Download Exam II | C J 3552 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and more Quizzes Criminal Justice in PDF only on Docsity!
Wilson v
Arkansas
Wilson v. Arkansas, , is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that police officers must "knock and announce" before entering a house. TERM 2
Chimel v California
DEFINITION 2 the Court held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate reach of the person TERM 3
New York v Belton
DEFINITION 3 New York v. Belton, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.bright-line rule: entire passenger compartment and containers therein TERM 4
Arizona v Gant
DEFINITION 4 Cannot search car if person has been secured in the back of the police car already. Person is not able to reach anything from their car if placed in another. Can search for evidence related to crime in car after an arrest is made. TERM 5
People v
Brooks
DEFINITION 5 Searching an unlocked suitcase nearby a person is lawful because they could have reached over to it at time of arrest, as long as you do not remove the person first it is OK
Knowles v Iowa
Cannot search car if you are giving them a citation but not arresting them. Ordering them and passenger out of the car would be reasonable for officer safety but not searching car. TERM 7
Whren v U.S.
DEFINITION 7 During routine patrol they observed Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown, in an SUV, stopped at a corner for about 20 seconds. Upon seeing the officers turning around Whren and Brown turned right sharply, without signalling, and speed off. The officers pursued them and pulled them off to the side of the road. As the officers approached the vehicle one of them noticed two plastic bags of crack cocaine in Mr. Whren's hand.Decision to stop automobile is reasonable if officers believe traffic law has been violated. TERM 8
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
DEFINITION 8 while knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the state does not need to prove that the one who is giving permission to search knows that he has a right to withhold his consent under the Fourth Amendment TERM 9
Illinois v
Rodriguez
DEFINITION 9 Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises.USSC said yes, third party cannot give consent to search your place. Has to have joint use of property by persons both having access and control. TERM 10
U.S. v
Rodney
DEFINITION 10 Searching crotch area for drugs after being given consent is not an invasion of privacy, it is assumed that when you give consent to a body search that you mean a general pat down, or frisk as if you were being searched for weapons.
Bull and others v City and County of San
Francisco
Prisoners have lower expectation of privacy, can be strip searched, including mouth, and body cavity, etc. Government interests out weighs need for privacy. TERM 17
Michigan v
Long
DEFINITION 17 was a decision by theUnited States Supreme Courtthat extendedTerry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1(1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop withreasonable suspicion. TERM 18
Inevitable discovery
DEFINITION 18 inNix v. Williamsin 1984. It holds that evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is admissible in court if it can be established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that normalpolice investigationwould have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. TERM 19
Terry v
Ohio
DEFINITION 19 was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." TERM 20
Adams v
Williams
DEFINITION 20 The stop and frisk can be based on information from other people. Once the arresting officer had found the gun precisely where the informant had predicted, probable cause existed to arrest Williams for unlawful possession of the weapon. Further, [u]nder the circumstances surrounding Williams possession of the gun seized by [the officer], the arrest on the weapons charge was supported by probable cause, and the search of his person and of the car incident to that arrest was lawful.
Minnesota v
Dickerson
was a 1993 Supreme Court of the United States case. Decided June 7, 1993, the Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon. TERM 22
Maryland v
Wilson
DEFINITION 22 that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle, extends to passengers as well. We hold that it does. TERM 23
Arizona v
Johnson
DEFINITION 23 in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous. TERM 24
Cupp v
Murphy
DEFINITION 24 Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a murder conviction notwithstanding a challenge that the evidence upon which guilt was based was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.PC before arresting someone/can arrest them already, you can search TERM 25
U.S. v
Edwards
DEFINITION 25 Persons clothes were searched 10 hours after arrested, allowed
