Search and Seizure Flashcards
Brendlin’s Holding
The outstanding warrant, which was discovered prior to any search of defendant’s person or of the vehicle, sufficiently attenuated the taint of the unlawful traffic stop.
People v. Brendlin
Rule #1: The discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant before a search and incident to arrest is an intervening circumstance that may—and, in the absence of purposeful or flagrant police misconduct, will—attenuate the taint of the antecedent unlawful traffic stop.
Rule #2: 3 factors in attenuation analysis: (i) temporal proximity of the 4th Amend. violation to the procurement of the challenged evidence; (ii) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (iii) the flagrancy of the official misconduct.
Arizona v. Gant
Rule: Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when: (i) (A) the arrestee is unsecured and (B) within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or (ii) it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
Georgia v Randolph
A physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him
People v. Rivera
“We hold the Fourth Amendment does not require police to corroborate an anonymous tip before seeking consent to enter and search a residence. Even if acting on an anonymous, uncorroborated tip, police may knock on the door of a residence, speak with the occupant, and request permission to enter and search.”
Brigham City v Stuart
Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.
Michigan v Fisher
The emergency aid exception does not depend on the officer’s subject intent or the seriousness of the crime. It only requires an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within the house is in need of immediate aid.
Arizona v Evans
The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence seized incident to an arrest resulting from an inaccurate computer record, regardless of whether police personnel or court personnel were responsible for the record’s continued presence in the police computer.
US v Herring
The exclusionary rule does not apply if police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on an invalid arrest warrant resulting from isolated negligence of the police attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of the constitution.
New York v Harris
If police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton.
Kentucky v King
The need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence has long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search.
Samson v California
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee so long as search is not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
Devenpeck v. Alford
This is an objective test, and it does not matter whether the officer made the right determination for the arrest. The arrest does not have to be closely related to what the officer mistakenly thought was the reason.
Rawlings v Kentucky
Defendant’s admission prior to his arrest, based upon defendant’s admission that the drugs found in another’s purse, was enough probable cause to arrest and also to allow in statement and drugs.
Hudson v Michigan
Knock-and-announce rule include: (1) human life and limb; (2) property, and (3) privacy and dignity. But the rule has never protected one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant.
