Chapter 5 cases Flashcards Preview

Criminal justice > Chapter 5 cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Chapter 5 cases Deck (46)
Loading flashcards...

Weeks v U.S. (1914)

Issue: Are warrantless searches and seizures unreasonable and therefore a violation of the fourth amendment?
Decision: yes, evidence inadmissible, exclusionary rule created


Silverthorne Lumber v U.S. (1920)

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine - evidence that derives from an illegal search and seizure cannot be used at trial, derivatives not allowed because it encourages police to circumvent 4th


Wolf v Colorado (1949)

state citizens should have 4th amendment rights, enforceable through 14th amendment due process clause, not an extension of ER


Mapp v Ohio (1961)

ER extended to state citizens because need to deter police misconduct, search and seizure just as important as other constitutional rights, judicial integrity


Chimel v CA (1969)

Can't search entire house without warrant when arresting someone, SILA - can search area under immediate control and their person


Bumper v NC (1968)

whether a search is reasonable is based on consent, if you use consent you have to show it was freely and voluntarily given


Schneckloth v Bustamonte (1973)

Voluntariness is a question of fact - totality of circumstances used, can't use refusal to cooperate as anything towards probable cause


Stoner v CA (1964)

Third party consent is based on the notion of common authority- shared dominion and control, joint access to property, exigent circumstances are only exception to access to private property


IL v Rodriguez (1990)

Fischer does not have common authority, she is an infrequent visitor, reasonable person test used and said police reasonably believed she had common authority so evidence is admissible


Georgia v Randolph (2006)

consent cannot be given after initial refusal


Carroll v U.S. (1925)

don't need warrant for car as long as you have probable cause it contains contraband, creates automobile exception for search warrant requirement, based on mobility - evidence will be gone


U.S. v Ross (1982)

If you have probable cause that a car contains contraband, you can search anywhere and anything that could contain what you are looking for; diminished expectation of privacy


Wyoming v Houghton (1999)

passenger property rule not accepted, passengers also have diminished expectation of privacy in a car, precedent - ross doesn't make distinction on ownership


Knowles v Iowa

Supreme court invalidated law that allows for full blown search in traffic stops, violates constitution, level of intrusion for officer safety - even though traffic stops are dangerous it doesn't justify greater intrusion of search, search incident to citation not justifiable


Illinois v Caballes (2005)

Don't need reasonable suspicion for drug dog in routine traffic stops, no legitimate privacy is violated, only exposes contraband


AZ v Hicks (1987)

recording serial numbers is not a seizure but it is a search since stereo was moved, plain view eliminates inconvenience of getting a warrant, lawful police presence and probable cause are two necessities for warrant


U.S. v Leon (1984)

Exception created to search warrant requirement - good faith, if the police have good reason they are acting within the law, evidence is admissible, exclusionary rule not a constitutional right, excluding evidence impedes truth finding


MA v Sheppard (1984)

technical defects in warrant don't matter


Arizona v Evans (1995)

extend good faith because officer is not responsible for clerical error, ER intended to deter police misconduct


Greenwood v California (1988)

Putting trash outside curtilage demonstrates no expectation of privacy, dissent said trash reveals personal info


Terry V Ohio (1968)

Freedom to leave test - if you can't leave you are under arrest, need reasonable articulable suspicion to stop, protecting society from someone who just committed or about to commit a crime, scope of frisk is outer clothing only, would reveal gun


MN v Dickerson (1993)

Purpose of Terry search (stop and frisk) is to reveal sharp items or weapons, stop shouldn't have happened - no reasonable suspicion he had a weapon


Wilson v Arkansas (1995)

knock and announce principle, have to knock and announce and wait


Hudson v michigan

if knock and announce principle is violated evidence is still admissible


Riley v CA (2014)

cannot search cell phone during search incident to lawful arrest


Florida v Bostick (1991)

Suspicion-less searches are ok but with consent


Brown v MS (1936)

States can do what they want until their policies offend fundamental fairness, witness faced torture which isn't allowed, coercion through torture


Spano v NY (1959)

Coerced confessions untrustworthy, totality of circumstances used to figure out whether confession was coerced


Escobedo v IL (1964)

Trigger when questioning shifts from investigatory to accusatory then legal counsel must be provided, need counsel to know rights and laws


Edwards v AZ (1981)

Brightline rules, once right to attorney invoked questioning must stop