Reasonable Suspicion
True or False:
The veracity, reliability, and corroboration inquiries Illinois v. Gate discusses with respect to the existence of probable cause are inapplicable to the lower evidentiary showing of reasonable suspicion.
F
This case legalizes racial profiling against people with “apparent Mexican ancestry.” Name that case. Name the doctrinal way in which the Court effectuates this racial profiling.
United States v. Brignoni-Pounce. Apparent Mexican ancestry can be one factor among many in determining whether someone is undocumented.
The doctrine that is best captured by the expression: “I woulda got it anyway.”
The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine.
These two Justice might be referred to as the “dissenting duo” in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence.
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall.
True or False:
While reasonable suspicion is enough to justify some seizures, it is never enough to justify any searches.
F
Establishes the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary and sets forth exceptions. Name the case. Name two exceptions.
What is United States v. Leon.
Exceptions: non-neutrality, barebones warrant, reckless intentional misstatements.
Justice Harlan’s concurrence in this case becomes the standard for this doctrinal test.
The reasonable expectation of privacy test.
Sometimes immigration enforcement stops require reasonable suspicion, sometimes they require nothing.
Explain when reasonable suspicion is required and when nothing is required.
Roving patrol—reasonable suspicion to stop.
Immigration enforcement checkpoint nothing.
What turn of phrase captures the fact that living in a Black or Brown (or Black and Brown) neighborhood can be a basis for reasonable suspicion in Fourth Amendment law.
“High crime area.” Bonus: What does Supreme Court doctrine suggest that Black or Brown people should not do in “high crime” areas.
The case in which a Black woman experiences with law enforcement intersects with the development of the exclusionary rule. Name the case and its significance.
Mapp v. Ohio. Court rules that exclusionary rule is applicable to the states.
A Fourth Amendment right without a Fourth Amendment remedy. (Clue: It involves doors)
The knock and announce rule.
True or False: If forced to express probable as a percentage, the Supreme Court (speaking in one voice) would say that PC is roughly 51% likelihood of crime.
And, how does the Court express the doctrinal test for PC.
F.
Fair probability of crime.
As between Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the Fourth Amendment, name the Clause that provides the strongest textual foundation for reasonable suspicion. (2 Bonus Points: Explain).
Clause 1 (reasonableness).
This case addresses the issuance and the execution of the warrant. Clue: The police encounter a man in pajamas. They end up searching two apartments.
Name the case and explain the doctrine that the Supreme Court articulates.
Maryland v. Garrison.
Issuance: facial and should have known; execution: should have known
The police conduct a search of a car without a warrant, without probable cause, and without reasonable suspicion. What doctrines might allow this.
What is the standard for excessive force? Explain the legitimacy of the doctrine of excessive force with reference to the text of the Fourth Amendment.
Clause 1: Reasonableness (use of force needs to be reasonable).
The police have reasonable suspicion to stop Johnny. They question him. They subsequently find drugs on his person. Judge Smith appropriately admits the drugs into evidence. Name a couple of theories that could explain this outcome and indicate what facts you would need to support the application of those theories.
Frisk & plain touch or PC & search-incident-to arrest.
The case in which a white male police officer repeatedly refuses to arrest a white man repeatedly asking to be arrested. Name the case.
Explain the doctrinal significant of the case.
Hibel v. Nevada.
(1) reasonable suspicion basis for stop.
(2) Can arrest a person for refusing to give name if (a) name is relevant to the basis for stop, and (b) stop-and-identify statute on the books.
The government has an arrest warrant to arrest the D in his home for murder. Upon entering the house, the D is in the living room. They observe two boxes on a table. They ask the D what’s in them. He responds, “things that are for my eyes only.” They arrest the D and seize both boxes on the kitchen table.
Subsequently, the police obtain a warrant to search the boxes and they contain incriminating evidence.
The Court appropriately rules that the evidence is inadmissible. Name the doctrines that could explain that outcome—and explain.
Articulate at least 4 important rules about dogs and the Fourth Amendment.