CPcases
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Minnesota v. Carter
- Court held that a person who visits a residence for a brief period for business related purposes lacks the expectation of privacy needed to challenge an illegal entry and search by the police.
- Horton v. California
- Court held that evidence does not need to be inadvertently discovered in order to be covered by the plain view doctrine. When a warrant was exectued, no proceeds were found but weapons were discovered in plain view and were seized.
- Alabama v. White
- Court held that a modified verson of the Gates "totality of circumstances" test could be used to establicsh reasonable suspicion. Both the contecnt of information posssessed by police and its degree of reliability are considered in accessing the "totality of circumstances." Court approved stop from information recieved from anonymous informant and verified some of the information by personal observation.
- Chimel v. California
- Court held that a search incident to a lawful arrest in a home must be limited to the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or other evidentiary items.
- Aguilar v. Texas
- In order for the magistrate issuingthe warrant to perform the task of independent review, he/she must be advised 1. of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that probable cause existed; and 2. of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be revealed in the affidavit, was credible or his information reliable. - aguilar two-pronged test.
- Maryland v Buie
- Court held that incident to an arrest the officer could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediatly launched
- Michigan v. Long
- The court held during a stop of a vehicle on reasonable suspicion an officer may make a protective search of the passenger compartment, limited to those areas which a weapon may be placed or hidden.
- Kolender v. Lawson
- the court held that a loitering statute requiring "credible and reliabe" identification upon request by the police was unconstitutuionally vague.
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire
- Court set the usual legal standard for a valid plain view seizure. That standard required that the police officer observe the seizable evidence from a position the officer had lawful right to occup; that the officer's discovery was unexpected or inadvertent; and that the incriminating nature of the evidence be cleary apparent to the officer.
- California v. Acevedo
- Court held that police may conduct a warrantless search of a closed container in a vehicle if there is probable cause that evidence is in the container searched.
- U.S. v. Sokolow
- The court held that an investigative stop could be based on the totality of circumstances even though each individual item was a legal act.
- Chambers v. Maroney
- The court held that if the officer has probable cause to believe that a car contains evidence of a crime and the car is mobile, the officer may search the car at the scene or move it to the police impound lot and search it there, in both instances without a warrant.
- Kyllo v. US
- COurt held that where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
- Florida v Royer
- If a person fits the "drug courier profile" under the Terry rationale, a brief stop of the person and a brief investigation have been held to be appropriate.
- Illinois v. Wardlow
- The subject initiated flight upon seeing a caravan of police cars converging on a Chicago street in an area known for heavy drug trafficking. Officers caught subject and discovered a revolver during pat down. Court upheld the stop of suspect under Terry. The Court noted that the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on common sense judgements and inferences in human behavior.
- US v. Rabinowitz
- Court expanded the scope of a warrantless search incident to an arrest and said that the police were permitted to search the entire premises that the suspect occupied at the time.
- Warden v. Hayden
- Court decided that items such as clothing may be seized by the police during lawful searches of the suspect's residence or other locations. this case abrogated the "mere evidence" rule. and also held that police were permitted to follow a suspect into a private dwelling without a warrant under the theory of "hot pursuit".
- Payton v. New York
- Court held that police are prohibited from making warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. Warrants may be dispensed with in exigent circumstances.
- Minnesota v. Dickerson
- Court held that an officer may seize nonthreatening contraband detected during a protective pat down search under Terry only if , by the object's contour or mass, its identity is immediately apparent. six justices agreed that the actions of the officer in squeezing, sliding and manipulating was beyond this.
- Hudson v. Michigan
- Court reasoned that the evidence of drug and gun possession should have been admitted at trial because the knock and announce requirement was not a but-for case for obtaining the evidence; it would have been obtained in any event. Police ahve little incentive to adhere to the requirements of the knock and announce principle.
- Michigan v. Sitz
- The court held that sobriety checkpoints do not violate the 4th amendment.
- Maryland v. White
- COurt held that police officers may routinely order passengers out of vehicles that are legally stopped. No showing of suspicion or probable cause regarding the passengers' activity need be present.
- Terry v. Ohio
- The court held that a person may be detained without probable cause to make an arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
- Michigan v Summers
- The Court held that a valid warrant for a search of a dwelling implicitly contains the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while the warrant is being lawfuly executed. To protect 3 police interests.
- Delaware v. Prouse
- The court held that police may not stop the driver of a vehicle in order to check his drivers license and car registration absent at least reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed, ect. there is a requirement of individualized suspicion of criminal activity.
- Carroll v. US
- Court held that a moving vehicle can be stopped, and searched, on probable cause that at the time it is carrying contraband or other illegally possessed goods. Probable cause has been defined in this situation when the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable prudence in belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place or on a particular person
- Georgia v. Randolph
- Justices determined that where two persons share dominion and control over property and both are present, the consent of one contenant over the objection of the other does not constitute a proper consent under the 4th amendment.
- Wilson v. Arkansas
- Court held that the common-law "knock and announce" principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the 4th amendment. There may be countervailing reasons why the law enforcement would be excused from "knock and annouce" in some cases but left the development of such exceptions to the lower courts.
- Florida v. White
- Court held that where a motor vehicle's status allows it to be seized as forfeitable contraband, no warrant is required prior to taking control of the vehicle and searching the interior.
- Illinois v. Gates
- Court held that the reliability of an informant in search warrant cases should be based on the "totality of the circumstances" instead of the rigid "two-prong test" of Aguilar. Prior reliability does not have to be established if the information provided sufficiently detailed and has indicia of credibility
- Illinois v. Rodriquez
- Court held that a consent to search was valid when a consent was obtained from a third party whom the police, at the time of entry, reasonably belieived to possess common authority over the premises but who in fact did not have such authority. -if they had good faith reasonable belief in that person.