Rule that says when evidence is illegally obtained it cannot be used in court.
Exclusionary rule
100
In this case, the court said stop and frisk searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Terry v. Ohio
100
This is a justification for allowing officers to conduct a plain view search without a warrant.
No expectation of privacy
100
Under this exception to the warrant requirement, officers can search a motor home without a warrant.
Automobile exception
100
Name something that is required for a warrant to be valid.
Probable cause, oath or affirmation, specificity
200
This is the level of suspicion required to issue a warrant.
Probable cause
200
This case held that the exclusionary rule must also be applied to cases in state court.
Mapp v. Ohio
200
This is a justification that is typically offered in support of the automobile exception.
Diminished expectation of privacy, prevent the destruction of evidence
200
True or false: When conducting a stop and frisk search, officers can reach into the pockets of an individual even if they do not feel anything suspicious.
False
200
In this search, individuals give up their Fourth Amendment rights by giving an officer permission to search.
Consent
300
In determining whether an individual has a resonable expectation of privacy, two questions must be answered. What are those questions?
(1) Does the individual expect privacy?
(2) Does society agree that the area is private?
300
This case, involving an illegal gambling ring and a phone booth, established the two-part reasonable expectation test.
Katz v. United States
300
This is the justification for allowing an officer to conduct a search incident to arrest.
Officer safety/prevent destruction of evidence
300
True or false: officers need a warrant to search someone's trash.
False
300
How does the presence of a weapon during a crime impact the reliability of an eyewitness identification
Makes it less reliable because eyewitnesses focus on the weapon
400
If police find incriminating evidence for an arrest, but they do so illegally, a defendant may file this type of motion.
Motion to suppress
400
This case held that in a search incident to arrest, police officers may search the area immediately surrounding the individual.
Chimel v. California
400
Provide a justification for why officers may conduct a protective sweep of a house following a lawful arrest.
Officer safety
400
In order to claim this exception to the warrant requirement, (1) officers must be lawfully present in the area and (2) the object's illegality must be immediately apparent.
Plain view
400
A person is considered to be in custody when he is under arrest or when he does not feel "_____ ____ ______" (this three-word phrase).
Free to leave
500
This is the name of the party who loses a case in the lower court and files an appeal.
Petitioner or appellant
500
In this case, the court held that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a plane flying over his backyard.
California v. Ciraolo
500
Provide one justification for allowing officers to conduct a warrantless search of a garbage can.
Diminished expectation of privacy, anyone can access it
500
This is the level of suspicion required to conduct a stop and frisk search.
Reasonable supsicion
500
This case, involving stereo equipment, held that for a plain view search to apply, the criminal nature of the item must be readily apparent.