Key Supreme Court Decisions on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, Exams of Advanced Education

Download Key Supreme Court Decisions on Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure and more Exams Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity! Legal cases Louisiana post Exam Questions and Answers A state's chief investigator and prosecutor ( state AG) is not neutral and detached, so any warrant issued by him or her is not valid. - Answer- Coolidge v. New Hampshire The validity of a warrant must be judged in light of the information available to the officers at the time they obtained the warrant. A warrant that is overboard in describing the place to be searched is valid if based on a reasonable but mistaken belief at the time the warrant is issued. Also see, exclusionary rule lecture under good faith exceptions. - Answer- Maryland v. Garrison Police may only search the arrestee's vehicle subsequent to his arrest, when it is reasonable that the arrestee could access a weapon or destroy evidence of his arrest, contained within the vehicle. - Answer- Arizona v. Gant (2009) Placing a GPS device and monitoring the device requires a search warrant. - Answer- U.S. v. Jones Feds adopt the exclusionary rule - Answer- Weeks v. U.S. States adopt the exclusionary rule and state it's an essential part of both the 4th and 14th amendments. - Answer- Mapp v. Ohio Established two prong tests for determining probable cause on the basis of information obtained from an informant. - Answer- Aguilar v. Texas "Innocent-seeming activity and data" and a "bald and unilluminating assertion of suspicion in an affidavit are not to be given weight in magistrate's determination of probable cause. An officer may use credible hearsay to establish probable cause, but an affidavit based on an informant's tip must satisfy the two-pronged Aguilar test. - Answer- Spinelli v. United States Abandoned the requirement of the two independent tests as they were too rigid, holding instead that the two prongs should be treated merely as relevant considerations in the totality of the circumstances. - Answer- Illinois v. Gates A leading case on information plus corroboration - Answer- Draper v. U.S. Established the public safety doctrine and affirmed reasonable suspicion for the detention of a person matching the description of a rape suspect located nearby the scene of the crime and within minutes of it. - Answer- New York v. Quarles Reasonable suspicion alone does not permit the police to transport a suspect to the police station to obtain fingerprints. Probable Cause or judicial authorization is required - Answer- Haves v. Florida During a frisk of a suspect's outer clothing an officer may remove a weapon or contraband from his pockets if it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item is in fact a weapon or contraband. - Answer- Minnesota v. Dickerson A vehicle travelling on the roadway at 0310 hours was stopped after its tires bumped the fog line. The legality of the stop was challenged and the courts ruled that the officer's observations not only met the Reasonable Suspicion standard, but also met that of Probable Cause based on the wording of LRS 32:79 -improper lane use. - Answer- State (LA) v. Waters An officer must fear for his safety or believe that a suspect is armed in order to frisk the suspect during an investigatory stop - Answer- State (LA) v. Surtain - A warrantless search of a vehicle was challenged in a motion to suppress evidence after the officer removed a can of bug spray from the vehicle and located 13 bags of marijuana in the false bottom of the can. The officer testified that when he retrieved the paperwork from the glove compartment, he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana (exception to warrant rule) coming from the interior of the vehicle and observed the suspect during the stop placed something on floorboard of the vehicle. Decision of the court of appeals reversed; judgment denying the motion to suppress reinstated; case remanded. - Answer- State (LA) v. Jackson An investigatory stop does not constitute an arrest and is permissible when prompted by both (1) the observation of unusual conduct leading to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is about to take place and (2) the ability to point to specific and articulable facts to justify that suspicion. After the stop, the officer may frisk the person if the officer reasonably suspects personal danger to himself or herself or to other persons - Answer- Terry v. Ohio : The Court held that the government's authority to conduct suspicion less inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel tank. "The expectation of privacy is less at the border than it is in the in interior - Answer- U.S. v. Flores-Montano : LA Supreme Court ruled that unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable law enforcement officer while holding his waistband is reasonable suspicion, justifying a pursuit and stop, but not necessarily an arrest by itself. - Answer- St. v. Benjamin, 722 (LA 1998) a.After the driver was arrested, police can conduct a warrantless Search Incident to Arrest passenger compartment but not the trunk or the hood. - Answer- New York v. Belton (1981) a. Also, referred to as the Carroll Doctrine or Automobile Exception b. Deals only with vehicle searches c. Ruling- a search of an automobile does not need a warrant but still requires probable cause that seizable items are contained in the vehicle. d. Two requirements for the Carroll Doctrine i. The vehicle must be mobile meaning capable of being driven away ii. There must be probable cause to search e. Limited Exception to the Carroll Doctrine is for vehicles that are at home and not in use at the time of the search. Those vehicles would require a warrant or some other exception. - Answer- Carroll v. United States A. The Court held that a person traveling in a car on a public road has no reasonable expectation of privacy, so visual surveillance by the police does not constitute a search. However, once the vehicle enters an area where the driver has an expectation of privacy, the monitoring mus cease or get a warrant. R n b. B. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the police from supplementing their sensory faculties with technological aids to help the police identify the car's location. However,... - Answer- U.S. v. Knotts (1983), The court held that Kirby was not entitled to the presence and advice of a lawyer during a lineup or other face to face confrontation, because he had not been formally charged with an offense. - Answer- Kirby v. Illinois Held that a lineup or other face to face confrontation after the accused has been formally charged with an offense is considered a critical stage of proceedings; therefore, the accused has a right to have counsel present. - Answer- U.S v. Wade defines reasonable suspicion - Answer- Alabama v white can search wingspan after arrest - Answer- chimel v California Duncan v. Louisiana - Answer- function of jury is to guard against the excercise of arbitrary power Escobedo v. Illinois - Answer- defines custody Florida v jl - Answer- Stops based solely on an anonymous tip are not valid. Officer must independently corroborate anonymous tip. Harris v. US - Answer- plain view doctrine Hester v. US - Answer- Open field doctrine; authorizes open field searches w/o warrant Hibel v. Nevada - Answer- must give name during stop Maryland v. Buie - Answer- protective sweep Maryland v. Wilson - Answer- Police may order passengers out of vehicles they stop for officer safety Neil v. Biggers - Answer- Due process factors for line-ups annunciated. NJ v. TLO - Answer- Students may be searched by school administrators if they have reasonable belief---this is a lower standard than probable cause. Oliver v. US - Answer- extends open fields Payton v US - Answer- absent exigent circumstances officers cannot enter homes to make arrest without warrant US v. Dunn - Answer- Court case that established the four factors of curtilage US v. Leon - Answer- good faith exception South Dakota v opperman - Answer- inventory search following procedure of an impounded vehicle Schermerber v. California - Answer- taking blood sample did not violate defendants rights Gideon v. Wainwright - Answer- 14th amendment requires the appointment of counsel for defendants whether capitol or non capitol Gregg v. Georgia - Answer- Death penalty is constitutional Watson v US - Answer- An arrest warrant is not required to arrest a suspected felon in a public place if probable cause for arrest exists Steagold v. US - Answer- requires search warrant to be obtained in addition to arrest warrant if suspect not on his property for each location the suspect may be located First Ammendment Rights - Answer- Freedom of Speech Freedom of Religion Freedom of Press Freedom of Assembly Freedom of Petition Fourth Amendment - Answer- Protects against unreasonable search and seizure Fifth Amendment - Answer- A constitutional amendment designed to protect the rights of persons accused of crimes, including protection against double jeopardy, self- incrimination, and punishment without due process of law. Sixth Amendment - Answer- A constitutional amendment designed to protect individuals accused of crimes. It includes the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to a speedy and public trial. Tenth Amendment - Answer- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Fourteenth Amendment - Answer- A constitutional amendment giving full rights of citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the United States, except for American Indians.