Cjus 410 Test 2

Front 1

Alabama v. White (1990)

Back 1

(Stop) - set minimum level of corroboration for an anonymous tip to be used

Front 2

Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Back 2

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest

Front 3

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Back 3

(Plain View) - Cannot move something to see if it is incriminating

Front 4

California v. Acevedo (1991)

Back 4

(Carroll) - can search closed containers in a vehicle

Front 5

Cantrell v. Virginia, 774 S.E.2d 469 (2015)

Back 5

(Inventory) - Must have a written policy, training, and standardized form (no notebook paper)

Front 6

Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014)

Back 6

(consent) when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search

Front 7

Florida v. Meyers (1984)

Back 7

(Carroll) - can search a car a second time after being impounded

Front 8

Florida v. Royer (1983)

Back 8

(Consent) - illegal arrest makes consent involuntary under "fruit of the poisonous tree"

Front 9

Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990)

Back 9

(Inventory) - officers can only have very limited discretion

Front 10

Florida v. White (1998)

Back 10

(Carroll) May search a vehicle if the vehicle itself is contraband

Front 11

Harris v. U.S. (1968)

Back 11

Created Plain View

Front 12

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

Back 12

(Probable Cause) - to search, a fair probability that contrabandor evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place

Front 13

Mincey v. Arizona (1978)

Back 13

(Plain view) a warrantless search must be ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencieswhich justify its initiation,

Front 14

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

Back 14

(Plain View) - may seize object under plain view

Front 15

New York v. Belton (1981)

Back 15

(Search Incident to arrest) - may search vehicle

Front 16

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)

Back 16

(Weapons Frisk) - under totality of circumstances, there was no duress and was voluntary

Front 17

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)

Back 17

(Inventory) - cannot be a pretext for an investigation

Front 18

Thompson v. Louisiana, (1984)

Back 18

(Plain View) - a two hour, general, non-emergency search is an intrusion and is not covered by plain view (needs warrant)

Front 19

United States v. Derrick Jackson, 131 F.3d 1105(1997)

Back 19

(Plain View) - can take a second look for plain view

Front 20

United States v. Johns (1985)

Back 20

(Carroll) - 3 day delay is upheld in search [Probably the upper end]

Front 21

Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004)

Back 21

(Roadblocks) for gathering information are ok and can stop someone if clearly violating the law

Front 22

United States v. Mendenhall (1980)

Back 22

(Consent) - not necessarily involuntary if under arrest, but it's harder to prove

Front 23

United States v. Mercado (2002)

Back 23

(Carroll) mobile means inherently mobile, but not necessarily so

Front 24

United States v. Shaquille Robinson (4thCir. Ct. of Appeals 2015)

Back 24

(Terry) - legally carrying a weapon does not fulfill the dangerous condition of Terry

Front 25

United States v. Rodriguez, 191 L.Ed.2d 492(2015)

Back 25

(Carroll) - may not extend length of stop to have a dog sniff for reason other than the original stop

Front 26

United States v. Ross (1982)

Back 26

(Carroll) - can only look where the thing you are looking for is likely to be found

Front 27

United States v. Seelye (1987)

Back 27

(Stop) - defines the line in between investigatory stop/arrest [suppression of seized gun]