4th Amendment Seizures Flashcards

Question

Seizure of the Person 1. United States v. Mendenhall→a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th amendment only if, _____ ``` Mendenhall factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. ```

Answer 1

i. United States v. Mendenhall→a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th amendment only if, in the view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave 1. Facts→Δ was approached by federal agents while walking through an airport. The agents identified themselves and requester her I.D. and ticket—no seizure 2. Some factors to consider: (1) the threatening presence of officers (2) display of a weapon by an officer (3) physical touching of the person (3) use of tone and language indicating the person must comply Mendenhall factors to consider: (1) the threatening presence of officers (2) display of a weapon by an officer (3) physical touching of the person (4) use of tone and language indicating the person must comply

Answer 2

ii. Florida v. Botstick→the proper test for seizure is not whether a reasonable person in his situation would have felt free to leave, but whether such a person would “feel free to decline the officers’ request or otherwise terminate the encounter” 1. Facts→officers came aboard a bus on a layover from MIA to ATL with a pistol in a plastic bag and asked to search Δ’s luggage to which he consented.

Answer 3

no 4th amendment violation when officers boarded a bus during a rest stop and searched Δ’s luggage and then frisked him b/c the officers gave Δ no reason to belief that he was required to answer the questions and there was no application of force, etc. iv. Brendlin v. California→if police conduct a traffic stop for expired registration, passengers are not free to leave v. Arizona v. Johnson→a traffic stop of a car communicates to a reasonable passenger that he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will 1. Facts→car was stopped for having a suspended registration and bc of his clothing and possession of a scanner was questioned about gang activity and was frisked 2. But there must be reasonable suspicion in order for officers to perform a Terry frisk on a passenger 3. Court also held that (1) an officer’s inquiry into matters unrelated to the stop don’t convert the encounter into something unlawful as long as the stop’s duration isn’t substantially extended (2) no new justification is need for the unrelated inquiries (3) not necessary for the officer to give Δ the opportunity to depart after he exits the vehicle vi. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada→a suspect stopped under Terry can’t refuse an officer’s request to identify himself by name 1. Facts→officer was responding to a call that a woman had been asserted and approached a man standing near a parked truck and requested his identification 2. Rationale→obtaining a name during a Terry stop serves an important governmental interest vii. Stop and Frisk and the 14th amendment 1. Floyd v. City of New York

Answer 4

Stops Versus Arrests i. Stops and arrests distinguished on the basis of: (1) length of detention and (2) place of detention

Answer 5

Seizure: Length of detention 1. No brightline time limit on Terry stops but in United States v. Sharpe, upheld a 20 minute detention as a stop while the 90 minute detention of suitcase was deemed to have ripened into a full blown seizure in United States v. Place

Answer 6

Seizure: Place of detention 1. Pennsylvania v. Mimms→brightline rule permitting officers to order drivers out of their vehicles after Terry stops as a matter of officer safety 2. Maryland v. Wilson→officers can order passengers out of vehicles following a Terry stop 3. Stops that move beyond the immediate vicinity of stop are likely to be considered arrests: a. Florida v. Royer→it was an arrest b/c Royer was taken from an airport concourse to an office about 40 feet away b. Hayes v. Florida→suspect had been arrested when he was picked up on reasonable suspicion of rape and taken to a station for fingerprinting c. Kaupp v. Texas→forcible transportation to police headquarters constitutes an arrest (except under rare exceptions) Facts→17 year old awaken and taken to station in his boxers was

Answer 7

seizure: Sufficiency of Facts for Stop and Frisk i. For a Terry stop or frisk, there must be facts that give rise “objectively” to a certain level of suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot ii. Look to the totality of the circumstances→all facts and circumstances identified by the officer and deference to the officer’s expertise in interpreting the facts iii. United States v. Arvizu→a border patrol agent Terry stopped a minivan b/c of facts that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion to believe the occupants ere involved in drug trafficking. Court overturned the lower court’s attempt to define the weight due certain facts in the totality analysis. iv. There must be reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop or frisk. But how is reasonable suspicion defined? 1. Brown v. Texas→Court overturned a finding of reasonable suspicion that was based solely on Δ’s presence in a high crime area 2. Illinois v. Wardlow→police in a an “area of heavy narcotics trafficking” conducted a Terry stop of Δ after he looked in their direction and fled; they then frisked him and found a gun. While a high crime area alone is not enough to give rise to reasonable suspicion it is relevant in a Terry analysis along with evasive behavior and flight. v. What is the quality of evidence required for reasonable suspicion? 1. Alabama v. White→officers stopped Δ based on an anonymous tip that she would be leaving a certain address at a particular time in a specific car. Reasonable suspicion can arise from info that is less reliable that that required to show probable cause 2. Florida v. J.L→anonymous tips that lack all indicia of reliability do not satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard. a. Facts→police received an anonymous tip tat a person was carrying a gun and conducted a Terry stop on Δ. 3. Adams v. Williams→upheld a “man with a gun tip” from a known informant

Answer 8

1. Supreme Court position: (1) the fact that a person matches a profile does not in and of itself give rise to reasonable suspicion; but (2) officers may rely in part on the cumulative law enforcement wisdom embodied in profiles when assessing the inferences that may be drawn from a person’s conduct or attributes; and (3) the fact that a person matches a profile does not detract from the inferences that might reasonably be drawn 2. Reid v. Georgia→DEA agents performed a Terry stop of Δ in the Atlanta Airport b/c Δ was preceded by another person and occasionally looked back at him as they made their way through the concourse. Fitting the drug courier profile was not sufficient. 3. United States v. Sokolow→ Court upheld an airport stop b/c Δ was making a quick round trip to a drug source city, paid for the ticket in cash, didn’t check baggage, and appeared nervous. Deferring to officer’s experience.

Answer 9

Consent instead of analyzing consent of a waiver, the Court turned to the voluntariness test 1. Voluntary=state must show that the consent was obtained without coercion. This requires the court to examine the totality of all the surrounding circumstances, including the characteristic of the accused and the details of the police-citizen interaction. Some of the factors to take into account: a. Youth of the accused b. Lack of education or low intelligence c. Lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights d. Whether the individual was in custody when consent was given e. Nature of the requests for consent f. Use of physical punishment g. Lack of awareness that consent may be refused

Answer 10

United States v. Drayton→Court rejected the suggestion that officers must always inform citizen of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search iii. Ohio v. Robinette→Court rejected Ohio’s per se rule that required officers to indicate that a traffic stop is over before obtaining consent 1. Facts→officer stopped Δ for speeding, didn’t issue a ticket, ordered Δ out of the car, and obtained consent to search. The officer’s subjective intention to issue a ticket was irrelevant under Whren. iv. Florida v. Royer→officers took Δ from an airport concourse to an office about 40 feet away for questioning. This constituted an arrest, not a Terry stop and it was illegal since there was no probable cause. b/c statements made during the illegal arrest, his consent to a luggage search was invalid. v. Kaupp v. Texas→Δ consent to accompany the officers to the police station after being awoken at 3 AM was not consensual b/c of the circumstances. Even it the encounter was initially consensual, it later evolved into being nonconsensual. 1. There was no voluntary consent and that, therefore, a reasonable person in Δ’s position would have understood that he was not free to leave, thus rendering the police action a seizure.

Answer 11

consent: Police deception 1. Consent is invalid if the police misrepresent their ability to make the search (i.e. falsely claiming to have a search warrant or if they have a warrant but it’s invalid) 2. But undercover operations generally never invalidate consent 3. Hoffa v. United States→the 4th amendment did not protect individuals against their misplaced confidence in “false friends”

Answer 12

Third party consent Can a third party consent to a search for another person? Yes, if that party has actual or apparent authority to do so 1. Actual Authority →depends on whether the third party shares access to or control over the premises a. United States v. Matlock→woman who shared bedroom with Δ consented to a search after his arrest and the consent was valid b. Georgia v. Randolph→consent is invalid when it is given by one in co-habitant and the other co-habitant is present and refuses

Answer 13

Pretext i. Pretext=using lawful traffic enforcement authority to gain access to the interior of vehicles. Most often targeting blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups. ii. Whren v. United States→Court refused to adopt the reasonable officer requirement—evidence should only be admitted if a reasonably officer would have engaged in the law enforcement activity at issue 1. Facts→plainclothes officers stopped a truck after it remained at an intersection for an unusually long amount time, took of at an unreasonable rate of speed after police approached, and turned w/o a signal light. During the traffic stop, the officers saw cocaine and arrested Δ. 2. Δ’s Argument→The fruits of the search should be suppressed because the stop was a “pretext.” The test should be whether a police officer, acting reasonably, would have made the stop for the reason given. 3. Outcome→Traffic stops are reasonable under the 4th amendment so long as police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Subjective intentions play no role in 4th amendment analysis.

Answer 14

Searches and Seizures: Warrant Exceptions ``` Exceptions=(1) Search Incident to Arrest (2) Exigent Circumstances (3) Plain View (4) Automobiles (5) Special Needs (6) Consent S- Search Incident to Arrest P- Plain View A-Automobiles inventory C-consent E- Exigent Circumstances S- Special Needs ```

Answer 15

Search Incident to Arrest i. Searches during or immediately after an arrest ii. Chimel v. California→limited the scope of the search incident to arrest doctrine to searches of (1) the arrestee’s person and (2) areas within the arrestee’s immediate reach. The reasons given for the doctrine were officer safety and evidence preservation. iii. Knowles v. Iowa→the search incident to arrest doctrine only applies when an officer actually effectuates a custodial arrest. 1. Facts→Knowles was given a speeding ticket, after which the officer searched the car and found weed. 2. Rationale→Even though state law permitted an officer to arrest for speeding, the search was unconstitutional here because he was not actually arrested. iv. United States v. Robinson→Robinson was stopped and arrested for speeding. The officer then searched Robinson and found heroin. 1. Δ’s argument→The search was unconstitutional because the nature of the violation for which he was arrested didn’t provide any reason to believe that he was armed or carrying contraband. v. United States v. Chadwick→The search and the arrest must be contemporaneous. The Court invalidated the search of a footlocker that had been removed from the place of arrest. 1. Rationale→Once officers have removed personal property of the arrestee from their exclusive control and there is no danger that the arrestee might regain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, the search is no longer an incident of arrest. vi. United States v. Robbins→Invalidated the search of a wallet that police had left at the place of the arrest and returned for it after the arrest was completed. Close in time rule. vii. An officer may only seize items that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, or a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime. viii. It’s application to automobiles: 1. New York v. Belton→when an officer lawfully makes a custodial arrest of an automobile occupant, the officer may search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to arrest * does not apply to the trunk 2. Thorton v. United States→The Belton rule applies regardless of whether the police interaction was initiated before or after the suspect left the vehicle. a. Rationale→The arrest of a suspect who is next to a car presents the same concerns regarding officer safety and destruction of evidence as an arrest of someone in a car. 3. The Court clarified modified Belton in Arizona v. Gant→(1) Chimel and Belton authorize a search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within the reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and (2) the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle of a current arrestee may be searched incident to arrest as when it “reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle” a. The Effect: the 1st part of the test narrows Belton by requiring the risk of the recent occupant’s obtaining weapons or destroying evidence be real at the time of the search, not of the arrest. The second part broadens Chimel and Belton by authorizes a search even when there is no danger of the recent occupant’s grabbing weapons or destroying evidence. b. Facts→Officers received an anonymous tip that a certain home was being used to sell drugs, so the officers knocked on the door but left when Δ told them the owner would be back later. The officer then ran a check that revealed Δ had a suspended license and a warrant for his arrest. When the officers returned, Δ was arrested about 10 feet away from his car, locked in the back of the cop car, then a search of his car revealed a gun and cocaine.

Answer 16

ix. Protective Sweeps 1. Created in Maryland v. Buie→protective sweeps can only extend to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found and should be no longer than necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger. a. Facts→Police entered Buie residence with an arrest warrant. An officer went into the basement to see if there was an accomplice and found a suit that had been described by the witness account of the robbery.

Answer 17

Exigent Circumstances i. Warrantless searches and seizures if: (1) probable cause for the search or seizure exists and (2) there are sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless activity. 1. * applied on a case-by-case basis

Answer 18

Warrant exceptions: Plain View, Touch, and Smell Officers are permitted to seize contraband, fruits, evidence, and instrumentalities of crime that they find in “plain view” ii. There are three essential elements: 1. The officer didn’t violate the 4th amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed 2. The incriminating character must be immediately apparent 3. The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself iii. Horton v. California→An officer executing a search warrant for proceeds of an armed robbery viewed weapons that had been used in the robbery and was allowed to seize the weapons even though the warrant did authorize such a seizure. iv. The doctrine was extended to “plain feel” in Minnesota v. Dickerson 1. Facts→An officer had subjected Δ to a Terry frisk and felt a bag containing lumps. Δ was then arrested for possession of cocaine. 2. Holding→Plain feel did not apply here because the incriminating nature of the substance was not immediately apparent. The officer had to manipulate the substance.

Answer 19

Warrant Exceptions: vehicle/ container searches i. Automobile Exception→Warrantless searches of motorized vehicles whenever law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe that fruits, evidence, or instrumentalities of criminal activity will be found therein. The exception extends to containers within the vehicle. ii. Wyoming v. Houghton→Officers may search containers within the scope of the probable cause they have developed regardless of who owns the containers 1. Facts→During a traffic stop, the officer searched the car and found a passenger’s purse in the backseat, which had drugs in it.

Answer 20

Warrant exceptions: Special Needs Searches and Seizures Special needs searches and seizures=those conducted for a non-criminal investigation-related purpose. Sometimes called regulatory or administrative searches and seizures. ii. Has a two step analysis 1. A court must determine whether the governmental purpose truly is regulatory rather than criminal law enforcement 2. If the purpose is regulatory, the court must balance that regulatory interest against the individual interest infringed upon iii. Recognized areas of special needs: 1. Health and safety regulations 2. Pervasively regulated industries iv. New York v. Burger→ v. New Jersey v. TLO vi. Safford v. Redding vii. Florence v. City Burlington viii. City of Ontario v. Quon ix. Ferguson v. City of Charleston

4th Amendment Seizures Flashcards

(44 cards)