Flashcards in Chapter 10-Searches of people in vehiicles Deck (10):
Court held that after a vehicle is stopped, the officer may legally do the following:
1. order the driver to exit
2. order the occupants to exit
3. ask driver to produce drivers license and other documents required by state law
4. ask questions of driver and occupants
Florida v Bostick, Whren v United States, Ohio v Robinette, and Brendlin v California
Leading cases in the chapter
test to determine whether a police/citizen encounter on a bus is a seizure is whether, taking into account all the circumstances, a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officers request or terminate the encounter
Florida v Bostik, 1991
officers boarded a bus in Fort Lauderdale en route to Atlanta. Officers asked Bostick for ID and bus ticket, then asked to search his bag. Bostick consented. Search Vald.
Court remanded the case so Florida courts could use the "totality of circumstances" standard instead
who erred the adoption a per se rule that every encounter on a bus is a seizure?
Florida Supreme Court
Temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the 4th prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additonal law enforcement objective
Whren v United States, 1996
plainclothes officer patrolling a high drug area noticed veh with temporary license plates and youthful occupants waiting at a stop sign. offices stopped the vehicle after they were acting odd. drugs found in plain view
an officer making a traffic stop may order occupants to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.
Maryland v Wilson, 1997
Officer can make all occupants get out of vehicle.
Related by case Pennsylvania v Mimms,1977, officer can make driver exit the vehicle,. In Wilson the Court clarified this issue and extended the rule that both driver and occupant can now be ordered by the police to exit the vehicle after a stop.
Rule in Wilson is simple: officer safety.
Court said that the governments "legitimate and weighty" interest in protecting officers prevails against the minimal infringement on the liberties of both the driver and occupants.
4th Amend does not require police officers to inform motorist who are lawfully stopped on traffic violations that the legal detention has concluded before any subsequent interrogation or search will be found to be consensual.
Ohio v Robinett,1996
stopped on traffic for speeding and then asked to exit car. after giving Robinett his licsense, officer asked if there was contraband in car. Robinette consented to search and marij was found.
Court ruling that the totality of circumstances applies in search and seizures cases.
United States v Drayton, 2002
4th Amend permits offices to approach buss passengers, to ask questions and request their consent to search, provided that a reasonable person would understand that he is free to refuse. There is no requirement in 4th for officers to advise persons of their right to refuse to cooperate.
Drayton riding a Greyhound bus carrying drugs taped to his thighs.