Exceptions To The Warrant Requirement Flashcards
(15 cards)
What are the exigent circumstance rules regarding hot pursuit?
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
This case established that exigent circumstances allow for warrantless searches when pursuing a fleeing suspect who poses an immediate danger, supporting the broader principle that police do not need to delay action if doing so would endanger lives.
Lange v. California The pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always qualify as an exigent circumstance permitting warrantless entry into a home. Whether such an entry is justified depends on the specific facts of each case.
What is the exigent circumstance rule for safety?
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart Police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury.
What limitation on exigent circumstance did the Court in Missouri v. McNeely decree?
Missouri v. McNeely
The natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute a per se exigency that justifies a warrantless blood draw. Whether exigent circumstances exist must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.
What is the automobile exception?
Cars and other movable vehicles can be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause.
Does the automobile exception apply to mobile homes?
California v. Carney
The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment applies to motor homes if they are: (1) Readily mobile, and (2) Located in public places where they are subject to public scrutiny and government regulation.
What’s the limit that Collins v. Virginia placed on the automobile exception?
The automobile exception does not permit a warrantless search of a vehicle parked within the curtilage of a home.
What is a search incident to arrest?
An exception to the requirement for both a warrant and probable cause for a search is the ability of police to search a person at the time of a lawful arrest.
What are the limitations to the Search Incident to Arrest warrant exception?
Chimel v. California
A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the arrestee’s person and the area within their immediate control. It does not justify a search of the entire house.
Knowles v. Iowa
The Fourth Amendment does not permit a full search of a vehicle incident to a citation without an arrest.
Riley v. California
The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches of digital information on cell phones seized during a lawful arrest.
Arizona v. Gant
The Fourth Amendment does not permit police to search a vehicle incident to arrest once the arrestee is secured and cannot access the vehicle, unless it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
What is the Inventory Search warrant exception?
South Dakota v. Opperman
A routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Illinois v. Lafayette
It is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for police to conduct an inventory search of an arrestee’s personal effects, including containers, as part of routine booking procedures.
What is the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement?
Maryland v. Buie Police may conduct a protective sweep if they have a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.
What’s the consent exception to the warrant requirement?
A search is permissible without a warrant or even probable cause if there is voluntary consent.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
The Fourth Amendment does not require police to inform a suspect of their right to refuse consent for it to be voluntary.
Georgia v. Randolph
If one occupant is physically present and expressly refuses consent, police cannot lawfully conduct a warrantless search even if another occupant consents.
Fernandez v. California
If the objecting occupant is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest, the remaining occupant’s consent is valid, and the warrantless search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
What are the rules governing the checkpoint exception to the warrant requirement?
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
Sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as they are conducted in a reasonable manner.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
Checkpoints whose primary purpose is general crime control violate the Fourth Amendment.
What are the rules governing the administrative searches exception to the warrant requirement?
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
The Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant for administrative inspections of private property.
New York v. Burger
The warrantless search of Burger’s junkyard was constitutional because it fell within the administrative inspection exception for pervasively regulated industries.
City of Los Angeles v. Patel
The Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Los Angeles ordinance that allowed police to inspect hotel guest records without a warrant, ruling that it violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide hotel operators with any opportunity for precompliance review.
What are the rules governing the drug testing exception to the warrant requirement?
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
The Court upheld Vernonia’s policy, reinforcing schools’ authority to conduct suspicionless drug testing for student-athletes when justified by safety concerns. However, the decision left open questions about the limits of school drug testing policies.
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
The Court ruled that suspicionless drug testing for students in extracurricular activities was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, the dissent warned that expanding drug testing beyond student-athletes weakened constitutional protections and set a concerning precedent for broader searches in schools.
Ferguson v. City of Charleston
The Court struck down MUSC’s policy, reaffirming that medical tests conducted without consent for law enforcement purposes violate the Fourth Amendment. This decision reinforced the principle that patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their medical records, and government searches must be justified under established constitutional standards.
