CoboCards App FAQ & Wünsche Feedback
Sprache: Deutsch Sprache
Kostenlos registrieren  Login

Hol' Dir diese Lernkarten, lerne & bestehe Prüfungen. Kostenlos! Auch auf iPhone/Android!

E-Mail eingeben: und Kartensatz kostenlos importieren.  
Und Los!
Alle Oberthemen / Law / Criminal Law

4th Amendment Cases (130 Karten)

Sag Danke
1
Kartenlink
0
What does clause 1 of the 4th Amendment say
Persons, houses, papers, and effects are protected from unreasonable search and seizure
2
Kartenlink
0
Boyd
makes 4th Amd. search and seizure a "property rights" question, i.e. govt. may not trespass on your land; however, no possessory interest in 1) fruits 2) instrumentalities 3) contraband; mere evidence rule- officers cannot search for mere evidence of a crime as opposed to 1,2,3.
3
Kartenlink
0
Schmerber
rejects 4th/5th amd. property rights analysis under Boyd; 5th amd. applies to testimonial evidence; replaces Boyd analysis with privacy one- reasonableness determined by PC w/ a warrant or a warrant exception. 
4
Kartenlink
0
Warden v. Hayden
rejects "mere evidence" distinction in Boyd; 4th amd. is about privacy- govt can search for evidence so long as warrant/ warrant exception is satisfied
5
Kartenlink
0
Katz
"What is a 4th Amendment search?"  Boyd trespass doctrine overturned; 4th amd. protects people, not places; Harlan's concurrance gives us the test- suspect must have 1) subjective (actual) and 2) objective (reasonable) expectation of privacy.  Test has empirical (fact-intensive) and normative components ( 1) social value in protecting privacy 2) level of intrusion 3) degree to which D attepted to protect interest 4) value in crime control
6
Kartenlink
0
US v. White
false friend w/ wiretap; assumption of the risk analysis- no expectation of privacy in what you tell another person. 
7
Kartenlink
0
Lopez
no reasonable expectation of privacy w/ false friends and a recorder
8
Kartenlink
0
On Lee
no reasonable expectation of privacy w/ a transmitter to a 3rd party
9
Kartenlink
0
Ciraolo, Riley
no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything you can see from FAA regulated airspace (lawful, public vantage point)
10
Kartenlink
0
Oliver
Open fields doctrine; society not ready to recognize that privacy interest.


o New Analysis – there is no REP in open fields
            Empirical – trespass into open fields occurs often
           
Normative – privacy value is high and arguably the value 
                                      to law enforcement is high

o Dissent – there can be an expectation of privacy in open fields because they include private wooded areas for nature walk, lover’s meeting, religious gathering, etc.  Also there were efforts to guard the land

11
Kartenlink
0
Dunn
curtilage test: 1) proximity to home 2) existence of enclosure 3) nature/use of area 4) steps taken to exclude others
12
Kartenlink
0
Bond
physical touching/manipulation of a bag is a 4th amd. search- subject to reasonableness test. 
13
Kartenlink
0
Place
no reasonable expectation of privacy in "smells" i.e. a drug dog sniffing effects.

o No REP with respect to dog sniffs…the privacy interest you’d have to assert is very small because your privacy interest would be limited to the smell of drugs from your luggage.  Also there is no physical intrusion
o Normative analysis to argue this is a search:  privacy interest is the interest in your personal effects.  Not as intrusive as physical invasion, but its use of a sense-enhancing device to gather information that otherwise would require physical invasion to obtain!

14
Kartenlink
0
Greenwood
no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's trash.
15
Kartenlink
0
Jacobson
fed ex employee- officers may replicate a citizen's search; not subject to reasonableness requirement- no expectation of privacy if the "cat is already out of the bag"
16
Kartenlink
0
Skinner
test for who is a state actor- totality of the circumstances- did police 1) advise 2) encourage 3) participate?
17
Kartenlink
0
Kyllo
thermal imaging is a search; technology not commonplace, privacy level is highest (home).  Binoculars would be ok- common technology.
18
Kartenlink
0
Hudson
no REP in prison cell
19
Kartenlink
0
Class
no REP in VIN number
20
Kartenlink
0
Rakas
auto passenger- no REP in another's car. 
21
Kartenlink
0
Mendenhall
What is a 4th Amendment person seizure?  Application/threat of force so that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; mere questioning does not equal a seizure
22
Kartenlink
0
Florida v. Royer
(From Outline)
• Florida v. Royer – suspect approached in an airport was seized because the officers retained his ticket and license and never indicated he was free to leave.

(From Original Card)
nervous, false name, false name on luggage, traveling under alias = RS 

(Erik's Comment)
. . . RS allows for a Terry Stop and Frisk . . .  Which is a seizure . . .
23
Kartenlink
0
Bostick
seizures in enclosed spaces; in this case, other factors (bus leaving) made him not feel free to leave; instead, test is does reasonable person feel they can terminate the police encounter? 
24
Kartenlink
0
Hodari D
a person is not seized when being pursued; only when physically caught, or submissive to show of authority.
25
Kartenlink
0
Chesternut
the mere following of a suspect in a marked police car did not constitute a seizure.  they did not make any show of authority or attempt to block or control the suspects movements.
26
Kartenlink
0
Garner
police force must be proportionate; for deadly force, 1) police must believe suspect poses a risk to safety of self or others 2) use of deadly force will effectuate and is necessary
27
Kartenlink
0
Graham
an arrest is always a seizure; even non-deadly force must be proportionate
28
Kartenlink
0
4th Amendment, cl. 2
No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
29
Kartenlink
0
What does clause 2 of the 4th Amendment say?
Warrants are only issued on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and with particularity describing place to be searched and things to be seized
30
Kartenlink
0
Weeks
Established the federal Exclusionary rule; evidence obtained illegally shall not be permissibly used at trial. 
31
Kartenlink
0
Mapp
applied the Exclusionary rule to the states vis a vis the 14th Amendment
32
Kartenlink
0
Garza-Hernandez/Brinegar
probable cause to search an area demands that there be a certain quantum of likelihood that: (1) something that is properly subject to seizure by the government, i.e., contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, (2) is presently (3) in the specific place to be searched.

Probable cause does not require certainty, but only a sufficeitne likelihood.  Consequently, a showing of probably cause is not undermined if the conclusions drawn turn out, in fact, to have been mistaken
33
Kartenlink
0
Ventresca (warrant preference)
The court has repeatedly indicated that the standard of probable cause for warrant-authorized searches and seizures is slightly less demanding than the standard of probable cause for warrant less searches and seizures.

officer's determination is reviewed de novo on appeal. while magistrates are reviewed for clear error
34
Kartenlink
0
Aguillar/Spinelli
two pronged test for determining if informant tips are sufficient for probable cause: 1) veracity- reliability, credibility 2) basis of knowledge- self-verifying details
35
Kartenlink
0
Illinois v. Gates
overrules Aguillar/Spinelli for a totality of the circumstances test taking into account the prongs, plus other factors; policy rationale- deference to magistrate, common sense determination
36
Kartenlink
0
Whren
Whren v. US - subjective intent of cop is irrelevant if there is probable cause

• Rule
-- NO pretext analysis when there is PC.  Argue Equal Protection Claim (EPC) if there is a concern with pretext. 


pretext is irrelevant; cops pull over for one offense, PC for another develops while pulled over, OK
37
Kartenlink
0
Hayden (exigency)
1) destruction of evidence 2) hot pursuit 3) preventing flight 4) protecting public safety
38
Kartenlink
0
Vale
officers may not create their own exigency
39
Kartenlink
0
McArthur
officers may seize a house and make you wait outside while they obtain a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence
40
Kartenlink
0
Ornealas
magistrate's PC determination not reviewed de novo on appeal
41
Kartenlink
0
Johnson
warrant preference- magistrates are detached and neutral, not in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime
42
Kartenlink
0
Coolidge
cannot be a member of the executive branch
???
43
Kartenlink
0
Shadwick
municipal clerks ok
44
Kartenlink
0
Franks
"oath or affirmation"- if an officer falsifies an affidavit, the warrant is invalid
45
Kartenlink
0
Steele/Marron
warrants must be reasonably particular; no general search warrant.
46
Kartenlink
0
Santana
"threshold of door" is a public place- if police witness crime, then you dart in your house, they can come after you- "hot pursuit" exigency; no Payton requirement
47
Kartenlink
0
Chambers v. Maroney
automobile warrant exception- based on recurring exigency 1) inherently mobile 2) diminished EofP


. . . hence, an immediate search is constitutionally permissible.



48
Kartenlink
0
California v. Carney
test for automobile- 1) appearance of ready mobility 2) use as a vehicle or home? 3) curtilage
49
Kartenlink
0
Chadwick
no warrant exception for containers- need a warrant 1) heightened level of privacy 2) purpose- storing effects, not transportation
50
Kartenlink
0
Sanders (bad law)
D puts suitcase in car; officers had PC for of drugs in the case, no warrant.  Chadwick governs- need a warrant b/c PC was particularized to container, not car. 
51
Kartenlink
0
Acevedo
overrules Sanders; Sanders situations governed by Chambers, not Chadwick; particularized PC irrelevant- same exigency rationales apply to a container in a car as the car itself.
52
Kartenlink
0
Houghton
owner of container irrelevant; if PC, they can search anyone's containers in the car.
53
Kartenlink
0
Ross
officers w/ particularized PC about drugs in an automobile; search bag in the car, find drugs- Chambers governs, thus OK.  automobile exceptions governs containers in cars as well. 
54
Kartenlink
0
Watson
publicly executed arrests for felonies and misdemeanors committed in officer's presence w/o warrant is ok. 
55
Kartenlink
0
McLaughlin/Gerstein
Justice O'connor announced that a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement.
56
Kartenlink
0
Atwater
Watson carries over to traffic stops
57
Kartenlink
0
Payton
must have arrest warrant and PC that they are in the residence to make felony arrest in residence
58
Kartenlink
0
Chimel
search incident arrest is ok w/o warrant; limited to area in immediate control of suspect 1) temporal- "reasonably contemporaneous" and 2) spatial- grabbing area, wingspan, person; rationale- police protection, destruction of evidence
59
Kartenlink
0
Robinson
Chimel extends to automobiles in traffic stops. 
60
Kartenlink
0
Belton
if valid arrest, and recent occupant of vehicle, police may search passenger compartment (but not trunk) incident to arrest
61
Kartenlink
0
Arizona v. Gant
If the police have a reasonable belief that the arrestee may access the compartment at the time of the search then they may perform a search.

scalia concurrence: brings back the evidence sweep in robinawicz.  police can do a general sweep for evidence of crime.
62
Kartenlink
0
Thornton
if police wait till suspect is out of car, then arrest, still valid per Belton. 
63
Kartenlink
0
Knowles
no search incident traffic citation (if arrestable offense, hard to square with an Atwater, Belton/Robinson interplay)
64
Kartenlink
0
Steagald
for 3rd party homes, need arrest and search warrant to make felony arrest. 
65
Kartenlink
0
Brigham City
police may enter to break up a fight (protecting public safety)
66
Kartenlink
0
Welsh
no physical invasion, even with exigency if offense is minor
67
Kartenlink
0
Summers
officers may detain a suspect while executing a search warrant
68
Kartenlink
0
Buie
following arrest, officers may conduct a protective sweep of adjoining areas to search for third parties that could be a danger to the officers (obviously not containers)
69
Kartenlink
0
Wilson
Knock and announce rule must be followed in execution of a search warrant
70
Kartenlink
0
Richards
Unless it would be dangerous or inhibit investigation of crime
71
Kartenlink
0
Gooding
Warrant execution is preferred to be carried out in the daytime
72
Kartenlink
0
Ramirez
unreasonable destruction of property while serving warrant is impermissible
73
Kartenlink
0
Gervato/Chubbuck
occupants need not be on site to execute a search warrant
74
Kartenlink
0
Simmons
no requirement to leave a copy of the warrant/items to be seized if they aren't there
75
Kartenlink
0
Pringle
common enterprise- PC to arrest any/all passengers and driver for drugs found in back seat
76
Kartenlink
0
Horton
plain-view doctrine of warrant exception; need 1) lawful vantage point 2) right of access 3) must be immediately apparent that item is subject to seizure b/c of its association with the crime
77
Kartenlink
0
Dickerson
plain-touch doctrine; tactile version
78
Kartenlink
0
Opperman/Lafayette
Inventory searches are constitutional; policy rationales 1) false claims of property loss 2) police safety 3) protect property 4) need to ID person; must have 1) good faith 2) limited discretion 3) SOP 4) incarceration (for persons- Lafayette) Opperman is vehicle.
79
Kartenlink
0
Bertine
inventory search done on arrest premises is OK, even containers (per Wells)
80
Kartenlink
0
Sitz
Sobriety checkpoints ok; must have 1) SOP 2) balance level of intrusion w/ state interests
81
Kartenlink
0
Prouse
no roving roadblocks- much higher level of intrusion than Sitz where motorists are put on notice
82
Kartenlink
0
Edmond
road blocks for generalized crime fighting unconstitutional
83
Kartenlink
0
Lidster
hit and run checkpoint ok- exigency
84
Kartenlink
0
Ramsey
border checkpoints ok
85
Kartenlink
0
TLO
special needs search- school agents simply need 1) reasonable suspicion at time search undertaken and 2) search is limited in scope
86
Kartenlink
0
Acton, Earls
random drug testing for athletes, after school programs ok
87
Kartenlink
0
Von Raab
Customs agents drug testing OK
88
Kartenlink
0
Skinner
Railway workers involved in accident- drug testing OK
89
Kartenlink
0
Chandler
drug testing for those seeking public office NOT ok.
90
Kartenlink
0
Ortega
search of a govt. office ok on RS of work related misconduct
91
Kartenlink
0
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
consent searches; reasonable when voluntary- totality of circumstances test; cannot be the product of coercion or submission to authority
92
Kartenlink
0
Bumper
acquiescence does not equal consent
93
Kartenlink
0
Robinette
no "you are free to go" per se rule needed; consent searches during traffic stops ok
94
Kartenlink
0
Jimino
scope of consent search- "would officer reasonably believe D consented to search of ?"
95
Kartenlink
0
Matlock
roommate consents while other isn't there; assumption of the risk analysis
96
Kartenlink
0
Randolph
wife consents, husband says no; have to get a warrant.
97
Kartenlink
0
Rodriguez
standing to give consent: "police must reasonably believe that the person had the authority to consent"
98
Kartenlink
0
Terry v. Ohio (Stop & Frisk)
stop and frisk that does not rise to the level of a full custodial arrest, but is a search and seizure anyway; creates the reasonable suspicion standard; officer may stop and frisk for weapons if there are specific and articulatable facts that lead the officer to believe crime is afoot and the suspect is armed and dangerous
99
Kartenlink
0
Hensley
past crimes are susceptible to Terry doctrine
100
Kartenlink
0
Wardlow
reasonable suspicion is a totality analysis- fleeing is not totally conclusive about wrongdoing but certainly indicative of such. 
101
Kartenlink
0
Alabama v. White
tips in a Terry context- example of the bottom level of reliability to give rise to reasonable suspicion
102
Kartenlink
0
Florida v. J.L.
crosses the line- all innocent details any member of the public could have given.
103
Kartenlink
0
Reid
two people concealed that they were traveling together- no RS
104
Kartenlink
0
Sharpe
distinguishes Terry from full custodial arrest based on duration- reasonableness
105
Kartenlink
0
Dunaway
distinguishes Terry from full custodial arrest based on spatial dimension- interrogation room, for instance
106
Kartenlink
0
Michigan v. Long
basically Terry with a car; officers are allowed to search automobile for weapons if they have RS suspect is armed and dangerous
107
Kartenlink
0
Rawlings
must have privacy interest to contest a search (Katz) must have possessory interest to contest seizure (Jacobson)
108
Kartenlink
0
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
traffic stops, Terry stops- may order driver out of car
109
Kartenlink
0
Wilson
same applies to passengers
110
Kartenlink
0
Caballos
drug dogs ok for Terry and traffic stops
111
Kartenlink
0
Ybarra
while executing search warrant on business, officers may not search all patrons; need individual suspicion for each person
112
Kartenlink
0
Hiibel
officers may demand identification during the course of a Terry stop if state law says refusal is arrestable
113
Kartenlink
0
Rakas
turns 4th Amendment rights analysis from a standing/agency/"legitimately on premises" test into a Katzian legitimate expectation of privacy one.  4th amd. rights are personal rights. 
114
Kartenlink
0
Olson
overnight guests = REP
115
Kartenlink
0
Carter
social guests = No REP
116
Kartenlink
0
Silverthorne
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine introduced; derivative and primary evidence excluded
117
Kartenlink
0
Murray
independent source doctrine (exception to the FoPT based on severance of but for causation);

Policy Rationale - prosecutors, investigators should be put in no worse/better position than before violation;

must show:
1) info from illegal source did not aid in probable cause determination and

2) motivation for search 2 did not come from search 1

118
Kartenlink
0
Nix v. Williams
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
- also known as Hypothetical Independent Discovery Doctrine
- ("But For" severance exception)

Police must show that evidence would have been obtained by an independent line of investigation anyway; then the illegal method is irrelevant.

Policy:  Do not want to put the police in no worse position absent the illegality when suppressing evidence (don't really understand this)

(Case: Dead Body was being searched for and Police violated Murderer's 6th Amend rights and he told them where the body was.  Search was called off and body found.  Search would have uncovered the body within 3 hours)
119
Kartenlink
0
Brown/Wong Sun
"Attenuation" Doctrine attenuation of the taint

Mulit-Factor Test Includes:

(1) Remoteness in time b/n evidence and illegality
(2) Remoteness in chain of events b/n evidence and illegality
(3) Intervening Acts of Free Will
(4) Flagrancy of the Police Violation (Purposeful?)
(5) Nature of the Evidence

Blackmun in Brown
Not ready to say the Miranda warnings and rights which cause a voluntary confession are per se an intervening act of free will.  Then Police would use that techinque all the time.

120
Kartenlink
0
Ceccolini

Testimonial/Witnesses evidence attenuates much faster than physical evidence

121
Kartenlink
0
Hudson v. Michigan
New Attenuation Doctrine based on type of violation, not remoteness; protection guarded by original interest violated should reasonably match up. 


"Knock and Announce" Case

- Had violated SW
- Violated K&A (Wilson v. Arkansas)
- Executed a valid SW and found evidence

Court Held -- Do NOT suppress evidence found as a result of a valid search warrant.  Even though K&A was violated.

What is Policy of K&A
(1) Narrow invasion of privacy (naked, sex, etc)
(2) Property (destruction of)
(3) Safety (you startle me without warning, i'll blow your head off)

What is Policy of SW?
(1) General Privacy in the Home



122
Kartenlink
0
Segura
no right to destroy evidence; if that is the sole reason, attenuation is automatic
123
Kartenlink
0
Leon
Good-Faith exception- if a warrant is found to be invalid after served and relied upon in good faith, then the evidence is ok.  NOT valid if, 1) magistrate = rubber stamp 2) false info in affidavit 3) bare bones 4) lacks particularity
124
Kartenlink
0
Krull
Good faith applies to legislatures
125
Kartenlink
0
Evans
good faith applies to judicial clerks
126
Kartenlink
0
Walder
impeachment exception 1) ok if statement is on direct 2) only used collaterally (other crimes) 3) only for D, not D's witnesses
127
Kartenlink
0
Havens
Eviscerates Walder #1: cross OK so long as it is w/in scope of direct
128
Kartenlink
0
Harris
eviscerates Walder #2: jury instruction, then tainted evidence can be used to impeach testimony for actual crime D is on trial for!
129
Kartenlink
0
James
leaves Walder #3 in tact.
130
Kartenlink
0
Brewer
force must be intentional; no "bumping into" someone
Kartensatzinfo:
Autor: tjkoger
Oberthema: Law
Thema: Criminal Law
Schule / Uni: University of Mississippi
Ort: Oxford
Veröffentlicht: 11.09.2009
Tags: 4th Amendment, US constitution, Criminal Procedure, Supreme court
 
Schlagwörter Karten:
Alle Karten (130)
keine Schlagwörter
Missbrauch melden

Abbrechen
E-Mail

Passwort

Login    

Passwort vergessen?
Deutsch  English