Term
| City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) |
|
Definition
| Held that a highway checkpoint program, the primary purpose of which was the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics, violated the 4th amendment. What distinguished this case from other checkpoint cases is that its primary purpose was to detect evidence of criminal wrongdoing, as opposed to the public safety goals at issue in Sitz. |
|
|
Term
| Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990) |
|
Definition
| the Court held that dwui roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted that "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program. |
|
|
Term
| Illinois v. Lidster (2004) |
|
Definition
| the Illinois checkpoint did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and was constitutional. It ruled that the checkpoint was reasonable because it advanced a "grave" public interest - "investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death" - and interfered minimally with Fourth Amendment liberty. The Court distinguished Illinois's "information-seeking" checkpoint from the "crime control" checkpoint |
|
|
Term
| Griffin Vs. Wisconsin (1987) |
|
Definition
| upheld warrantless search of a probationers home by probation officers under the authority of Wisconsin's probation regulation, which permitted such searches on "reasonable grounds" to believe that contraband was present. |
|
|
Term
| Washington Vs. Chrisman (1982) |
|
Definition
| the Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted law enforcement officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to remain at the initial suspect's elbow at all times, and did not waive his right to custodial control because he hesitated briefly in the doorway of the dormitory room before entering. In short, the officer had obtained lawful access to an individual's area of privacy and was free to seize incriminating evidence. |
|
|
Term
| United States Vs. Knotts (1983) |
|
Definition
| The US Supreme Courtheld that the warrantless monitoring of one of a tracking device placed inside a container of chemicals did not violate the 4th amendment. |
|
|
Term
| United States Vs. Karo (1984) |
|
Definition
| Is in sharp contrast to US Vs. Knotts. In this case the tracking devise allowed the monitorin of specific movements inside a residence, in areas that were not open to visual surveillance, where there was a reasonable expectatipon to privacy. |
|
|
Term
| United States Vs. Edwards (1974) |
|
Definition
| Clothing seized by jail the day after arrest was ruled reasonable as the jail could not procure clothing for Edwards until that time. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The Supreme Court held that police may search the vehicle of its recent occupant after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts of the Case: Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.
Conclusion: The Court reversed the conviction. The police violated Rochin's right to due process of law. Due process was an admittedly vague concept, but it prohibited "conduct that shocks the conscience." This nebulous approach was mocked in a concurring opinion by Justice Black |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts of the Case: Schmerber had been arrested for drunk driving while receiving treatment for injuries in a hospital. During his treatment, a police officer ordered a doctor to take a blood sample which indicated that Schmerber had been drunk while driving. The blood test was introduced as evidence in court and Schmerber was convicted.
Question: Did the blood test violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination?
Conclusion: No. Justice Brennan argued for a unanimous Court that the protection against self-incrimination applied specifically to compelled communications or testimony. Since the results of the blood test were neither "testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds." |
|
|
Term
| List ten justifications for the officer lawfully being in a "zone of privacy" |
|
Definition
| 1) Stop and Frisk 2) Valid warrant to search for another object/s 3) Hot pursuit 4) Search incident to arrest 5) Controlled deliveries 6) Responding to an emergency / exigencies 7) Protective Sweeps 8) Consent 9)Vehicle inventories 10) Border searches |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What is the Mincey-Thompson-Flippo rule? |
|
Definition
| When officers are investigating an emergency such as a homicide, they may offer assistance to victims, and conduct a brief, limited search of premises without a warrant to find other potential victims or suspects. The goal in finding other potetntial suspects should narrowly be tailored to "securing" the premises from dangerous parties who may harm the police or a third person. |
|
|
Term
| South Dakota Vs. Opperman (1976) |
|
Definition
| Court approved the warantless inventory by police officers of an automobile impounded for parking violations. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Held that officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if there is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Carroll doctrine? (What are the requirements?) |
|
Definition
| Carroll Doctrine states you may search a (1)"readily mobile motor vehicle" (2)based on probable cause without a warrant. |
|
|
Term
| Wyoming Vs. Houghton (1999) |
|
Definition
Facts of the Case:
After pulling Sandra Haughton's friend over during a routine traffic stop, a Wyoming Highway Patrol officer noticed a needle in the driver's shirt pocket. Upon learning that the needle was used for drugs, the officer searched the car and Haughton's purse, where he found more drug paraphernalia. Haughton challenged her subsequent arrest on drug charges, alleging that the officer's search of her purse was unconstitutional. On appeal from an adverse appeals court ruling, overturning a favorable trial court decision, the Supreme Court granted Wyoming certiorari.
In a 6-to-3 decision the Court held that so long as there is probable cause to search a stopped vehicle, all subsequent searches of its contents are legal as well. The Court added that such searches are especially warranted if aimed at looking into objects or personal belongings capable of concealing items that are the object of the search. |
|
|
Term
| California Vs. Acevedo(1991) |
|
Definition
| Police may search a particular container placed in a vehicle based on probable cause without a warrant, but not the entire vehicle. The officers had observed Acevedo place a brown paper package in the vehicle that was similar to pcakages of marijuana they had seen before. |
|
|
Term
| Oliver Vs. United States (1984) |
|
Definition
| Steps taken to protect privacy, such as planting the marihuana on secluded land and erecting fences and "No Trespassing" signs around the property, do not establish that expectations of privacy in an open field are legitimate in the sense required by the Fourth Amendment. The test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly "private" activity, but whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Amendment. The fact that the government's intrusion upon an open field is a trespass at common law does not make it a "search" in the constitutional sense. In the case of open fields, the general rights of property protected by the common law of trespass have little or no relevance to the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. |
|
|
Term
| California Vs. Greenwood (1988) |
|
Definition
| Garbage left curbside (inside the curtilage) of the residence still has an expectation of privacy. |
|
|
Term
| What is en loco parentis? |
|
Definition
| Extends parental priviledges to school staff - allowing search of lockers and belongings while on school property |
|
|
Term
| Chimel V. California (1969) |
|
Definition
| Limited searches incident to lawful arrest to the areas under the "immediate control" of the arestee. |
|
|
Term
| What are protective sweeps? |
|
Definition
| When officers conduct a limited search of a premis incident to an arrest to ensure their own safety and the safety of others from potential accomplices linked to the arrestee. Also, if officers believe evidence is about to be destroyed or removed as they make a home arrest, they may also conduct a limited search of the premises to prevent removal or destruction. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Officers conducted a search of Buie's basement "in case there was anyone else there" and found plain view evidence of a robbery that had occured earlier that day. Court found that officers had a limited right to conduct a protective sweep for their own protection after arresting the defendant. |
|
|
Term
| What is the permissible scope of a search incident to lawful arrest? |
|
Definition
| 1) to search fo and remove weapons that the arrestee might use to resist arrest or affect an escape. 2) To search for and seize evidence to prevent it's concealment or destruction 3) Evidence of a crime 4) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed; and 5) property designed for use, intended use, or used in committing a crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| In general, if an officer asks for permission to search a given place or on a person, the officer is limited to that specific area. If the search goes beyond that area, evidence is inadmissible in court. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the Court held that when looking at the totality of the circumstances it may be reasonably concluded that if a defendant consents to be searched, even if not first advised that he is "free to go," the ensuing search will be recognized as voluntary. |
|
|
Term
| Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) |
|
Definition
| Court held that, even though the vehicle belonged to Alcala's brother, the search of the vehicle Alcala was driving was permissible because, through his words and actions, Alcala gave consent to search the vehicle. |
|
|
Term
| Bumper Vs. North Carolina (1968) |
|
Definition
| Officers went to the home of a rape suspect. Suspects grandmother was home. Officers told her they had a warrant to search, when they in fact did not, and she allowed them into the residence for search. Court found that consent given under false pretense of a warrant was not valid. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The Court found that a defendant does not necissarily need to be advised they are "free to go" after a legal traffic stop before giving consent to search their vehicle. Advising a suspect they are "free to go" is just one of many considerations, and voluntary consent may be found in the absence of the police advising the suspect they are "free to go" |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Matlock (1974) |
|
Definition
| The Court found that voluntary consent is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who "possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected." |
|
|
Term
| Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) |
|
Definition
| A warrantless entry and search is valid when based on the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises but who in fact does not have such authority. |
|
|
Term
| Chapman v. United States (1961) |
|
Definition
| Once the tenant has abandoned the premises or the tenancy has otherwise terminated, and the landlord has regained the primary right to occupation and control, the landlord may consent to a search of the premises, even though the former tenant left personal belongings on the premises. |
|
|
Term
| Stoner v. California (1964) |
|
Definition
| The Court found that the principles governing a landlord's consent to a search apply to consent searches of a hotel room allowed by hotel managers. The individual consitutional rights apply to the tenant of the room, not the clerk who gives permission. |
|
|
Term
| Harris Vs. United States (1968) |
|
Definition
| The Court found "It has been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in a position to have that view may be introduced in evidence". |
|
|
Term
| Minnesota Vs. Dickerson (1993) |
|
Definition
| The Court fond "if police are lawfully in a position from whish they view an object, if it's incriminating character is apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant". |
|
|
Term
| Coolidge Vs. New Hampshire (1971) |
|
Definition
| A law enforcement office, when having made a legal encroachment into a constitutionally protected area or otherwise legally invading a person's right to privacy, may legally seize an item that is plainly viewed. |
|
|
Term
| Horton V. California (1990) |
|
Definition
| "It is an essential predicate to any valid warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence that the officer did not violate the fourth amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Brown was stopped at a valid checkpoint (roadblock) where driver's license status was being checked. Officer viewed a green party baloon stuck between the middle fingers of Browns hands. Officer recognized the baloon as being consistent with drug transportation. Officer seized the baloon, noticing it contained a powdery substance with the end being tied off. The Court found the seizure lawful. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "If while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the automobile [e.g., a search with the necessary reasonable suspicion], the officer should...discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require it's supression in such circumstances". |
|
|
Term
| New York Vs. Class (1986) |
|
Definition
| The Court found that the officer had legal justification to reach into the vehicle and uncover and ascertain the VIN. The Court concluded that there was no rasonable expectation to privacy of the VIN because of the pervasive governemtnal regulation of motor vehicles. Because the officer had a lawful right to reach in and uncover the VIN, he was lawfully in a place where he could view the gun under the driver's seat of the vehicle, and the gun was therefore in plain view. |
|
|
Term
| List mechanical or electrical aids that have been approved by the court that have been used to determine probable cause for plain view searches: |
|
Definition
| Flashlights (U.S. V. Dunn), Night Vision Devices (U.S. V. Vela), Binoculars (U.S. V. Grimes), Ariel Mapping Photographs (Dow Chemical Co V. United States), Tracking devices on public roadways (U.S. V. Knotts) |
|
|
Term
| What devices have the Courts considered used as a search, and not allowed without a warrant, and do not fall under plain view doctrine? |
|
Definition
| Thermal imagers (Kyllo V. U.S.), Tracking monitors in areas that were not open to visual surveillance (U.S. Vs. Karo) |
|
|
Term
| What other "Plain" sense searches have been recognized by the courts? |
|
Definition
| Plain touch/Plain feel (Minnesota V. Dickerson, U.S. V. Bustos-Torres), Plain Smell (U.S. V. Barry, U.S. V. Humphries, U.S. V. Haley), Plain Hearing (U.S. V. Ceballos) |
|
|
Term
| What are some justifications for the Carroll Doctrine? |
|
Definition
| Vehicles are readily mobile and may be moved out of the particular jurisdiction, There is a lessened expectation to privacy |
|
|
Term
| Why is there a lessened expectation to privacy of a motor vehicle? |
|
Definition
| 1) it travels on public thoroughfares where it's occupants and contents are open to public view, 2) It seldom serves as a residence or permanent place for personal effects, 3) It is required to be registered and it's operator is required to be licensed, 4) It is extensively regulated 5) it periodically undergoes official inspections 6) It is often taken into police custody in the interest of public safety. |
|
|
Term
| What are the two requirements of the automobile exception? |
|
Definition
| 1) An officer must have probable cause to believe the motor vehicle contains items of incriminating character, 2) The vehicle must be readily mobile such that it is capable of being moved outside the jurisdiction. |
|
|
Term
| According to the Carroll doctrine, when should a warrantless automobile search occur? |
|
Definition
| Whenever possible, immediately. Preferabley by the arresting officer. |
|
|
Term
| What are the justifications to a limited warrantless inventory search of a vehicle? |
|
Definition
| 1) To protect the owner's property while it remains in police custody, 2) To protect the police against claims or disputes over lost, stolen, or vandilized property, 3) to protect the police from potential danger. |
|
|
Term
| Why is a warrant or probable cause NOT required for an inventory search? |
|
Definition
| Because the object is not to find incriminating evidence as part of a criminal investigation. Rather, it is considered a routine administrative, custodial procedure made for the purpose of creating an inventory of a vehicle's contents. |
|
|
Term
| Discuss Inventory Searches and the Plain View Doctrine: |
|
Definition
| Although police may not utilize an inventory search to intentionally search for evidence of a crime during a legitimate inventory, they may seize contraband or other items subject to seizure that they oberve open to view. |
|
|
Term
| Carroll Vs. United States (1925) |
|
Definition
| Holds that a warrantless search of a readily mobile motor vehicle by a L.E.O. who has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating items subject to seizure is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. |
|
|
Term
| California V. Carney (1985) |
|
Definition
| Held that a person does not necessarily have a greater expectation to privacy in a vehicle merely because the vehicle is capable of functioning as a home. |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Chadwick (1977) |
|
Definition
| Held that there is a diminished expectation to privacy surrounding an automobile. |
|
|
Term
| Colorado Vs. Bertine (1987) |
|
Definition
| Court held that a warrantless inventory search of a vehicle was permissible when the owner of the vehicle had been arrested and taken into custody. |
|
|
Term
| List the justifiable reasons for police impoundment of a vehicle. |
|
Definition
| 1) The driver has been arrested and taken into custody, 2) The driver is incapacitated by intoxication, injury, illness, or some other condition, 3) The vehicle is seized as evidence of or an instrument to a crime, 4) The vehicle is forfeited pursuant to a state or federal forfeiture law, 5) The vehicle has been reported stolen. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The Court held that a police inventory of a vehicle "must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence". |
|
|
Term
| Hester Vs. United States (1924) |
|
Definition
| Open Field Doctrine: "the special protection accored by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' is not extended to the open fields." |
|
|
Term
| United States Vs. Dunn (1987) |
|
Definition
| The Court found: "We believe that curtilage should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtialge to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people trespassing". |
|
|
Term
| What is the Courts primary focus in cincern to curtilage? |
|
Definition
| "the primary focus is whether the area in question harbors those intimate activities associated with domestic life and the privacies of the home". |
|
|
Term
| California v. Ciraolo (1986) |
|
Definition
| The Court held that aerial observation from 1,000 feet was a reasonable search. The defendant had clearly manifseted an intnent and desire to to maintain privacy by placing a 10 foot high fence around his property, but his expectation of privacy from observation from the air was found not to be reasonable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The Court again found that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a helicopter flying 400 feet above the home. |
|
|
