296410
| Question | Answer |
| Search Warrant Requirements | (1)existence of probable cause (2) oath or affirmation (3) must describe specific place (4) must describe person or items to be seized |
| Illinois v. Gates (1983) (gates -> open -> general) | *Totality of Circumstances Test Officers can make more generalized determination about whether the evidence is both sufficient and reliable (Automobile Searches) |
| Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) (Coolidge -> corrupt -> plain view) | Plain View: if criminal evidence is in plain view where officer is legally permitted to be |
| Hester v. U.S. (1924) & Oliver v. U.S. (1984) (Farmer Oliver Hester) | Open Fields Doctrine: if criminal evidence is visible on a piece property |
| Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) | Plain Feel & other senses |
| Warrantless Searches | ... |
| Michigan Dept. of State Police V. Sitz (1990) (sitting in cars) | stopping motorists systematically @ roadblocks for specific purpose is permissible (Special Needs) |
| City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) (Indie 500 -> traffic checkpoints) | police traffic checkpoints cannot be justified as a generalized search for criminal evidence, must be narrowly focused on specific objective (Special Needs) |
| Terry v. Ohio (1968) (Terry frisk) | officers may stop & frisk suspects on street when there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed & involved in criminal activity (Stop & Frisk) |
| Adam v. Williams (1972) | officers may rely on reports from reliable witnesses as basis for conducting stop & frisk (Stop & Frisk) |
| Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) (Ward is a beast) | when person runs at sight of police in high crime area, officers are justified in using person's flight as part of basis for forming reasonable suspicion to justify stop & frisk (Stop & Frisk) |
| Chimel v. California (1969) | - officers justified to check if suspect is unarmed for own & public safety, search person & vicinity, weapons & evidence,traffic offense arrestee can be searched (Search Incident to Lawful Arrest) |
| Warden v. Kayden (1967) (Ward is a beast) | when officers are in hot pursuit of fleeing suspect, they need not stop to seek warrant to search & risk permitting suspect to escape (Exigent Circumstances) |
| Bumper v. N.Carolina (1968) | officers may not tell falsehoods to get a suspect to consent to a search (Consent) |
| U.S. v. Drayton (2002) | officer does not have to inform people of their rights to refuse consent (Consent) |
| Automobile Searches | (1) passengers can be ordered to exit vehicle (2) visible inspection is always legal (3) reasonable suspicion/probable cause required to search entire vehicle (4) drug & alcohol arrest justifies search (5) impounded cars full permissible to search |
| Carroll v. U.S. (1925) (carrolling -> moving -> car) | warrantless searches are permissible when reasonable suspicion of illegal activity exists due to nature of vehicle (moving) (Automobile Searches) |
| NY v. Class (1986) (math class - > vehicle ID) | officers may enter vehicle to see vehicle ID when car has been validly stopped (Automobile Searches) |
| California v. Acevedo (1991) (Cali -> weed in cars -> probable cause) | officers may search vehicle when there is probable cause |
| Maryland v. Wilson (1997) | officers may order passengers & driver to exit the vehicle at traffic stops, even if there is no basis for suspicion of passenger (Automobile Searches) |
| Knowles v. Iowa (1998) | officers must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause before extending their search beyond merely looking @ traffic stops (Automobile Searches) |
| Brown v. Mississippi (1936) (beaten confession) | forced confessions are inadmissible (Questioning Suspects) |
| Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | established Miranda Rights rule (Questioning Suspects) |
| NY v. Quarles (1984) (Prof. Quarrel -> safety concern) | established Public Safety acception |
| Weeks v. U.S. (1914) | upheld spirit of 4th Amendment (unlawful seizure of lottery tickets) |
| Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (all over the map) | extended rule against illegal S&S to state & local courts |
| Importance of Exclusionary Rule | (1) necessary to make 4th Amendment meaningful (2) constitution requires exclusionary rule (3) no alternatives to exclusionary rule (4) diminishes respect for the law (5) protects individuals rights against law enforcement (6) deterrent against police and prosecutors violating your rights |
| Brewer v. Williams (1977) | when officers act in good faith that evidence they obtained was acquired properly, then evidence will stand (Good Faith Exception) |
| Nix v. Williams (1984) (Nixon would have been caught eventually) | improperly obtained evidence can be used when it would later have been discovered anyway (Inevitable Discovery Exception) |
| Maryland v. Garrison (1987) | reliance on warrant found to be incorrect (Good Faith Exception) |
| Illinois v. Krull (1987) (cruel = unconstitutional) | reliance on statutes later declared unconstitutional (Good Faith Exception) |
| Herring v. U.S. (2009) (red herring ( misleading) documents) | reliance on records maintained by justice system employees (Good Faith Exception) |
| Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) (class case) | reasonable reliance on consent to search provided by someone who lacked authority to grant such consent (Good Faith Exception) |
| U.S. v. Calandra (1974) (canalabra -> grand) | grand jury proceedings (Good Faith DOES NOT apply) |
| PA Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Scott (1998) | parole revocation hearings (Good Faith DOES NOT apply) |
| Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) | immigration deportation hearings (Good Faith DOES NOT apply) |
| Harris v. New York (1971) | impeachment of defendant (not to be tried/testify, Good Faith DOES NOT apply) |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.