Flashcards in Chapter 4-Arrest and other seizures of persons Deck (30):
as the taking of a person into custody against his or her will for the purpose of criminal prosecution or interrogation. Dunaway v New York
Seizure of a person
occurs only when there is governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. Brower v County of Ino
Four elements of an arrrest
seizure and detention, intention to arrest, arrest authority, understanding by the person arrested
Police taking the person into custody with use of hands or firearms or by merely touching the individual without the use of force
this seizure takes place without any physical touching, grabbing, holding, or use of force. It occurs when the person peacefully submits to the will and control of officer
This court ruled that the test to determine whether a seizure occurs is whether a reasonable person viewing the police conduct would conclude that he or she is free to leave
Michigan v Chesternut, 1988
This court held that a seizure occurs when there is a "governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.
Brower v County Inyo, 1989
This court held that no seizure occurs when an officer seeks to arrest a suspect through a show of authority, but applies no physical force and subj does not willingly submit (therefore there was no actual or constructive seizure)
California v Hodari, 1991
This Court ruled that the test to determine whether a police-citizen encounter on a bus is a seizure is whether a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officers requeset or otherwise terminate the encounter
Florida v Bostick, 1991
the General Test iss
it is a seizure only if a reasonable person under the same or similiar circumstances would have considered the encounter with the police to result in a termination of freedom to leave
This court held that the 4th Amed does not forbid a warrantless arrest for minor criminal offense, such as a misd seatbelt violation, which is punishable by a fine.
Atwater v City of Lago Vista, 2001
This case holds that under emergency circumstances and where there is need to preserve evidence until the police can obtain a warrant, they may temporarily restrain a person's movement without violating his 4th Amend right
Illinois v McArthur, 2001
United States v Watson, Payton v New York, Atwater v City of Lago Vista
an unlawful arrest does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to try a criminal case.
Frisbie v Collins, 1952
Collins was forcibly handcuffed, blackjacked and abducted in chicago and taken to Michigan to stand trial.
The power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the courts jurisdiction by reason of forcible abduction
Ker v Illinois, 1886
Collins case was decided in 1952 before exclusionary rule applied to states in Mapp v Ohio. Nonetheless the ruling is still valid today
a warrantless arrest that begins in public place is valid even if the suspect retreats to a private place and is arrested there.
United States v Santana, 1975
undercover officer had arrested a subj who purchased heroin at Santana's residence. Officer went back to Santana's residence and saw Santana standing in the doorway with brown paper bag in hand. After identifying themselves,Santana fled in the house and officers pursued. during scuffle, heroin fell to the floor. Case of hot pursuit
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
United States v Watson, 1976
postal inspector arrested Watson for possession of stolen credit card
probable cause is needed for stationhouse detention of a suspect if such detention is accompanied by an interrogation
Dunaway v New York, 1979
Implicated in a murder, Dunaway was taken into custody without a warrant. Dunaway was mirandized and made incriminating statements. Dunaway was charged with murder. Statements inadmissible. No probable cause to arrest.
police may not validly enter a private home to make a routine warrantless felony arrest, unless justified by exigent circumstances
Payton v New York, 1980
officers entered Payton's residence to arrest him for murder, but did not have a warrant. Payton was not at home, but officer found evidence at the scene. payton later turned himself in. evidence inadmissible due to illegal search.
warrantless nighttime entry foa supects home to effect an arrest for a non-jailable offense violates the 4th Amed
Welsh v Wisconsin, 1984
welsh was driving erratically and swerve off road. witnesses called the police. Welsh was already gone, and officers went to the address of the registered owner of the veh witnesses reported and gained entry and arrested welsh for dwi. no warrant and no exigent circumstances.
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
Michigan v Chesternut,1988
Chesternut began to run after seeing the police car. Officers followed him. Officers drove along side Chesternut and observed him throwing packets from his pocket . offficers collected the packets believing it might be contraband. Chesternut was arrested and more drugs were found on him.
seizure of a person occurs when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied
Brower v County of Inyo, 1989
Brower evaded police and ended when police placed an 18 wheeler across both lanes of hwy. Brower was killed. roadblock is a form of seizure.
if roadblock was found reasonable, then no liability could be imposed on police. if roadblock was unreasonable , liability could be imposed
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
California v Hodari, 1991
officers patrolling high crime area in Oakland CA and saw four youths huddled around car. Youths fled when they saw police. Hodari was running when he was confronted by officer. Hodari tossed small rock cocaine. hodair was tackled and rock recovered. Hodari was not seized until he was tackled by officer.
warrantless detention of supect for 48 hrs is presumptively reasonable. if time-to-hearing is longer, burden of proof shifts to police to prove reasonableness of the delay. If the time-to-hearing is shorter, the burden of proof of unreasonable delay shifts to suspect.
County of riverside v McLaughlin, 1991
Case involves probable cause hearings.
Gerstein v Pugh
Court held that the 4th Amed requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an extended pretrial detention following a warrantless arrest. Court said that it is presumptively reasonable for the detention to last up to 48 hrs. If more than 48 hrs, the government bears the burden of showing that the delay was reasonable. If released within 48 hrs, burden shifts to the person being detained.
The abduction of a foreigner that is not in violation of a treaty does not deprive a US court of jurisdiction in a criminal trial.
United States v Alvarez-Machain, 1992
Alvarez-Machain, citizen and resident of Mexico, was indicted in US for participating in kidnapping and murder of DEA agent. Alvarez-Machain was abducted in Guadalajara, Mexico and flown to El Paso, TX where he was arrested by DEA. No violation between US and Mexico treaty. There was no Extradition violated. Subj was abducted
under exigent circumstances, and where police need to preserve evidence until a warrant can be obtained, they may temporarily restrain a person's movements without violating his 4th Amend right
Illinois v Mcarthur, 2001
officers were at a trailer home accompanying a women to remove her belongings. Women advised that her husband had drugs inside.(establishing probable cause) After husband refused consent to search, the other officer left to get a warrant. When husband exited the trailer, the offficer prevented him from reentering unaccompanied. other officer returned with warrant and drugs were found. under exigent circumstances, and the need to preserve evidence until police obtain a warrant, they can temporarily restrain a suspect.
court gave 4 reasons for Illinois v Mcarthur decision
Police had probable cause to believe the trailer home contained evidence of crime and drugs.
police had good reason to fear that evidence would be destroyed, police made reasonable effort reconcile their needs with the demands of suspects personal privacy, police imposed the restraint for a limited time- two hours