Arrest, Search, and Seizure - Court Cases

Question 1

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)

Answer 1

Consensual Encounters: Peace officers are free to approach and ask questions of persons so long as officers recognize that those persons can refuse to identify themselves, refuse to cooperate, refuse to answer questions, and simply walk away.

Q: May a LEA approach people in public place and ask question?

A: In this case, LEO didn’t violate the 4th Amendment by merely approaching, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.

Question 2

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Answer 2

Investigatory Stops/Detentions: The temporary seizure of a person for investigation based on an officer’s reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If PO observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude… that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person may be armed and dangerous…. Such a search is a reasonable search under the 4th amendment.

Question 3

U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)

Answer 3

Arrests: Take persons into custody for purposes of charging them with a crime based on an officer’s establishment of probable cause.

Q: At what point did a seizure occur? Did the respondent validly consents to search Were Ms. Mendehall’s 4th Amendment Constitutional rights violated?

Question 4

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Answer 4

In the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the 5th amendment privilege must be observed.

• Peace officers must respect the citizen’s right against self-incrimination as protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment / compare with Article 1, Section 10 of the TX constitution.
• Therefore, persons in custody prior to interrogation must be clearly informed by peace officers that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can and will be used against them in court.
• These Miranda warnings also require peace officers to advise persons in custody prior to interrogation that they have the right to an attorney and that if they can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent them.

Question 5

Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S.Ct. 1213 (2010)

(contrast with Edwards v. Arizona)

Answer 5

Once persons in custody indicate their right to remain silent, interrogations must cease. If the persons in custody request an attorney, the interrogations must cease until an attorney is present or, alternatively, until there is at least a fourteen-day break in Miranda custody.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under Edwards v. Arizona (1981) ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody. The ruling distinguished Edwards, which had not specified a limit.

Question 6

Creager v. State, 952 SW2d 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)

Answer 6

False promises by interrogating detective

Ref: CCP 38.22 for further requirements concerning _when statements made be used_.

An interrogator’s remarks, following warnings, to the defendant that a confession may be used “for or against” the defendant irreversibly obfuscates the requirements of 38.22 § 2(a)(1),(2), V.A.C.C.P., that the suspect be warned prior to interrogation that any statement made by the accused may be used against the accused at his trial and in court. Even where proper 38.22 warnings precede such remarks by interrogators, “for or against” remarks modify the preceding warning. While warning a suspect that his statements may be used against him is appropriate, an interrogator’s subsequent remark that the statement of the suspect may be used “for or against” the suspect is a mutation of the constitutional and statutory requisite warning.

Question 7

Frye v. State, 639 SW2d 463

Answer 7

Peace officer need only show that he reasonably believed

escape was imminent and no time to procure a warrant.

Question 8

Dyar v. State, 125 SW3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

Answer 8

Peace officers must be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances

to justify an arrest regarding “suspicious places”and “circumstances”.

Question 9

Payton v. New York, 100 SCt 1371 (1980);

Answer 9

Absent exigent circumstances,

a peace officer may not make a warrantless entry

into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest

Question 10

Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 126 S.Ct 1943 (2006)

Answer 10

Exigent circumstances, such as breaking up a violent fight,

permit warrantless entry into dwelling without a warrant.

Question 11

Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011)

Answer 11

Peace officers cannot create the exigency

by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment

Question 12

Steagald v. United States, 101 S.Ct. 1642 (1981)

Answer 12

Be informed of the limitations on executing third party arrest warrants found in Steagald v. United States, 101 S.Ct. 1642 (1981). Steagald stands for the proposition that entry may only be forced to execute an arrest warrant when the warrant is being executed at the residence where the person named in the arrest warrant lives.

Question 13

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

Answer 13

Probable cause to search exists when “the facts and circumstances within their [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that seizable property would be found in a particular place or on a particular person.

Question 14

Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949)

Answer 14

Probable cause to arrest exists where “the facts and circumstances within [the officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed [by the person to be arrested].”

Question 15

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

Answer 15

The probable cause test, then, is an objective one meaning that, for there to be probable cause, the facts must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonable man.”

“If subjective good faith alone (of probable cause) were the test, the protection of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’ only in the discretion of the police.”

Question 16

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)

Answer 16

Aguilar–Spinelli Test

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that “although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was credible or his information reliable.”

Question 17

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)

Answer 17

The search of the Gates’s home, based on an anonymous tip on drug-selling activity, did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Application of Probable Cause:

• An officer may arrest for that offense which the probable cause leads the officer to believe is occurring or has occurred. Whether or not probable cause was present to support an arrest or search is a question that will be resolved by the courts.
• The court will examine the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding the seizure or detention to determine if there were sufficient facts and circumstances present to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
• Only that information known to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search will be considered by the court – any evidence found after the arrest or during the search will not be admissible to prove probable cause.
• Although the courts are the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes probable cause, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gates opinion also said: Perhaps the central teaching of our past decisions bearing on the probable cause standard is that it is a practical, non-technical conception. In dealing with probable cause…as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men (peace officers), not legal technicians (attorneys), act.” 421 U.S. at 231.

Question 18

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)

Answer 18

Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning evidence obtained as part of an unlawful arrest. Reversing the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Ohio police arrested defendant without probable cause, so the criminally-punishable evidence found on his person during an incidental search was inadmissible. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated defendant’s conviction.

Question 19

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47(1979)

Q: When the police detain someone because that person refused to identify himself, does it constitute a seizure subject to the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment?

Answer 19

Temporary Detention

Did the officers have legal authority to detain Brown? NO
Did the officers have legal authority to identify himself? NO

Question 20

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 at 145-46(1972).

Q: Does the Fourth Amendment allow a police officer, acting only on a tip from an informant, to approach a person and remove a weapon concealed in the person’s waistband?

Answer 20

Does the 4th Amendment allow PO acting only on informant’s info to approach a person and remove a weapon? YES

The Court held that the informant’s tip permitted the officer to approach Williams’ car and make a limited search of Williams’ waistband for the officer’s own protection. The Court further held that the discovery of the weapon gave the officer probable cause to arrest Williams’ for illegal possession of a firearm. Because the officer’s subsequent search of the vehicle was permissible, the narcotics he discovered were admissible at Williams’ trial.