Chapter 7 Case Law – Flashcards

Unlock all answers in this set

Unlock answers
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.
Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New