Requirements For Probable Cause // The Warrant Requirement Flashcards
(11 cards)
What is Sufficient Belief to Meet the Standard for Probable Cause?
Illinois v. Gates: Adopted the Totality of the Circumstances test, allowing flexibility and practicality in probable cause determinations. Anonymous tips can provide probable cause if corroborated by police investigation, even if the informant’s credibility and basis of knowledge are uncertain.
Maryland v. Pringle: “Established that probable cause can be based on the totality of the circumstances, including: Shared access and control over contraband; and inference of joint possession when no one claims ownership.
The ruling clarified that probable cause does not require direct evidence of individual possession if the facts support a reasonable inference of shared control.”
Is Probable Cause an Objective or Subjective Test?
Whren v. United States established the “objective reasonableness” standard for traffic stops:
○ Probable cause of a traffic violation justifies a stop, even if the officer’s actual motive is unrelated to traffic enforcement (e.g., drug investigation).
○ Subjective intentions of the officer are irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment.
Can an officer’s mistake of the law satisfy probable cause?
Heien v. North Carolina: A police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can support the reasonable suspicion needed for a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. A reasonable mistake of law by an officer can justify a traffic stop, so long as the mistake is objectively reasonable based on a genuinely ambiguous law.
What are the reasons for a warrant according to the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41?
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, warrants may be sought for:
1. Evidence of a crime.
2. Contraband, fruits of a crime, or other illegally possessed items.
3. Property used in committing a crime.
4. A person to be arrested or someone unlawfully restrained.
What are the requirements for a warrant set forth in the Fourth Amendment?
Fourth Amendment Requirements:
1. A warrant must be based on probable cause.
2. It must be supported by oath or affirmation.
3. It must particularly describe:
- The place to be searched.
- The persons or things to be seized.
The guidelines for an Affidavit Supporting a Warrant:
Affidavit Supporting a Warrant:
1. The affidavit must provide a basis for concluding probable cause.
2. It can be based on hearsay.
3. Requests for warrants are typically made in person but can also be made by telephone (per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41).
What are the time limitations on execution of a warrant?
Time Limitations for Execution:
The warrant specifies the time period for its execution:
- General warrants must be executed within 14 days.
- Warrants for a tracking device must specify a reasonable length of time, not exceeding 45 days from the date of issuance.
What is warrant standard set forth in Andresen v. Maryland?
General warrants are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment as they enable exploratory rummaging. Warrants must particularly describe the items to be seized, leaving no discretion to officers. The Supreme Court ruled that the specificity requirement for search warrants is met if the warrant contextually limits the search to evidence related to a specific crime, even when the crime involves a complex scheme requiring extensive documentation.
What’s the rule on warrants set forth by Groh v. Ramirez?
A search conducted under a warrant that does not describe the items to be seized violates the Fourth Amendment, even if the application or affidavit does so. A search warrant must specify the items to be seized within the four corners of the warrant itself. Failure to do so makes the search presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the officer’s good faith or the content of supporting documents.
Can police detain parties present during a search and question them while the search is being conducted?
Muehler v. Mena:
“1. Detention Incident to a Search:
○ Under Michigan v. Summers (1981), occupants may be detained during the execution of a search warrant as long as the detention is reasonable.
○ Handcuffing is permitted if safety concerns justify the use of force.
2. Police Questioning During Detention:
○ Police may ask questions during lawful detention without separate reasonable suspicion, as long as the detention is not prolonged by the questioning.”
What is the common-law knock and announce rule as set forth by Wilson v. Arkansas?
The common-law knock and announce rule is part of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement, but it is not an inflexible rule. It also created exceptions where unannounced entries are reasonable for officer safety, prevention of escape, or preservation of evidence.
See also, Richards v. Wisconsin: The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to knock and announce before entering a dwelling, unless they have reasonable suspicion that doing so would be dangerous, futile, or allow the destruction of evidence.
