Search
2 test would one use to determine if there was a search
What is Jones and Katz?
reasonable suspicion for terry frisks
What is when the officer believes the suspect was armed and dangerous. it must be supported by specific facts and articulable facts?
a warrant
what is a legal document that gives the police the authority to search or make a arrest?
the acronym for the exceptions
What is SPACES?
Going through someone garbage is _____
What is not a search.
Katz Rule
What is when the government intrudes into a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
1. the person has an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the area/item AND
2. It is an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
a seizure justified
What is an item may be seized if it immediately apparent to the officer that the item is:
1. contraband
2. fruits of a crime
3. instrumentalities of a crime
4. evidence of a crime.
an arrest warrant is mandatory when
What is when the police seeks to arrest someone inside their own home.
Exigent Circumstances: warrantless search or seizure permitted when:
What is:
1)Necessary to prevent imminent threat of harm to the officer or any person.
2)Necessary to prevent imminent removal or destruction of evidence.
3)In hot pursuit of suspected felon.
Mere copying information ____
What is not a search?
Jones rule
What is When the government intrudes on a constitutionally protected area (person, home, papers, and effects) for the purpose of gathering information.
A reasonable time for terry stop
what is up to 20 mins?
the requirements of a warrant
What is:
•must be supported by oath or affirmation,
• supported by probable cause that a crime occurred and that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of that crime is located at the particular location,
•issued by neutral and detached magistrate.
• must describe in particularity the place to be searched and/or the person or things to be seized.
Under the Plain View Doctrine, police may conduct observations and seize an item without implicating the Fourth Am. if:
What is:
(1) lawfully present,
(2) have lawful access, and
(3) it is immediately apparent to the police that the item was evidence of a crime or contraband.
Victor, the victim of a robbery, reported to the police that the robber wrestled him to the ground and took only Victor’s tuba, measuring about 4 feet in height. The robber did not display a weapon. Victor described the robber’s vehicle in great detail, including the make, model and an almost complete license number. Later that day, Officer spotted Defendant’s vehicle parked not far from the scene of the crime. The vehicle matched Victor’s description. Officer conducted an immediate search, beginning with the interior of the vehicle. She located a handgun in the glove compartment. She then popped open the trunk but did not find the tuba. Subsequent investigation revealed that the weapon was one used in a recent homicide. Charged with murder, Defendant has moved to suppress the handgun from evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss?
A. The court should grant the motion because Officer lacked probable cause to look in the glove compartment.
B. The court should deny the motion because Officer had probable cause to search the vehicle and did not require a warrant.
C. The court should grant the motion because Officer lacked probable cause to search the vehicle.
D. The court should deny the motion because the Fourth Amendment is offense specific. That is, Defendant could only object to the admission of evidence in a prosecution against him for the crime Officer was investigating.
What is A?
The court should grant the motion because Officer lacked probable cause to look in the glove compartment.
Correct. While the Court abandoned the requirement for a warrant in most automobile search cases, an officer still is limited by probable cause and can search only in areas where the object of the search may be. Here, Officer had no information that Defendant was armed and could look only where a tuba might be located.
factors to consider when determining if something is an open field or curtilage.
What is:
• the proximity of the area claimed to be a curtilage to the home.
• the nature of the uses to which the area is put.
• the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observations by people passing by.
• whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home.
Duration of a traffic stop
What is a cop is allowed to detain individuals for as long as necessary to complete the initial purpose of the traffic stop.
the ways to challenge a warrant
1. challenge the facial sufficiency of the warrant
2. Claim that the information used to generated PC was illegally obtained
3. Claim that the affiant gave false information to the magistrate
Automobile exception to the warrant requirement: The warrantless search of a car is permitted if:
What is an officer has probable cause to believe that the car contains contraband or evidence of a crime?
Warrantless search or seizure is permitted, under the Special Needs exception, when:
What is the government is engaged in special needs searches which serve beyond a criminal law enforcement purpose.
Defendant operated an illegal marijuana farm in a rural and mountainous area. Based on uncorroborated tip to that effect, Officer used a helicopter to get a view of Defendant's property. Officer's job was made difficult by the isolated nature of the property, but the Officer was able to secure a view of the property while the helicopter remained in lawful airspace often used by helicopters flown by fire, police and emergency personnel. They recognized Defendant's crop as marijuana. Officer secured a search warrant, which the Officer and other officers executed. They discovered close to a ton of marijuana. Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
A. The Court has held that overflight in lawful airspace will never constitute a search as the public could do the same. As a result, the police conduct was lawful. The court should deny the motion.
B. As long as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
C. Because there was no trespass on the facts of the case, the court should deny the motion.
D. Defendant can prevail only if he can show that the helicopter overflight interfered with Defendant's use of his property. Absent such a showing, the court should deny the motion.
What is B?
As long as it is clear that the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity, the court should deny the motion because there would have been no violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Correct. Although the Court held in Florida v. Riley (1989) that the overflight did not constitute a search, the Court was divided regarding the reasoning. Justice O'Connor concurred in the result because the defendant had not met his burden of proof on whether the helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity. The four dissenting justices agreed that was the key legal issue but believed that the state had the burden of proof. Here, the facts make clear that the helicopter was in airspace frequently used by other helicopters.
What is Enough information that would warrant a person of prudence and caution in believing that an offense has been committed or reasonable ground to believe the accused is guilty.
Officer, in reliance on an informant’s tip, applied for a warrant to search Defendant’s home. Informant, who had given Officer reliable information in the past, claimed that he had purchased drugs in Defendant’s home. Magistrate authorized the search, which resulted in the seizure of several cartons of stolen goods but no drugs. After the search, Officer confronted Informant, who admitted that he lied to Officer with the hope of getting Defendant in trouble. On trial for possession of stolen property, Defendant has learned of Informant’s lie and has moved to suppress the evidence. During the suppression hearing, evidence showed that Officer was negligent in relying on Informant’s tip. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to suppress?
A) Without the information from Informant, the warrant lacked probable cause. The court should grant the motion.
B)Because when he applied for the warrant Officer did not know that Informant was lying, nor was he reckless with regard to whether Informant was lying, the court should deny the motion.
C) The case demonstrates why the Supreme Court has held that an informant must appear before a magistrate so that the magistrate, not the police officer, can assess the informant’s credibility. The court should grant the motion.
D) Because Officer was negligent in relying on Informant’s tip, the court should grant the motion.
What is B?
Because when he applied for the warrant Officer did not know that Informant was lying, nor was he reckless with regard to whether Informant was lying, the court should deny the motion.
Correct. The answer reflects the Court’s holding in Franks v. Delaware (1978): only if an officer is deliberate or reckless in making a false statement (or in omitting information), and only if the affidavit would have lacked probable cause without the falsity, will a court find the warrant invalid.
Victor, the victim of an armed robbery, reported to the police that the suspect left the scene of the crime in a late model Ford Escort and headed north on Main Street. Several hours later, the police spotted a six year old Ford Escort, legally parked in a rundown part of town. Using a flashlight, Officer looked into the vehicle and spotted items that Victor reported were taken during the robbery. Officer is uncertain how to proceed. Which of the following answers provides Officer with the best advice?
A. You have already conducted a search by peering into the vehicle with a flashlight. Your search was illegal because you lacked probable cause.
B. Impound the vehicle and conduct an inventory search at the impoundment lot.
C. You have probable cause that evidence of the crime is located in the vehicle at this point. You may conduct a lawful search of the vehicle.
D. You have probable cause that evidence of the crime is located in the vehicle at this point. You should secure a search warrant for the vehicle.
What is C?
C. You have probable cause that evidence of the crime is located in the vehicle at this point. You may conduct a lawful search of the vehicle.
Correct. Because peering into the vehicle with a flashlight is not a search and because Officer’s observations create probable cause to believe evidence of the crime is in the automobile, an immediate search is permitted under the Court’s case law creating an exception to the warrant requirement when the police seek to search a potentially mobile vehicle.
Suspecting but needing proof that Defendant was involved in the drug trade, Officer attached a tracking device to the underside of Defendant’s vehicle. Over the next two days, Officer learned where Defendant went throughout the day and was able to set up surveillance at those locations. Based on those observations, Officer developed probable cause that Defendant had a large amount of heroin in his car. Officer called for a backup team and arrested Defendant. Thereafter, Officer conducted a search of Defendant’s vehicle, resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of heroin. Prior to his trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, Defendant has moved to suppress the evidence. Which of the following answers best describes how the court should rule on Defendant’s motion to suppress?
a. The Court has upheld similar police conduct on the ground that it does not amount to a search when the police use technology to discover what one knowingly exposes to the public, i.e., a car’s movements along public streets. The court should deny the motion.
b. The police trespassed in placing the tracking device on the car and then using it to learn Defendant’s movements. That was a search. Because the police lacked probable cause to do so, the court should grant the motion.
c. Defendant cannot show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of his vehicle. As a result, Officer’s conduct was not a search and the court should deny the motion.
d. Monitoring devices are readily available in society. Because the Supreme Court has held that police conduct does not amount to a search when an officer uses widely available technology, the court should deny the motion.
What is B.
The police trespassed in placing the tracking device on the car and then using it to learn Defendant’s movements. That was a search. Because the police lacked probable cause to do so, the court should grant the motion.
Correct. The answer states, basically, what the Court held in Jones v. United States (2012).