are believed to be in the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Chimel V. California |
An LEO may search incident to arrest to protect from attack, prevent escape, discover fruits of a crime. FSS 901.21(1) |
|
|
|
Unlawful search |
Mere suspicion is not enough to search. Warrantless squeezing or manipulation of a bag is unlawful. |
|
|
|
Pennsylvania v. Mimms |
On a traffic stop an LEO may control the driver of the vehicle by ordering them out of the vehicle. Presley v. State and Aguiar v. State extend our control over passengers of the vehicle during a traffic stop. Personal experience is State V. Pierre in which at the end of a traffic stop the driver gave consent to search the vehicle, I requested the passenger to exit the vehicle to search the car and the passenger, Walner Pierre exited the vehicle, ran, and ditched a gun. Defense filed a MTS which was squashed. Walner was sentenced to 3 years DOC for being a felon in possession of a firearm. |
|
|
|
Factors to consider when recruiting a CI |
Person's age and maturity The risk the person presents to adversely affect an investigation The effect that the CIs cooperation becoming known in the community may have Whether they are a substance abuser or on PTD for substance abuse The risk of physical harm that may occur to the person, or associates if their cooperation becomes known Whether they show emotional instability, unreliability, or furnishing false information Person's criminal history Whether a CI would be of use to the type of investigation being conducted |
|
|
|
Thornton vs. US |
LEOs can search a car incident to an arrest of a recent occupant as well if 1) it is reasonable to believe that the arrested individual might access the vehicle at the time of the search: 2) it is reasonable to believe that arrested individuals vehicle contains evidence of the offense that led to the arrest; 3) the officer has probable cause to believe that there may be evidence of a crime concealed within the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Wardlow |
Illinois v. Wardlow LEO conducting patrol in area known for narcotics trafficking spot man standing near a building holding a bag. The man runs and is caught by police. The bag is pat down and a gun is located inside of it. Wardlow was arrested on a weapons charge. Justifies a Terry stop at the least if a person in a high crime area takes headlong flight upon seeing law enforcement. In order to successfully charge resisting without for Wardlow the act of flight in a high crime area must be coupled with an act of something else such as appearing to be in a hand to hand, dropping contraband, shoving something in their mouth, etc. |
|
|
|
State V. T.T. |
A person trained to recognize the odor of marijuana and who is familiar with it and can recognize it has probable cause, based on the smell alone, to search a person or vehicle for contraband. |
|
|
|
Ohio V. Robinette |
Clarified the fourth amendment doesn't require an officer to advise them they are free to go before a request for consent to search. |
|
