Shared Flashcard Set


ROTA- SEcond half
Court Cases Post-Midterm
Undergraduate 4

Additional Law Flashcards




Terry v Ohio
1968 (4th Amendment Stop and Frisk )
BG: Experienced Officer- three men casing stores- stopped and frisked them based on "Osmosis"
Patted down for weapons- officer safety- and found a gun
Finding- "stop and frisk" is a search and seizure- scope of search must be "strictly tied to and justified by the circs"
a sieze- counts when "officer restrains his freedom to walk away"
some argue "frisk" for officer safety is a minor inconvenience and a petty indignity, but supreme court found a "serious intrusion which may inflict great indignity"- but it would be unreasonable to require that they "take unnecessary risks"
- allows for brief investigatory stop for weapons so long as reasonable, articulatable suspicion of criminal activity, and that scope of search is limited to weapons and not to evidence to be used against them
Florida v J.L.
2000 (4th Amendment Stop and Frisk )
BG: Anonymous tip about black male with a gun
Officers see matching desc +loc
Florida sup: anonymous tips only can form basis for reas susp if accompanied by specific indicia of reliability
Ruling: overturned, search not reasonable becuase of anonymous tip with no observations of their own

Declined to make a firearm exception
-exception in areas where reaosnable expectation of 4th is dimishinished adn with higher danger such as bombs

Don't want to enable any person to harass another through an embarrassing stop and frisk simply through a phone call
Illinois v Wardlaw
2000 (4th Amendment Stop and Frisk )
BG: opaque bag w/.38
Ruling: Undercourts- as individual has no obligation to respond unless the officers has reasonable suspicion or prbable cause, flight may simply be an exercise of this right and thus cannot constitue suspicion for a terry stop
"nervous, evasive behavior s a pertinent factor in determining a reasonable suspicion
Still upheld that refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of just. for detention or seizure
there are innocent explanations, but "terry accepts risks of stopping innocent people"
"flight is not "going about one's business"in fact, it is just the opposite.
dissent- high risk doesn't count towards reasonableness
some people see police as dangerous- doesn't take that into consideration
Chicago v Morales
1999 (4th Amendment Stop and Frisk ) Gang Ordinance
Ordinance valid so long as : officer reasonably believes two or more people are "criminal street gang members" and are loitering- people must be ordered to disperce and not comply
Illinois Supreme ruled- constitutionally vague and encourages arbitrary and capricious enforcement by police.
Ruling- Affirmed-
"To grant to a policeman virtually standardless discretion to close off major portions of the city to an innocent person is, in my view, to create a major, not a "minor," "limitation upon the free state of nature."
Dissent: Dispersal orders at accidents, speed limits, not unconsitutional, anti-gang/loitering ordinace is a limitation on freedom agreed by chicagoans for good of all
-only looked at loitering- rights of loiterers v right to fight gangs
Arvizu v Arizona
2004 (4th Amendment Stop and Frisk )
Border patrol- guard change, back road, away from picnic areas, vehicle type, rehicle reg, slowed down, no ack of officer, mechanical children waving

Lower court divide and conquer, Supreme court reversed
totality of the circumstances allowed the stop to be reasonable
Hiibel v. Nevada
2004 (4th Amendment Stop and Frisk ) Stop and Identify law
Caller man assault a woman- saw car matching description with subjects matching description
Asked the man to ID himself- refused and arrested

Was a commonsense inquiry- not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to ID after a Terry stop yeilded insufficient evidence. The stop, the request, and the states req of response did not contravene the guarantees of the 4th
Batson v Kentucky
1976 (6th Amendment Jury Selection )
Demanded right to cross section/jury of peers- first judge held that this only applied to "selection of the venire" and not to selection of petit jury itself
Ruling: Reversed- "procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in fairness" and discrimnates against the excluded juror
and denies protection defendant's trial is suposed to secure
Ct rejected idea that discrimination must be shown over many cs
can establish prima facie case and shift burden of proof to prosecutors via proving that A. is a member of cognizable race
B. that preemptory exclusions were made against members of race
Still very difficult to land a batson case- as any reason at all is enough to exclude a juror, as long as ts not race- so easy protection may be illusory- changed burden of proof from swain
J.E.B. v. Alabama
1994 (6th Amendment Jury Selection )
Gender ruled also an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality

Use voir dire to discover actual bias and excercise their challenges intellegently

must not limit right of accused to premptory, "as it means we have exalted the rights of citizens to sit on juries over the rights of the criminal defendant, even though it is the defendant not the jurors who face imprisonment or even death"

Dissent: sexism irrelevant becuase 99.4% scientific fact he's the father
O'Connor- concurring- but with a general concern over the erosion of preemptory challenge rights
Georgia v McCullom
1992 (6th Amendment Jury Selection )
Racial discrimination by defendant- raises
1- does defendant's discrimination have the same harm that prosecution's discrimation does. Yes- to preserve "dignity of persons" and "integrity of Courts"
2- does it constitute state action- stems from state procedures, defense is acting under state power during exclus
3- whether prosecutors have standing to raise this issue-
4- whether rights of accused preclude the extension of our precedents to this case- peremptory charges are not constitutionally protected- merely state created means to the constitutional impartial jury
and "If race stereotypes are the price or a fair jury, we reaffirm that the price is too high for concstitution"
Rosales-Lopez v United States
1981 (6th Amendment Jury Selection )
Smuggling case of three mexicans
Wanted to personally vor dire jury- denied, so instead gave list of questions for judge to ask. Only asked half the questions- not the ones about racial prejudice
These questions are necessary when racial issues were "inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial,"- judge has a lot of discretion
_At no point has petitioner argued that the matters at issue in his trial involved allegations of racial or ethnic prejudice_
Questions asked good enough
Dissent: Even when there are no "special circumstances" people are racist and biased--- right to racially impartial jury!
Miller-El v. Dretke
2006 (6th Amendment Jury Selection )
BG: Miller El shot and killed two hotel in robbery
peremptory strikes against 10 qualified black
venire members
Fought first on Swain, during appeal Batson
Gave race neutral answers, but compared to others who gave similar answers discrimination was found.
contrasting voir dire questions
Dissent: that the court used evidence not submitted to state courts
Rice v. Collins
2006 (6th Amendment Jury Selection )
Cocaine possession and three strikes- prosecutor struck a black woman for race neutral reasons
Appeals court said that the reasons were uncompelling
Supreme overturned
"eye rolling" case- race neutral reason- but supreme court doubted that it happened at all

9th's circuit's "attempt to use a set of debatable inferences to set aside the conclusion"
Apprendi v New Jersey
2000 (Sentencing and the 6th Amendment)
Jury found guilty for firing into home of black family
Judge found that it was racially motivated post trial and increased sentence past the limits using "preponderance of the evidence standard"
Found:any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dissent- will make the trial too hard- have to prove that you both didn't do it, and that you didn't do it in a certain way
Also requires that the prosecutor has to bring up many different charges- each to be found. Gun, Robbery, how much, how much planning, etc
Ewing v California
2003 (Sentencing and the 6th Amendment) 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment
Wobblers, three strikes laws: stole three golf clubs
Ruling affirmed: Sentencing can have three goals: 1. Incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, or rehabilitation
Whether it works or not is leg: ct isn't a superlegislature
disproportionality is really about "the unstated proposition that all punishment should reasonably pursue the multiple purposes of the law
Dissent: this puts him in jail as long as murderers
that his crime ranks well toward the bottom of the criminal conduct scale
United States v Booker
2005 (Sentencing and the 6th Amendment)
Judge accepted later finding of more crack to increase sentence
Limited the federal sentencing statute to a recommendation and made sentencing subject to reasonableness only requiring district courts instead to focus on a broader range of factors in imposing sentences
2. allows the sentence to be based upon the real conduct
3. Mandatory sentencing would create a system far more complex than Congress intended
The statute, as modified by Booker, contains an overarching provision instructing district courts to "impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to accomplish the goals of sentencing, including "to reflect the seriousness of the offense," "to promote respect for the law," "to provide just punishment for the offense," "to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct," and "to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant." * * * The statute further provides that, in determining the appropriate sentence, the court should consider a number of factors, including "the nature and circumstances of the offense," "the history and characteristics of the defendant," "the sentencing range established" by the Guidelines, "any pertinent policy statement" issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to its statutory authority, and "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct."
Roper v Simmons
2005 (Sentencing and the 6th Amendment)
brutal murder by 17 yr old: sentenced to death
since Stanford, a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders" - death overruled
proportionality- standards of decency
Kimbrough v United States
2007 (Sentencing and the 6th Amendment)
a drug trafficker dealing in crack cocaine is subject to the same sentence as one dealing in 100 times more powder cocaine.
in this case the judge sentenced five years less than the 100-1 ratio proscribed
this disparity means that a major supplier of powder cocaine may receive a shorter sentence than a low-level dealer who buys powder from the supplier but then
converts it to crack
Does booker overrule this?- gov argues that disparity is a matter of a simple legislative directive
upheld sentence- it is fair for him to take into account the disparate nature of sentencing that results from the guidelines
Gall v. United States
2007 (Sentencing and the 6th Amendment)
reasonableness- student dealing drugs but willfully withdraws and is clean for a while, also provides all info asked of him
Guideline called for 30mo, judge gave him 30mo probation

Appelate review should look at 1. procedural errors
2.consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. - with totality of the circumstance-
Katz v United States
1967 (4th Amendment and Wiretapping )
phonebooth- 4th amendment protects people not places
although no tresspass- that the booth temporarily becomes like a home
United States v White
1971 (4th Amendment and Wiretapping )
informant tapes some conversations
1. No reasonable expectation of privacy- anyone could be an informant
Recording is just a more accurate
Dissent: This will undermine confidence of people
Kyllo v United States
2001 (4th Amendment and Wiretapping )
Thermal imaging- any sense enhancing w info that couldn't have been gotten without physical intrusion is unconstitutional so long as tech isn't in broad public use
"no officer could know in advance whether his through the wall surveillance is constitutional"
Dissent: That the machine was off the wall and only allowed for inferences like aromas, that it didn't show any info of interior- and like a dog sniff isn't a search
United States v United States District Court (Keith)
1972 (4th Amendment and Wiretapping )
white panther party- most wanted list- bombing CIA offices
decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.
precedent that a warrant needed to be obtained before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved.
-but not meant to alter in any way presidential powers against a foreign threat
"As I read it - and this is my fear - we are saying that the President, on his motion, could declare - name your favorite poison - draft dodgers, Black Muslims, the Ku Klux Klan, or civil rights activists to be a clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."
In re Sealed Case
2002 (4th Amendment and Wiretapping )
FISA as amended by the patriot act takes down the "Wall" between National security and law enforcement, if there ever was one
Most of the time foreign intelligence problems ARE crimes- so whole purpose would be to prosecute
1. Gov't argues- "wall" not in FISA language/history
2. Patriot act amends to eliminate the concept if it ever was there
Arg against: 1. FISA doesn't count as a warrant
2. Any gov't surveillance whose primary purpose is criminal prosecution of any kind is unreasonable with out a warrant

Title III- can only look for what your looking for
FISA- anything can be surveyed and utilized- big umbrella
2007 (4th Amendment and Wiretapping ) (6th Circ. Ct of Appeals, not Supreme Court)
TSP includes the interception (i.e., wiretapping), without warrants, of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda,
Prior ct found standing:(1) it eavesdrops, (2) without warrants, (3) on international telephone and email communications
Found that there was no standing- anticipated harm is neither imminent nor concrete exclusion of tainted evidence would here not helpful as the US concedes that primary purpose of these searches is to fortify its intelligence collage rather than to prosecute individuals
Gov't Arg: AUMF (war powers bill) allows us to attack afghanistan, it should at least enable us to wire tap!- not accepted
Chimel vs CA
1969(4th Amendment Stop and Frisk )- police allowed into home by wife to arrest suspect- arrested him and searched entire house
only allowed to search immediate area where suspect has control over to grab a weapon/destroy evidence
Shuttlesworth vs Birmingham, AL
1969- began to overturn vagrancy laws where it was illegal to talk to freed blacks
"you mean we can't stand here on the sidewalk" bears the hall mark of a plice state
Camara v Munic
Public housing- inspectors wanted to do safety inspection were refused entry
arrested owner for it-
"doesn't have anything to do with criminal law"
4th doesn't apply becuase inpections are reasonable search of gov't interest in safety of housing complex
Papachristou v City of Jacksonville
1972- 8 defendants convicted for vagrancy-
court: vagrancy laws have potential to harass and control minorities against their usefulness in nipping crime in the
The court ruled that the Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because people do not have fair notice of forbidden behavior and are arbitrarily arrested.
Alabama v Wight
anonymous tip must be accompanied by accurate predictions of movements to prove reliability-
in florida case- no corroborating evidence= tip not sufficient
1870's cannot exclude black people from jury venire
1965 uhpeld system of preemptory charges (not constitutional)
can you remove people based on race? lower courts upheld you can

burden of proof was completely on defence to prove bias over a long period of time- showed that since 1953 only 15% of jurors were black
for his case- no black jurors in a county that was 26% black
Marshall's argument in Batson
do away with preemptory challenges-
remove right of prosecutor= serious gains for minority defendants
Plea bargains- they say that this won't effect most cases because they don't normally go to trial- but any change int eh court means a change in the plebargaining- if pros knows that he can rig the jury then minorities will be prosecuted much more
1986 bill "anti-drug abuse act"
directed commission to offer sentencing below guidelines for "substantial assistance to authorities" to prosecute others involved
jury not involved- prosecutor and judge agreement
US vs Martine Martinez
MM pled guilty to get 24months or less

Protect Act: fast tracking authorized- lower sentences for plea bargain- but sentences without it aren't unreasonable
Prote4ction to judges who give lower sentences
Olmstead v US
big case before Katz 1928
50 person operation violating prohibition rooted out via wiretap- ruled that with no trespass amendment doesn't forbit

dissent: right to be left alone most important and valued"
a case where defendant was transmitting classified info to North vietnam- challenged it via warrant-less surveillance

Overruled becuase of the two conditions to exempt: 1 Target is a foreign power or its agent
2. Surveillance is conducted for foreign intel reasons and not a criminal investigation

rimary purpose test- make a wall between criminal and nat'l security
FISA act established- sole jurisdiction is approving monitoring requests
application is the same as other investigations

minimization procedures- to minimize getting other info, distinction between foreign intel and criminal invest: cut off info from prosecutors

With patriot act:
Probable cause is much broader- reasonably trustworthy -very little review authority over affadavid

Allows broad sweeps for anything, and can now prosecute any foreign intel crime
Supporting users have an ad free experience!