Case Law

Question 0

Dyar v. State

Answer 0

Anywhere can be a “suspicious place” based on the totality of the circumstances.

Question 1

Steagald v. US

Answer 1

Steagald stands for the proposition that entry may only be forced to execute a warrant when the warrant is being executed at the residence of the person named.

Question 2

Crain v. State

Answer 2

Deals with consensual encounters and whether or not a “reasonable person” would feel free to leave in any particular circumstance.

Question 3

Florida v. Royer

Answer 3

States that officers can make consensual encounters without it being a violation of 4th amendment.

Question 4

Rhodes vs. State of Texas

Answer 4

States that handcuffing for officer safety does not necessarily constitute an arrest.

Question 5

Stansbury vs. California

Answer 5

Traffic stop does not constitute “custody” for Miranda purposes.

Question 6

US vs. Mendenhall

Answer 6

To determine whether an arrest has taken place will be based off whether or not “a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to leave.”

Question 7

Oregon vs Haas

Answer 7

“A state is free as a matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this court holds to be necessary upon federal constitution standards.”

Question 8

Heitman v State of Texas

Answer 8

“The court of criminal appeals will not be bound by United States Supreme Court decisions when addressing 4th amendment issues.

Question 9

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Answer 9

A defendants invocation of his right to silence must be unambiguous.

Question 10

Montejo v Louisiana

Answer 10

Deals with the appointment of counsel

Question 11

Florida v Powell

Answer 11

While the four Miranda warnings are invariable, the court has not dictated the words required.

Question 12

U.S. v Leon

Answer 12

The court held that the exclusionary rule should be modified so as to not bar the admission of evidence seized by reasonable, good faith.

Question 13

Herring v. U.S.

Answer 13

Seizures based on search incident to an arrest that was based on a warrant that turns out being invalid is still admissible as evidence.

Question 14

Wong Sun v U.S.

Answer 14

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Question 15

Mapp vs. Ohio

Answer 15

Created the Exclusionary Rule. Stating that seizures from 4th amendment violations are inadmissible.

Question 16

California v. Hodari

Answer 16

A “seizure” requires physical force, even if slight. Or a show of authority to which the subject yields.

Question 17

Brower v. Inyo county

Answer 17

A seizure occurs when government termination of a persons movement is effected through means intentionally applied.

Question 18

Katz vs. U.S.

Answer 18

Developed “reasonable expectation of privacy”

Question 19

Illinois v Wardlow

Answer 19

Flight is not solely indicative of criminal activity, however it can be added to the totality of circumstances to develope reasonable suspicion.

Question 20

Guzman v. Texas

Answer 20

Avoiding officers is a factor to consider when determining probable cause, and the officers prior knowledge is relevant.

Question 21

Aguilar vs. Texas

Answer 21

Word from a non credible, anonymous source is insufficient.

Question 22

Illinois vs. Gates

Answer 22

Probable cause was determined through totality of the circumstances rather than the informants tip alone.

Question 23

Baity vs. State of Texas

Answer 23

A police officer may approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behaviour even without probable cause.

Question 24

Armstrong vs. State of Texas

Answer 24

Appellants consent to search was given after his arrest. It was determined that the evidence was seized through exploitation of the illegal stop.

Question 25

Terry v. Ohio

Answer 25

Created “stop and frisk”

Question 26

Adams vs. Williams

Answer 26

Officer reaches in car to retrieve gun he was informed by another was present. Determined that RS may be based on information supplies by another person.

Question 27

United States v. Arvizu

Answer 27

BPA. “Totality of the Circumstances.”

Question 28

3 pronged test

Answer 28

Mere suspicion that criminal activity is afoot is insufficient to justify terry stop. Reasonable suspicion needed =

1. Some out of ordinary activity has or is occurring
2. Suspect is connected with activity.
3. Suspicious activity is related to crime.