Technology
Police arrest your client and search their cellphone incident to their arrest. You should cite this case to suppress the evidence gained from this search.
What is Riley v. California
In an effort to prevent prolonged detentions, this case found that an additional 8 minute detainment by officers, after issuing the written violation was unconstitutional (even for the purpose of conducting a K9 sniff search).
What is Rodriguez v. United States
Your client is stopped for an unconstitutional investigatory stop. During this stop, the PO learns your client has an arrest warrant issued and arrests your client, seizing evidence of another crime from his person. This case permits this evidence to be admissible even though it was the fruit of an unconstitutional stop.
What is Utah v. Strieff
This case held that a defendant was seized when POs shot them as they were fleeing the scene in their car.
What is Torres v. Madrid
This 1791 constitutional Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
What is the 4th Amendment
This 11th Circuit case goes against the holding in Riley v. California, allowing warrantless cellphone searches by border agents when crossing the border. (At least for entry into the U.S.)
What is United States v. Touset
While car searches are typically held to a looser standard for 4th Am violations, this case prevents car searches incident to arrest when the defendant is arrested without access to the car at the time of the search and no evidence for the arrest offense (example: Driving w/o a license) can reasonably be expected to be found.
What is Arizona v. Gant
In this case, the court holds the government committed a warrantless search after obtaining the cell site data of defendant’s phone, revealing 12, 898 location points, thereby tracking the defendant’s movements over 127 days.
What is United States v. Carpenter
Your client is stopped by POs while walking on the street. In a moment of panic, he begins to run but is tackled by two officers. Even so, he manages to free himself and later wants to claim a 4th Amendment violation. This element of Torres v. Madrid still needs to be proven for the court to find that the client was seized.
What is an Intent To Restrain
This 1960s case set the standard for street stops to reasonable suspicion, resulting in the era of Stop and Frisk.
What is Terry v. Ohio
In Kyllo v. United States, the court held that the warrantless use of this device to uncover a marijuana growing operation constituted an unconstitutional search.
What is a Thermal-Imaging Device
This case held that traffic stops constitute seizures and therefore can be unconstitutional, even for passengers within the car.
What is Brendlin v. California
POs go to your client’s apartment to execute a proper search warrant. Simultaneously, other POs stop and detain your client as he drives to work, using Michigan v. Summers rationales to justify detention during the execution of a search warrant. This case holds that a detention under these circumstances falls out of the justifying rationales for a 4th Am exception.
What is Bailey v. United States
A robbery takes place in a convenience store and a witness calls 911 describing the perpetrator as a White male, Blue Sweater, Black Pants heading south with a gun. Your client is wearing a blue jacket and black sweatpants and is 4 blocks away from the convenience store. This case permits the police to stop your client based solely on the anonymous but reliable tip.
What is Navarette v. California
This 1960s case considers technological advances with phone wiretapping, SCOTUS rejecting the idea that just because the evidence didn’t require physical intrusion doesn’t mean it wasn’t a violation of the defendant’s expectation of privacy.
What is Katz v. US
This case opened the door for the use of new biometric technologies as legitimate police booking procedures (In this case, DNA swabs taken during booking).
What is Maryland v. King
Because of this circumstance, the incriminating evidence found during a search incident to arrest was found inadmissible in Brendlin v. California.
What is an unconstitutional traffic stop
This is the distinguishing factor in the facts between Riley v. California’s rejection of warrantless cellphone searches and United States v. Touset’s acceptance of warrantless cellphone searches.
What is being at the border / search conducted by border agents
Navarette v. California puts forth a number of circumstances that can help officers determine what is enough to create reasonable suspicion and justify a terry stop or traffic stop. These factors are for evaluating this.
What is a reliable tip
This 1980 case helped set forth the test to determine when a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th Amendment: In the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave
What is US v. Mendenhall
In United States v. Jones, the court held that the installation and monitoring of this device on the defendant’s car constituted a search and physical intrusion, even when the car was on public streets.
What is a GPS tracking device.
This is the standard of crime required to find a traffic stop by officers constitutional.
What is Reasonable Suspicion
This case helps reinforce the idea that even if the government is capable of getting information/evidence from a third party (hint: like cell-site location data), the defendant still has a 4th Am claim to protection and the government’s warrantless access constitutes a constitutional violation.
What is Carpenter v. United States
In Utah v. Strieff, the court found this to be a critical intervening circumstance during the terry stop, thereby creating admissibility for evidence acquired during the illegal search incident to arrest.
What is an arrest warrant
This colloquial phrase from Wong Sun v. US (1963) represents the doctrine that determines when evidence collected from an unconstitutional search is inadmissible in trial. (I.e. invokes the exclusionary rule).
What is “fruit of the poisonous tree”