Briefs in Leading Cases in Law Enforcement

Question 1

Terry v. Ohio

Answer 1

A stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion is valid.

Question 2

Adams v. Williams

Answer 2

A stop and frisk may be based on information provided by another individual. Can come from an informant.

Question 3

US v. Hensley

Answer 3

Reasonable suspicion based on a “wanted poster” is sufficient for a valid stop.

Question 4

US v. Sharpe

Answer 4

There is no rigid time limit for the length of an investigatory stop; instead, specific circumstances should be taken into account.
Specific circumstances should be accounted for:
a. Purpose of stop
b. Reasonableness of the time used for investigation
c. Reasonableness of the means of investigation used by officers

Question 5

Alabama v. White

Answer 5

Reasonable Suspicion is a less demanding standard than Probable Cause, and can be based on an anonymous tip corroborated by independent police work.

Question 6

Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer 6

A frisk that goes beyond that allowed in Terry (weapon) is invalid.

Question 7

Illinois v. Wardlow

Answer 7

Presence in a high-crime area, combined with unprovoked flight upon observing police officers, gives officers sufficient grounds to investigate further to determine if criminal activity is about to take place.

Question 8

Florida v. J.L.

Answer 8

An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer’s stop and frisk of that person.

Question 9

US v. Arvizu

Answer 9

In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.

Question 10

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada ET AL.

Answer 10

The Fourth Amendment allows officers, pursuant to a stop and frisk, to require a person to provide his or her name. The person may be arrested for refusing to comply.

Question 11

Arizona v. Johnson

Answer 11

Officers may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped vehicle and pat them down if there is reasonable suspicion they may be armed and dangerous.

Question 12

Utah v. Strieff

Answer 12

The discovery of a valid arrest warrant is a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between an unlawful stop and the discovery of evidence incident to an arrest.

Question 13

Two classifications: With warrant and without warrant
Parts of Arrest:

Answer 13

a. Seizure and Detention
b. Intention of Arrest
c. Arrest Authority
d. Understanding by the Person Arrested

Question 14

US v. Santana

Answer 14

A warrantless arrest that begins in a public place is valid even if the suspect retreats to a private place and is arrested there.

Question 15

US v. Watson

Answer 15

An arrest without a warrant in a public place is valid as long as there is probable cause, even if there is time to obtain a warrant.

Question 16

Dunaway v. New York

Answer 16

Probable cause is needed for the stationhouse detention of a suspect if such detention is accompanied by an interrogation.

Question 17

Payton v. New York

Answer 17

The police may not validly enter a private home to make a routine, warrantless felony arrest unless justified by exigent circumstances.

Question 18

Michigan v. Summers

Answer 18

A search warrant carries with it the limited authority to detain occupants of the premises while the search is conducted.

Question 19

Welsh v. Wisconsin

Answer 19

The warrantless nighttime entry of a suspect’s home to effect an arret for a non-jailable offense violates the Fourth Amendment.

Question 20

Michigan v. Chesternut

Answer 20

The test to determine whether a seizure of a person occurs is whether a reasonable person, viewing the police conduct and surrounding circumstances, would conclude that the police had restrained the person’s liberty so that he or she is not free to leave.

Question 21

Brower v. County of Inyo

Answer 21

The seizure of a person occurs when there is a “governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.”

Question 22

California v. Hodari D.

Answer 22

No seizure of a person occurs when an officer seeks to arrest a suspect through a show of authority, but applies no physical force, and the subject does not willingly submit.

Question 23

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin

Answer 23

The warrantless detention of a suspect for 48 hours is presumptively reasonable. If the time-to-hearing is longer, the burden of proof shifts to the police to prove reasonableness of the delay. If the time-to-hearing is shorter, the burden of proof of unreasonable delay shifts to the suspect.

Question 24

Illinois v. McArthur

Answer 24

Under exigent circumstances, and where police need to preserve evidence until a warrant can be obtained, they may temporarily restrain a person’s movements (thus temporarily seizing a person) without violating his or her Fourth Amendment right.

Question 25

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

Answer 25

“The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation, punishable only by a fine.”

Question 26

Muehler v. Mena

Answer 26

Detaining occupants of the premises in handcuffs for a certain period of time while executing a search warrant does not by itself violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Question 27

Bailey v. US

Answer 27

Detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.

Question 28

Warden v. Hayden

Answer 28

A warrantless search and seizure inside a person’s home is valid if probable cause and exigent circumstances are present. “mere evidence” may be searched, seized, and admitted in court.
a. The warrantless seizure in this case was valid because probable cause and exigent circumstances were present.
b. There is no difference between “mere evidence” and contraband or instrumentalities of a crime under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment.

Question 29

Chimel v. California

Answer 29

After an arrest, police may search the area within a person’s immediate control.

Question 30

Vale v. Louisiana

Answer 30

The warrantless search of a house after an arrest with a warrant, when the arrest does not take place in a house, is justified only in “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.”

Question 31

US v. Robinson

Answer 31

A body search is valid when a full-custody arrest occurs.

Question 32

US v. Edwards

Answer 32

After a lawful arrest and detention, any search conducted at the place of detention that would have been lawful at the time of the arrest may be conducted without a warrant, even though a substantial period of time may have elapsed between the arrest and the search.

Question 33

Illinois v. Lafayette

Answer 33

Searching the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest is valid if it is part of the administrative procedure incident to the booking and jailing of the suspect.

Question 34

Maryland v. Buie

Answer 34

A limited protective sweep during arrest in a home is allowed if justified.

Question 35

Virginia v. Moore

Answer 35

Officers may make a warrantless arrest of a person, even for a misdemeanor crime, if allowed by the Fourth Amendment but prohibited by state law.

Question 36

Consent Searches

Answer 36

Voluntary and Intelligent.

Question 37

Valid consent:

Answer 37

Husband and wife, roommate (common areas), driver, and high school administrator

Question 38

Invalid consent:

Answer 38

Child, landlord, lessor, hotel clerk, college or university administrator, and a business employee.

Question 39

Stoner v. California

Answer 39

A hotel clerk cannot give consent to search the room of a hotel guest.

Question 40

Bumper v. North Carolina

Answer 40

Consent obtained by deception through a claim of lawful authority that did not in fact exist is not voluntary. A search conducted by virtue of a warrant cannot later be justified by consent if the warrant turns out to be invalid.

Question 41

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Answer 41

Voluntariness of consent to search is determined from the totality of circumstances, of which knowledge of the right to refuse consent is a factor but not a requirement.

Question 42

Florida v. Royer

Answer 42

More serious intrusion of personal liberty than is allowable on suspicion of criminal activity taints the consent and makes the search illegal.

Question 43

Illinois v. Rodriguez

Answer 43

Searches in which the person giving consent has “apparent authority” are valid.

Question 44

Florida v. Jimeno

Answer 44

Consent justifies the warrantless search of a container in a car if it is objectively reasonable for the police to believe that the scope of the suspect’s consent permitted them to open that container.

Question 45

Georgia v. Randolph

Answer 45

“A warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”

Question 46

Fernandez v. California

Answer 46

The lawful occupant of a house or apartment may consent to a search, even over the potential objection of another lawful occupant, if the other occupant is not present or was removed on objectively reasonable grounds.

Question 47

Carroll v. US

Answer 47

The warrantless search of an automobile is valid if there exists probable cause to believe it contains contraband.

Question 48

Chambers v. Maroney

Answer 48

If probable cause exists that an automobile contains contraband, a warrantless search is valid even if the automobile is first moved to a police station.

Question 49

US v. Chadwick

Answer 49

The warrantless search of a movable container found in a motor vehicle is invalid in the absence of exigent circumstances.

Question 50

Delaware v. Prouse

Answer 50

Stopping an automobile at random and without probable cause is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 51

New York v. Belton

Answer 51

The police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a car and of the contents therein if it is incident to a lawful arrest.

Question 52

US v. Cortez

Answer 52

In determining reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, the totality of circumstances must be taken into account.

Question 53

US v. Ross

Answer 53

When making a valid search of a car, the police may search the entire car and open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items for which they have probable cause to search.

Question 54

Michigan v. Long

Answer 54

A limited search of an automobile, after a valid stop, is permissible if the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and might gain immediate control of a weapon.

Question 55

California v. Carney

Answer 55

Motor homes used on public highways are automobiles for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and therefore a warrantless search is valid.

Question 56

Colorado v. Bertine

Answer 56

Warrantless inventory searches of the person and possessions of arrested individuals are permissible under the fourth Amendment.
a. To protect an owner’s property while it is under police control.
b. To ensure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property.
c. To protect the police from danger.

Question 57

Florida v. Wells

Answer 57

Evidence obtained from closed containers during inventory searches is not admissible in court unless authorized by departmental policy.

Question 58

California v. Acevedo

Answer 58

Probable cause to believe that a container in an automobile holds contraband or seizable evidence justifies a warrantless search of that container even in the absence of probable cause to search the vehicle.

Question 59

Pennsylvania v. Labron

Answer 59

There is no need for a warrant in vehicle searches if the vehicle is readily mobile, even if there is time to obtain a warrant.

Question 60

Knowles v. Iowa

Answer 60

Officers may search a vehicle incident to an arrest, but a search incident to the issuance of a traffic citation, absent consent or probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Question 61

Wyoming v. Houghton

Answer 61

Police officers with probable cause to search a car may inspect occupants’ belonging found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.

Question 62

Bond v. US

Answer 62

A traveler’s luggage is an “effect” and is under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Officers may not physically manipulate the luggage to inspect it without a warrant or probable cause.

Question 63

Maryland v. Pringle

Answer 63

An officer may arrest an occupant of a vehicle based on probable cause that a crime has been committed (or is being committed) in the vehicle and it is not clear who committed it, as long as there is a reasonable inference from the circumstances that the person arrested could have committed the crime.

Question 64

Thornton v. US

Answer 64

Officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after a lawful arrest even if the suspect was not in the vehicle when arrested.

Question 65

Arizona v. Gant

Answer 65

“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.”

Question 66

Navarette v. California

Answer 66

An anonymous 911 call is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop if it contains enough information to enable officers to corroborate its veracity and reliability.

Question 67

Byrd v. US

Answer 67

The fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement does not defeat his otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy.