question

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

answer

Established the famous requirement of a police "rights advisement" of suspects.

question

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (problem with precedent): US mail to sell lottery tickets - illigally seized evidence by police cannot be used at trial.

question

Silverthorne Lumbar Co. v. U.S. (1920)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (fruit of the poisonous tree doctine): accused of avoiding payment of federal taxes - evidence derived from illegal seizure cannot be used at trial.

question

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

answer

Exclusionary Rule: made exclusionary rule applicable to criminal prosecutions at the state level - harboring fugitive wanted for bombing - arrested for having pornographic materials.

question

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

answer

Exclusionary Rule: since evidence was illegally obtained, it cannot be used.

question

Chimel v. California (1969)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (search incident to arrest): burglarized coin shop - search of the residence became invalid when it went beyond the person arrested and the area subject to that person's immediate control.

question

U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (search incident to arrest): reasonable search, incidental to arrest, can be done.

question

Minnesota v. Olsen (1990)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (search incident to arrest): extended to overnight guests in the home of another.

question

Minnesota v. Carter (1998)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (search incident to arrest): must demonstrate has an expectation of privacy and it is reasonable.

question

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

answer

Exclusionary Rule (search incident to arrest): cannot enter home if one owner allows but the other refuses.

question

U.S. v. Leon (1984)

answer

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions: good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule - suspect being watched for selling drugs - warrant issued and drugs were seized - trial court determined no probably cause with warrant - supreme court determined that good faith had been used and suspect was convicted.

question

Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984)

answer

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions: reiterated good faith exception.

question

Illinois v. Krull (1987)

answer

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions: warrantless search applies to junkyards and parts sellers and good faith applies.

question

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

answer

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions: supported evidence even when there was a mistake on the warrant.

question

Illinois v. Rodrigues (1990)

answer

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions: woman led police to apartment, owner claimed she had no right, but he was convicted because they reasonably believed she had a right at the time.

question

Arizona v. Evans (1995)

answer

Exclusionary Rule Exceptions: computer errors exception.

question

Harris v. U.S. (1968)

answer

Plain View Doctrine: impounding vehicle finds evidence of robbery - plain view - must be immediately apparent to the officers.

question

U.S. v. Irizarry (1982)

answer

Plain View Doctrine: restricted - officers cannot move evidence to find other evidence.

question

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

answer

Plain View Doctrine: restricted - officers cannot move evidence to find other evidence reiterated.

question

Horton v. California (1990)

answer

Plain View Doctrine: even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition.

question

Brigham City v. Stuart (2006)

answer

Emergency Searches: need for emergency warrantless entries under certain circumstances - may enter home when reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is injured or threatened with injury.

question

Warden v. Hayden (1967)

answer

Emergency Searches: need for emergency searches - armed robber fled into a building.

question

Mincey v. Arizona (1978)

answer

Emergency Searches: no delay if lives are in danger.

question

Maryland v. Buie (1990)

answer

Emergency Searches: extends to places where a person can hide while warrant is being served.

question

Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

answer

Emergency Searches: police officers must knock and announce identity before entering. Drug-law exception.

question

Richards v. Wisconsin (1997)

answer

Emergency Searches: no knock exceptions.

question

Illinois v. McArthur (2001)

answer

Emergency Searches: probable cause and another case in 2003, 15-20 second wait before entering.

question

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

answer

Emergency Searches: interests protected by knock and announcement extend to human life.

question

U.S. v. Grubbs ( 2006)

answer

Anticipatory Warrants: anticipatory warrants are constitutional. Received package of child pornography.

question

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)

answer

Arrest: free to leave test for whether a person has been arrested.

question

Stansbury v. California (1994)

answer

Arrest: free to leave test affirmed.

question

Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)

answer

Arrest: youth and inexperience not a factor. 17-year-old two-hour interrogation.

question

Payton v. New York (1980)

answer

Arrest: unless the suspect gives consent or an emergency exists, an arrest warrant is necessary if an arrest requires entry into a suspect s private residence.

question

Kirk v. Louisiana (2002)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): anonymous complaint about drug sales - warrant necessary to enter private residence affirmed.

question

U.S. v. Robinson

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): officers searched and determined that he had heroin - on appeal, affirmed that officer had a right to search and fruits of search can be used.

question

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): set the standard for stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion.

question

U.S. v. Sokolow (1989)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): can stop and detain a person for investigative purposes.

question

U.S. v. Arvizu (2002)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest):reinforced balance between public interest and personal security. This process allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.

question

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): officers' actions not "plain feel" unrelated to reason for search and was illegal. Officer discovered cocaine in the suspects pocket.

question

Brown v. Texas (1979)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): no punishment for refusing to identify yourself.

question

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): if committing crime, must identify.

question

Smith v. Ohio (1990)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): individual has right to protect his or her belongings from unwarranted police inspection.

question

California v. Hodari D. (1991)

answer

Arrest (search incident to arrest): suspects who flee and throw away items can later be arrested based on the incriminating nature of the abandoned items.

question

Arkansas v. Sanders (1979)

answer

Emergency Person Searches: need for emergency searches.

question

U.S. v. Borchardt (1987)

answer

Emergency Person Searches: prosecuted for heroin discovered during medical treatment.

question

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)

answer

Vehicle Searches: vehicle search is valid if suspicion of contraband.

question

Preston v. U.S. (1964)

answer

Vehicle Searches: warrantless searches of the suspect's vehicle had occured while the vehicle was in secure custody and had therefore been illegal.

question

South Dakota v. Opperman (1976)

answer

Vehicle Searches: warrantless search for inventorying and safekeeping not illegal.

question

Colorado v. Bertine (1987)

answer

Vehicle Searches: right to open closed containers in vehicle.

question

Florida v. Wells (1990)

answer

Vehicle Searches: suppression of marijuana evidence in a locked suitcase.

question

Ornelas v. U.S. (1996)

answer

Vehicle Searches: profile gives rise to reasonable suspician - probable cause permits warrantless search - fleeting targets exception.

question

Florida v. Jimeno (1991)

answer

Vehicle Searches: permission to search does not extend to bags.

question

U.S. v. Ross (1982)

answer

Vehicle Searches: not exceeded authority when opened a bag in trunk.

question

Whren v. U.S. (1996)

answer

Vehicle Searches: officers may stop suspicious vehicle and then search if probable cause develops.

question

Maryland v. Wilson (1997)

answer

Vehicle Searches: can be ordered out of stopped vehicles.

question

People v. Brendlin (2007)

answer

Vehicle Searches: passengers in a stopped vehicle can be detained for the duration of the stop.

question

Knowles v. Iowa (1998)

answer

Vehicle Searches: search incident to citation is not justifiable.

question

Wyoming v. Houghton (1999)

answer

Vehicle Searches: officer's with probable cause to search a car may inspect any passenger's belongings found in a car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

question

Illinois v. Caballes (2005)

answer

Vehicle Searches: drug sniffing dog is permissible.

question

Thorton v. U.S. (2004)

answer

Vehicle Searches: established the authority of arresting officers to search a car without a warant even if the driver had previously exited the vehicle.

question

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)

answer

Roadblocks and Checkpoints: sobriety stops are reasonable if essential to welfare of community.

question

U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)

answer

Roadblocks and Checkpoints: brief suspicionless seizures at international checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens is legal.

question

Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)

answer

Roadblocks and Checkpoints: verifying drivers license and registration at checkpoint legal.

question

Illinois v. Lidster (2004)

answer

Roadblocks and Checkpoints: information-seeking highway roadblocks are legal.

question

U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez (1983)

answer

Watercraft and Motor Homes: Carroll decision to include watercraft.

question

California v. Carney (1985)

answer

Watercraft and Motor Homes: Carroll decision to include motor homes.

question

U.S. v. Hill (1988)

answer

Watercraft and Motor Homes: Carrol decision to include houseboats.

question

National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989)

answer

Suspicionless Searches: those that occur when a person is not suspected of a crime - mandatory drug testing for all workers seeing promotion.

question

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executive's Association (1989)

answer

Suspicionless Searches: mandatory drug testing following serious train accidents.

question

Florida v. Bostick (1991)

answer

Suspicionless Searches: permitted warrantless "sweeps" of intercity buses. Bostick appealed stating that he could not refuse the search and was not free to leave the bus. Passenger compliance with police searches must be voluntary for the searches to be legal.

question

Bond v. U.S. (2000)

answer

Suspicionless Searches: physical manipulation of carry-on without owner's consent violation of 4th amendment.

question

U.S. v. Drayton (2002)

answer

Suspicionless Searches: reiterated position that officers are not required to advise bus passengers of their right to refuse to cooperate with officers conducting searches or of their right to refuse to be searched.

question

U.S. v. Flores-Montano (2004)

answer

Suspicionless Searches: suspicionless searches of vehicles at borders are permitted.

question

People v. Deutsch (1996)

answer

High Tech Search: rules thermal scan was illegal - invasion of privacy.

question

Kyllo v. U.S. (2001)

answer

High Tech Search: unreasonable and illegal to use thermal scan.

question

Aguilar v. Texas (1964)

answer

Intelligence: 2-prong test for informants: (1) source of informant's info is clear and (2) officer has reasonable belief that informant is reliable.

question

U.S. v. Harris (1971)

answer

Intelligence: exception, information that is damaging to informant is probably true.

question

Illinois v. Gates (1983)

answer

Intelligence: totality-of-circumstances approach...probable cause when informant can be reasonably believed on the basis of everything that the police know.

question

Alabama v. White (1990)

answer

Intelligence: anonymous tip can be basis for investigatory stop if information predicts future behavior.

question

Florida v. J.L. (2000)

answer

Intelligence: anonymous tip of person carrying gun does not justify stop and frisk without more evidence.

question

U.S. Department of Justice v. Landano (1993)

answer

Intelligence: identity of informant secret only if request made under FOIA.

question

Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

answer

Interrogation: interrogation cannot be physical abuse.

question

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)

answer

Interrogation: inherent coercion in interrogation not acceptable.

question

Chambers v. Florida (1940)

answer

Interrogation: cannot confine and question without formal charges - inherent coercion.

question

Leyra v. Denno (1954)

answer

Interrogation: was duped by police into confessing by highly trained psychiatrist.

question

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)

answer

Interrogation: informant for FBI in jail coerced Fulminante to confessing by telling him everyone was plotting his murder. Should be considered trial error.

question

Chapman v. California (1967)

answer

Interrogation: forced confessions invalidated conviction.

question

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

answer

Interrogation: right to a lawyer at interrogation - counsel should be provided and whenever the defendant desires.

question

Edwards v. Arizona (1981)

answer

Interrogation: bright-line rule - questioning must cease until lawyer present.

question

MIranda v. Arizona (1966)

answer

Interrogation: rights advisement of suspects. Warren court ruling. Conviction unconstitutional.

question

U.S. v. Dickerson (1999)

answer

Interrogation: confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. On appeal, upheld Miranda.

question

Moran v. Burbine (1986)

answer

Interrogation: defined intelligent and knowing waiver. One "made with full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.

question

Colorado v. Spring (1987)

answer

Interrogation: waiver can be made even though suspect not informed of all alleged offenses.

question

Brewer v. Williams (1977)

answer

Interrogation: Christian burial speech - not reminded that he could have a lawyer present. Confession not admitted but body was used.

question

Nix v. Williams (1984)

answer

Interrogation: inevitable discovery exception - affirmed Brewer v. Williams since body would have been found anyway.

question

New York v. Quarles (1984)

answer

Interrogation: public safety exception to the Miranda rule.

question

Colorado v. Connelly (1986)

answer

Interrogation: someone suffering mental problems does not negate a confession.

question

Kuhlmann v. Wilson (1986)

answer

Interrogation: passive gathering of information permissible since there was no attempt to elicit it.

question

Illinois v. Perkins (1990)

answer

Interrogation: questioning by undercover officer does not require Miranda warnings.

question

Rock v. Zimmerman (1982)

answer

Interrogation: spontaneous statement is admissible.

question

South Dakota v. Neville (1983)

answer

Interrogation: answer to question is admissible if not provoked. "I'm too drunk. I won't pass the test."

question

Arizona v. Mauro (1987)

answer

Interrogation: third-party conversation is admissible.

question

Doyle v. Ohio (1976)

answer

Interrogation: suspect's silence cannot be used against him.

question

Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993)

answer

Interrogation: efforts to use silence against a defendant does not invalidate a finding of guilt by jury.

question

Chavez v. Martinez (2003)

answer

Interrogation: self-incriminating statements can be taken but not used at trial in absence of Miranda warnings (fractured opinion).

question

Hayes v. Florida (1985)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: cannot fingerprint if no probable cause.

question

Winston v. Lee (1985)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: cannot invade the body with medical procedures.

question

Schmerber v. California (1966)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: warrant must be obtained for bodily intrusion unless fast action necessary to prevent destruction of evidence.

question

U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: canal smuggling - proper to detain and search.

question

Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: telephone lines not extension of private homes.

question

On Lee v. U.S. (1952) & Lopez v. U.S. (1963)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: recording devices on the body of an undercover agent or informant admissible evidence.

question

Berger v. New York (1967)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: permitted wiretaps.

question

Katz v. U.S. (1967)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: a warrent is required to unveil what a person makes an effort to keep private, even in a public place such as a public phone.

question

Lee v. Florida (1968)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: evidence from telephone cannot be used unless had warrant - Federal Communications Act.

question

U.S. v. White (1971)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: can intercept electronic information only when a party gives consent.

question

U.S. v. Karo (1984)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: violation because radio transmitter was not under consent and violated the suspects expectation of privacy inside his premises.

question

U.S. v. Scott (1978)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: Minimization means that officers must make every reasonable effort to monitor only those conversations that are specifically related to the criminal activity under investigation.

question

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: portions of the CDA were invalidated.

question

U.S. v. Carey (1999)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: the consent a defendant had given to police for his apartment to be searched did no extend to the search of his computer once it was taken to the police station.

question

U.S. v. Turner (1999)

answer

Nontestimonial Evidence: the warrantless police search of a defendant's personal computer while in his apartment exceeded the scope of the defendant's consent.

Chapter 7 Case Law – Flashcards

Unlock all answers in this set

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards