Constitutional Law/Criminal Procedure

• 
  Facts: On 6/10/93 plain clothes officers were patrolling high drug area in an unmarked car and passed a truck observing that the driver stopped for 20 seconds at a stopped sign and was looking in the lap of a passenger. When the driver sped off the cops pulled the car over and observed cocaine in the vehicle. The court denied the motion to suppress.
  
• 
  Issue: Whether temporary detention of a motorist who police have probable cause to believe committed a civil traffic violation is inconsistent with the 4^th amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure?
  
• 
  Rule: The decision to stop a car is reasonable where police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation was occurred. Defendant argues that in the context of a civil traffic violation probable cause is not enough to justify a stop and that cops must have also acted reasonably. Where probable cause exists, the only cases which involve a balancing analysis involved searches and seizures conducted in an extraordinary manner and traffic stop by an out of uniform officer does not remotely qualify as such an extreme practice.
  

• 
  4^th amendment constrains only governmental action and does not apply to the conduct of a person acting in private capacity
  

• 
  If private party acts as an instrument of the state then look to reasonableness under the 4^th amendment
  

• 
  Generally, a search is reasonable if there is probable cause and either it is supported by a warrant or an exception to the general requirement for a warrant such as an exigent circumstance
  
• 
  Facts at hand: officers attached electronic equipment to a public phone booth and listened in on conversations that Katz conducted there
  
• 
  Rule: What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to the 4^th amendment but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected
  

2. Expectation is one that society perceives as reasonable (objective)

• 
  Circumstances:
  

• 
  Plain View Observations:
  

• 
  Observations is not a search because location of the item in plain view means the owner had no reasonable expectation of privacy
  

• 
  Police conduct revealing only criminal information
  

• 
  May not be searchable information of a criminal nature, permits no reasonable expectation of privacy
  

• 
  Searches permissible on less than probable cause
  

• 
  Usually reasonable if there is a warrant and warrant is supported by probable cause
  
• 
  Arizona v. Hicks: moved stereo equipment to see serial number…search because it allowed the officer to obtain information otherwise unavailable to him
  

• 
  Dog Sniffing as a Search
  

• 
  US v. Place: sniffing of luggage in a public place did not amount to a search and manner obtained is much less intrusive
  

• 
  Examination of Trash
  

• 
  People expose their garbage to the public sufficiently enough to defeat a claim that it is protected under the 4^th amendment
  

• 
  Manipulation of Luggage
  

• 
  Bond v. US: officer grabbed carryon bag on greyhound bus and felt a brick like object and thus opened it finding meth…conduct exceeded casual nature a person expects as a result of brining a carryon bag in which a physically invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than a visual one
  

• 
  4^th: construed as applicable to law enforcement conduct sufficiently intruding upon privacy concerns to justify its regulation, not its prohibition, by application of reasonableness
  

1. 
   Open Fields
   
   1. 
      Police can search an open field—area outside curtilage (courtyard or equivalent)
      
      1. 
         Even though it’s a trespass…
         
   2. 
      Hester
      
      1. 
         Gave us the open fields doctrine above
         
   3. 
      Oliver- reformed the open fields doctrine
      
      1. 
         Open fields not within the ambit of Fourth Amendment protection of persons, houses, papers and effects
         
      2. 
         Property owners unable to prevent trespasses in open fields, therefore there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in these fields
         
      3. 
         Only if activities occur in the immediate surrounding area of the house does Fourth Amendment protections apply
         
      4. 
         Open fields are outside of the protection of the Fourth Amendment
         
         1. 
            But the curtilage of a home is within Fourth Amendment protection
            
   4. 
      Dunn Factors for determining open field vs. curtilage:
      
      1. 
         Proximity to home
         
      2. 
         Whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home
         
      3. 
         Nature of use of the area
         
      4. 
         Steps taken to protect the area from observations by passersby
         
         1. 
            No trespassing signs, e.g.?
            
      5. 
         Fact based analysis
         

2. 
   Plainview Seizures
   
   1. 
      Georgetown
      
      1. 
         Police must not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could plainly be viewed
         
      2. 
         Can seize plain view evidence when conducting a search warrant, arrest warrant, lawful warrantless search.
         
      3. 
         Incriminating character of the evidence must be immediately apparent
         
      4. 
         Police may not disturb or further invetsiaget an item to discern its evidentiary value without PC.
         
      5. 
         Can seize a container if its contents are in plain view
         
   2. 
      Officers egenrally allowed to seize criminal evidence or contraband they spot in plain view
      
   3. 
      The Implications of the plain view doctrine
      
      1. 
         Plain view by itself doesn’t jusify a seizure:
         
         1. 
            Was the vantage point gained by violating 4^th Amendment?
            
         2. 
            If further intrusion is necessary before the items can be seized, a warrant is needed
            
         3. 
            Need probable cause to believe the items are contraband or part of a crime
            
         4. 
            Impermissible if the original viewing violated a reasonable expectation of privacy even if there was no trespass.
            
   4. 
      Police can seize in plain view if:
      
      1. 
         Lawful vantage point (step-by-step analysis)
         
      2. 
         Immediately apparent it is evidence or contraband
         
      3. 
         Additional investigation does not amount to search
         
   5. 
      Close look
      
      1. 
         Arizona v. Hicks
         
         1. 
            Presmise that there is no search, but warrant required for seizure
            
   6. 
      Plain feel
      
      1. 
         Minnesota v. Dickerson
         
         1. 
            Contrabans has to be readily apparent and identifiable upon frisk
            
   7. 
      Kyllo and technology
      
      1. 
         Police used thermal imaging from public street aimed at a private home
         
      2. 
         Issue: Is this a search
         
         1. 
            Where, as here, the gov’t uses a device that’s not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
            

8. 
   Issues with plain view
   
   1. 
      Examine basis for police presence then ask what can they do when they get there?
      
   2. 
      Emergency searches
      
      1. 
         Brigham City
         
         1. 
            Primary motive must not be to arrest and seize evidence under the emergency doctrine
            
   3. 
      Exigency
      
      1. 
         Kentucky v. King
         
         1. 
            Police cannot create exigent circumstances and then search a home saying there were exigent circumstances
            
         2. 
            Exigency- Hot pursuit, rendering emergency aid, preventing destruction of evidence…
            

1. 
   Plain-View observation: that is justified normally happened without a seizure where you’re lawfully located where you’re observing.
   
   1. 
      You observed it from a lawful location
      
   2. 
      It is a reasonable to seize it without a warrant? (Look at seriousness of crime.)
      
2. 
   Plain-View Seizure: You see people smoking a joint and get them. You still need probable cause.
   

• 
  Horton v. California
  
  • 
    Seizure of items not listed in search warrant—guns found in plain view but claimed violated particularity requirement for search warrants
    
  • 
    However, objectively had probable cause to search home for coins and rings
    
  • 
    Plain view doctrine applies—1. Observation (sight, smell, feel) 2. Plain view seizure follows
    
  • 
    Do not require inadvertent requirement for plain view
    
  • 
    As long as plain view from lawful place then seizure is lawful—must be immediately apparent to be evidence of a crime or contraband
    
  • 
    Thus seizure of guns is upheld as lawful
    

1. 
   There was state action.
   
2. 
   The pinpoint where they met was in his house.
   
3. 
   Yes, there was a search.
   
   1. 
      Physical invasion of someone’s property; or
      
   2. 
      Reasonable expectation of privacy
      
4. 
   There was a search warrant although it wasn’t stated with particularity
   

-Probable cause

-Appropriately issued
Standing

Requires a determination of whether the disputed search and seizure has infringed an interest of the defendant which the 4th was designed to protect.

1. 
   Standing Issues
   

9. 
   Standing where DEF’s own constitutional rights have been violated (Alderman)
   
   1. 
      Did DEF have a subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy in area searched or evidence seized?
      
10. 
    Rakas formulation: Did search violate the rights of the DEF who seeks to exclude the evidence?
    
    1. 
       Rakas- Shotgun shells found in Rakas’s car
       
       1. 
          Not his guns, car or bullets
          
       2. 
          Extending standing would extend the exclusionary rule
          
       3. 
          Must have a legitimate expectation of privacy violated in order to challenge the search and subsequently move to suppress evidence obtained that’s used against them stemming from the search
          
    2. 
       Overnight guest (Olson) versus (illegal) commercial renter (Carter)
       
       1. 
          Olson- Houseguest has legitimate expectation of privacy in host’s home as an overnight guest
          
       2. 
          Carter- Drug organization using an apartment to bag cocaine is a place of business, and therefore there’s a lesser expectation of privacy in commercial establishments.
          

1. 
   Always required (unless an exception)
   
2. 
   Any search without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable under the 4^th Amendment
   
3. 
   Even if a bad warrant or no warrant and no exception the evidence is not automatically excluded.
   
4. 
   Has to be stated with particularity
   

1. 
   Application (fill it out accurately and carefully)
   
2. 
   Affidavit- has to comply with particular information including probable cause to believe evidence of a crime or contraband.
   
3. 
   Search warrant (order) –
   
   1. 
      has to be particular because the 4^th Amendment requires it
      
      1. 
         must specify the place and items to be searched and what they’re looking for
         
      2. 
         Can seize a class of items if specified with particularity
         
   2. 
      has to be signed by a fair and neutral magistrate
      
4. 
   Executed (carried out)- It has to be reasonable because the 4^th Amendment says so
   
   1. 
      Statutory/rules about time
      
      1. 
         One week from date of issue
         
   2. 
      Evidence in support of probable cause
      
      1. 
         Has to be “fresh” evidence (otherwise probable cause can disappear)
         
   3. 
      It has to be reasonable
      
      1. 
         Damage to people
         
      2. 
         Damage to property
         
      3. 
         Knock & announce
         
      4. 
         Detention, seizure, search of people/things
         
      5. 
         No media
         
5. 
   Return (inventory) –
   
   1. 
      supposed to correspond with the warrant
      
   2. 
      make sure police put in everything they seize
      
   3. 
      protect from false claims of theft.
      

*Make sure the warrant is legal.

-Probable cause

-Appropriately issued

1. 
   Aguilar/Spinelli test (2 prong test): Where hearsay is relied upon, affidavit must contain information about:
   

b. Informant’s credibility/reliability (The veracity prong)

1. 
   Conclusory statements by cops isn’t enough
   
2. 
   No longer the test used but it’s still useful
   

2. 
   Gates’ totality of the circumstances test is used
   

b. Real world, fact-based application

1. 
   This approach isn’t too rigid, but rather a fluid concept
   
2. 
   Non-lawyer justification: magistrate signing the warrant may not be a lawyer and this is easy to understand
   

1. 
   Gates is about a commonsense application of a fluid concept
   

3. 
   Role of the (neutral) magistrate is to defer to PC finding
   

• 
  Illinois v. Gates
  
  • 
    Definition of probable cause (from Justice Rehnquist)= whether given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
    
  • 
    Gates argument: relying on anonymous letter; no personal knowledge and no evidence of knowledge of author (credibility); basis of knowledge, could be lying (veracity); no independent corroboration/insufficient
    
  • 
    Illinois argument: details corroborated from letter show inside information of author of letter; common sense analysis/totality of the circumstances test
    
  • 
    Court overrules Aguilar-Spinelli
    
  • 
    TEST FOR PROBABLE CAUSE IS TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
    

1. 
   Application of Affidavit/Search Warrant filled out inaccurately, mistakes in not complying with the law
   
2. 
   Improper/Unreasonable (the manner in which it was done)
   
   1. 
      Excessive
      
   2. 
      Unreasonable
      
   3. 
      Damaged property
      
3. 
   The defendant was unreasonably searched and seized
   
4. 
   No probable cause to believe the items to be seized and searched (insufficient probable cause. **Most Common
   
5. 
   Evidence in affidavit intentionally or recklessly untrue. (Franks v. Delaware)
   

1. 
   If you attack credibility of a warrant you have to show substantial basis
   
   1. 
      Factors for substantial basis
      
      1. 
         Information being supplied by attorney
         
      2. 
         Affidavit from person (is there a contradictory statement)
         
         1. 
            The defendant says, under oath, he didn’t do it
            
      3. 
         Police report
         
      4. 
         Another contradiction
         
      5. 
         **Look at the trustworthiness
         
2. 
   If affidavit is not true after severance see if there is still probable cause
   
3. 
   If there is no probable cause you get a hearing, but that doesn’t mean you’ll win.
   

• 
  Franks v. Delaware
  
  • 
    Do not get to cross examine someone for insufficient probable cause unless sufficient showing
    
  • 
    Franks claimed the officers lied in the affidavit
    
  • 
    Franks hearing is very rare to get—a Franks hearing is a challenge beyond the 4 corners of search warrant
    
  • 
    4^th amendment states by oath or affirmation
    
  • 
    defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing of a lie/perjury
    
  • 
    then take false evidence out of search warrant to determine probable cause—if probable cause still without that information then no hearing and no suppression; if no probable cause then get hearing
    
    • 
      Breakdown of the holding
      
      • 
        Only able to go beyond 4 corners where affidavit in support contains a lie/false statement
        
      • 
        1. Must have a substantial showing of this; not just a mere allegation
        
      • 
        2. Take paragraphs out that are allegedly false/a lie
        
      • 
        3. Determine if probable cause still exists after paragraphs deleted
        
        • 
          if yes, then no hearing
          
        • 
          if no, then hearing (called Franks’ hearing); burden on defendant by preponderance of the evidence
          

1. 
   Spot search & seizure issue under 4^th Amendment.
   
2. 
   Is there state action?
   
3. 
   Search & seizure issue occurs at this particular junction in the hypothetical –where a resident and the U.S. government met. (*The police don’t need probable cause or reasonable suspicion don’t need a warrant because anyone can knock. There is no 4^th Amendment issue. The front door of your home is essentially an open field. The public can do what they want. The 4^th Amendment because implicated when you come through the door.)
   
4. 
   They had a valid search warrant
   
5. 
   Does it meet the requirement of the 4^th Amendment
   
6. 
   Is the execution reasonably done?
   

• 
  United States v. Banks
  
  • 
    Police knocked and announced; waited 15-20 seconds and then went in
    
    • 
      Argument is that they did not wait long enough; defendant claims in shower
      
  • 
    Prosecutor entered evidence that officers heard the knock from the front door at the back doors—shows its was loud; inference defendant heard it too
    
  • 
    Also no evidence police knew he was in shower important because shows police did not intentionally disregard 4^th amendment
    
  • 
    15-20 seconds deemed reasonable here because drugs could have been destroyed if waited later
    
• 
  Hudson v. Michigan
  
  • 
    Police waited 3-5 seconds before entering home
    
  • 
    Here, court found violation of knock and announce by the police
    
  • 
    However, evidence is not suppressed because majority feels knock and announce is small and police would have found the evidence anyways—thus no exclusionary rule
    
  • 
    Close opinion (5-4) but Justice Kennedy concurs with a warning about if exclusionary rule never applies then police will always violate and no deterrence—thus no bright line rule that exclusionary rule never applies to violations of knock and announce
    

• 
  Maryland v. Garrison
  
  • 
    Police had warrant to search apartment on 3^rd floor but there were 2 apartments on the 3^rd floor—only had warrant for one
    
  • 
    Officers searched Garrison’s apartment without a warrant
    
  • 
    The warrant was good and executed in good faith
    
  • 
    Court says look at reasonableness and if officers did not know 2 separate apartments, then its ok
    
    • 
      Sounds weird that police didn’t know that but not enough for suppression
      

• 
  Officers made a mistake but deemed reasonable mistake—reasonableness is the test; look at totality of circumstances
  

• 
  Bailey v. United States
  
  • 
    Bailey left the house as search warrant was being executed and police chased him in the car
    
  • 
    Majority held that Summers and its rationale permit only detention of occupants encountered in the immediate vicinity of the premises
    
    • 
      With regard to meaning of “immediate vicinity”, the court stated:
      
      • 
        “Bailey was detained at a point beyond any reasonable understanding of the immediate vicinity of the premises in question and so this case presents neither the necessity nor the occasion to further define the meaning of immediate vicinity. In closer cases courts can consider a number of factors to determine whether an occupant was detained within the immediate vicinity of the premises searched, including the lawful limits of the premises, whether the occupant was within the line of sight of his dwelling, the ease of reentry from the occupant’s location and other relevant factors”
        
  • 
    He was away from the house and thus no longer associated with it and could not be detained by officers
    
• 
  Ybarra v. Illinois
  
  • 
    Search warrant executed on a bar where Ybarra was present and had cocaine on his person
    
  • 
    Officers detained him and searched him twice but were not allowed to do this as warrant did not say search any persons on site
    

• 
  Seizures and 4^th amendment—is this person objectively/reasonably not free to leave/go on their way?
  
• 
  Factors court consider when looking at seizure vs. temporary stop:
  
  • 
    Language used by police—order vs. ask questions
    
  • 
    Tone of voice
    
  • 
    Physical movement of detainee—where moved to?
    
  • 
    Length of time of detention—3 hours vs. 20 min
    
• 
  A seizure occurs where the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave
  

• 
  Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
  
  • 
    Atwater sued city after being arrested for not having her child wear a seatbelt
    
  • 
    Claims officer violated the 4^th amendment when he arrested her for a misdemeanor
    
    • 
      A minor offense criminal offense committed in front of officer warrants arrest
      

• 
  While officer in this case may have lacked good judgment, not unreasonable
  
  • 
    History of allowing arrests for misdemeanor—better solution is to go to the legislation
    

• 
  California v. Hodari D. asked whether at the time he dropped the drugs, Hodari had been seized within the meaning of the 4^th amendment?
  

• 
  Supreme Court holds not seized just because police were in pursuit of him
  

• 
  Chimel v. California
  
  • 
    Chimel was seized because arrested in living room—officers had arrest warrant
    
  • 
    Officers searched entire house without search warrant
    
  • 
    Government claims this is a search incident to lawful arrest and thus exception to search warrant requirement
    
  • 
    Arrest warrant allows police to enter home when they reasonably suspect the person to be in their own home and/or if they have consent
    
  • 
    Can only search areas within reasonable reach of defendant—that is the doctrine of search incident to lawful arrest; thus officers could not search entire house
    

• 
  New York v. Belton
  
  • 
    Car of 4 kids pulled over by officer for speeding—lawful seizure
    
  • 
    Officer has plain smell observation of marijuana and plain view of rolling papers on floor—now officer has probable cause to arrest the kids
    
  • 
    After arrest, officer searches the car
    
  • 
    Goes to Supreme Court because officer searched pocket of jacket found in car
    
    • 
      Court says can search interior compartment of car—takes Chimel one step further
      
• 
  Arizona v. Gant
  
  • 
    One justification for search incident is if the person is not handcuffed and locked up
    
  • 
    Second justification for search incident if officers reasonably looking for evidence of the crime for which the individual is arrested for
    

• 
  Maryland v. King
  
  • 
    Maryland has law that anyone arrested for a felony is allowed to have a DNA test done on him/her pursuant to court order
    
  • 
    King claims police lacked probable cause
    
  • 
    Court upholds it (5-4 decision) because court says DNA is for identity
    
    • 
      Thus no warrant needed and no probable cause issue
      
  • 
    General law enforcement purposes is not a valid justification for a search under 4^th amendment without probable cause
    

• 
  Riley v. California
  
  • 
    Resolves issue of when police seize individual with cell phone or technology what can they do
    
  • 
    Cannot go through phone log/phone calls/text messages
    
  • 
    Can open the phone
    
  • 
    Government argues that information on phone can be wiped clean thus emergency
    
  • 
    No emergency found here by court—thus need a warrant to get into phone even if search incident to lawful arrest
    

Field Detentions for Investigation and Related Searches

• 
  Investigatory stops are seizures of suspects for purposes of questioning or other investigation
  
• 
  Frisks are searches to locate weapons to prevent suspects from harming investigating officers
  
• 
  No 4^th amendment requirement to identify yourself to police
  
• 
  Any time police move suspect creates risk because could turn an investigatory stop into a detention
  
  • 
    Movement alone cannot amount to an arrest
    

• 
  Defined as a seizure/detention
  
• 
  Reasonable suspicion needed—not probable cause; lower standard
  
• 
  Need to ask what type of seizure—arrest or temporary detention?
  
• 
  Reduction in amount of evidence needed by law enforcement to justify the stop
  
• 
  Time for detention must be less than arrest (Terry stop is limited)
  
• 
  Elements:
  
  • 
    Time
    
  • 
    Movement of suspect (physically moving is for arrest)
    
  • 
    Touching of suspect (touching comes with arrest generally)
    
  • 
    Language used
    
  • 
    Weapons
    
  • 
    Number of police/location
    

• 
  Cannot frisk person that has been stopped unless independently justified—presently armed and dangerous
  
• 
  2 part analysis: 1. Was the seizure lawful? 2. If a frisk, was it independently justified?
  
• 
  Pat frisk of outer clothing for weapons ONLY—not for evidence
  
• 
  Future offenses raise danger regarding reasonable suspicion
  
  • 
    Because offense did not occur seems wrong to detain someone
    
  • 
    Can detain someone for a crime that is about to take place or that did just take place
    

• 
  Minor crimes may not warrant a temporary detention
  
  • 
    Tennessee v. Garner
    
    • 
      Garner is a juvenile who broke into a home then fled; officer shoots him in back of head and kills him
      
    • 
      14^th amendment violation—shooting unarmed kid shocks the conscience of the public
      
    • 
      4^th amendment violation—unreasonable seizure
      
      • 
        done justifiably—the statute protecting public and stop fleeing felon
        

• 
  balancing test to determine reasonableness—states’ interest vs. the right of privacy/intrusion
  
• 
  reasonable seizure at common law in Tenn—Supreme Court changes this
  
• 
  reasonable suspicion of escapee having weapon/being dangerous—not the case here
  

• 
  Scott v. Harris
  
  • 
    Unreasonable seizure to ram car off road which resulted in quadriplegia
    
  • 
    Is it unreasonable?—no. in this case was necessary to stop him; driving like a maniac; concern for public safety; contributed to it
    
  • 
    Decided on summary judgment—officer justified in ramming him off road; video clearly shows driving recklessly and needed to be stopped
    

• 
  Florida v. Royer
  
  • 
    **Good example of hypothetical for exam**
    
  • 
    not every encounter between citizen and police is a seizure
    
  • 
    when officers keep his ticket and ID as well as tell Royer who they are, it becomes a seizure
    
  • 
    temporary detention though at this point but eventually goes too far
    
• 
  Davis v. Mississippi
  
  • 
    Dicta that has been affirmed in Hayes v. Florida
    
  • 
    Detention for fingerprinting might be permissible
    
  • 
    No case says what length is too much
    
  • 
    30-40 minutes generally on the outer limits of a detention
    
  • 
    however if defendant adds to length of detention, then may not be an arrest/detention
    
  • 
    items may be held for a brief period of time based on reasonable articulable facts
    
• 
  Alabama v. White
  
  • 
    Reasonable suspicion less than probable cause but more than mere suspicion
    
  • 
    Definition of reasonable suspicion
    
    • 
      “reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause. Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. Both factors, quantity and quality, are considered in the totality of circumstances, the whole picture that must be taken into account when evaluating whether there is reasonable suspicion”
      
  • 
    Anonymous informant provides information to police
    
  • 
    Not enough to arrest but enough to investigate—insider’s information
    
• 
  Illinois v. Wardlow
  
  • 
    Running from police in a high crime area is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct
    
  • 
    Reasonable inference that those involved in narcotics are armed with guns
    
  • 
    Armed and presently dangerous justifies pat frisk
    
• 
  Hiibel Case
  
  • 
    2 state statutes in Nevada=1. Provide identification (at least a name) 2. Crime to obstruct officer in his/her duties
    
  • 
    arrested for failing to provide identification
    
  • 
    upheld state statute as constitutional that requires identification to police
    
  • 
    when is he seized?= blue lights on, cruiser parked behind truck, officer got out of car and approached Mr. Hiibel
    
  • 
    close call of when it becomes a seizure—becomes a seizure for sure when officer says “report of fight, come over here with me” because reasonable person would not feel free to leave
    
  • 
    turns into arrest when Hiibel doesn’t provide officer with identification and officer tells him he is under arrest
    
  • 
    to ask an individual to identify themselves when all a person has is reasonable suspicion of a crime is unreasonable—argument for Hiibel
    
  • 
    Terry stop not unreasonable if required to provide name pursuant to state statute
    
• 
  Minnesota v. Dickerson
  
  • 
    Temporary detention/seizure and investigation of Dickerson based on his evasive actions from a crack house
    
  • 
    Not arrested right away but reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate
    
  • 
    Pat frisk for weapons only
    
  • 
    Plain feel is part of plain view
    
• 
  Pennsylvania v. Mimms
  
  • 
    Can order a person out of a car for minor traffic violation
    
  • 
    Minimal invasion of privacy since already detained justifiably
    
  • 
    Weighed against concern for officer safety
    
  • 
    Passengers can be ordered out of car too
    
• 
  Florida v. J.L.
  
  • 
    Stop and frisk of JL after anonymous caller said young black guy at bus stop has gun
    
  • 
    Still need some evidence of criminal conduct besides the caller—thus stop and frisk unlawful
    

• 
  
  Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2017
  2017 -> Leadership ohio
  2017 -> Ascension Lutheran Church Counter’s Schedule January to December 2017
  2017 -> Board of directors juanita Gibbons-Delaney, mha, rn president 390 Stone Castle Pass Atlanta, ga 30331
  2017 -> Military History Anniversaries 16 thru 31 January Events in History over the next 15 day period that had U. S. military involvement or impacted in some way on U. S military operations or American interests
  2017 -> The Or Shalom Cemetery Community Teaching on related issues of Integral
  2017 -> Ford onthult samenwerking met Amazon Alexa en introduceert nieuwe navigatiemogelijkheden van Ford sync® 3 met Applink
  2017 -> Start Learn and Increase gk. Question (1) Name the term used for talking on internet with the help of text messege?
  2017 -> Press release from 24. 03. 2017 From a Charleston Car to a Mafia Sedan
  2017 -> Tage Participants
  2017 -> Citi Chicago Debate Championship Varsity and jv previews
  
  
  
  Download 259.58 Kb.
  
  Share with your friends: