Case Laws

Pennsylvania V. Mimms

(ordering driver out of vehicle)

(searching person if bulge consistent to a concealed weapon is seen or if officer reasonably suspect a threat to their safety)

Maryland V. Wilson

(ordering passengers out of vehicle)

Brendlin V. California

(during a traffic stop, a police officer effectively seizes everyone in the vehicle)

Arizona V. Gant

(search of vehicle needs to be accessed if it is lawful when a suspect is arrested for something unrelated)

(if vehicle is lawfully being towed, inventory can be conducted)

Arizona V. Johnson

(questions unrelated to the traffic stop do not change the nature of the detention)

(if the factors of terry frisk can be articulated, officer can pat down driver and/or passengers)

Rawlings V. Kentucky

(although the formal arrest did not yet occur the existence of probable cause was enough to justify the search, so long as the formal arrest soon followed)

Mapp V. Ohio

(“Exclusionary Rule”, allows courts to exclude evidence if it was obtained in violation to the constitution aka evidence from unconstitutional searches and seizures)

US V. Young

Can an individual give consent to search a vehicle while under arrest?

(as long as the consent is free and voluntary)

Factors of valid consent:

• age

• intelligence

• education

• does the individual understand their rights?

• length and circumstances surrounding detention

• use of coercive or punishing conduct by the police

Wyoming V. Houghton

(during a traffic stop, if the officer has probable cause they can legally search any container that may contain the object of the search, this includes containers belonging to someone other than the driver)

Miranda V. Arizona

(Requires police to explain fifth amendment rights prior to interrogation)

Terry V. Ohio

“Stop and Frisk”

(police may briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity)

1. Terry Frisk are for weapons not drugs

2. Be able to articulate that it is a lawful stop and that you believe the suspect to be armed and dangerous

Minnesota V. Dickerson

(During a terry stop, in a pat down criminal evidence must be obvious or “immediately apparent” to be evidence of a crime)

Florida V. J.L.

(anonymous tip about a person carrying a gun is not enough for a stop and frisk)

(reliability in a tip is necessary to justify a stop and frisk)

Chimel V. California

(search when conducting an arrest is limited to the area within immediate control of the suspect)

(arrest warrant is not a search warrant, this case emphasizes the use of warrants)

Illinois V. Wardlow

(nervous evasive behavior is a perdanent factor in determining reasonable suspicion)

Florida V. Bostick

(consensual encounters do not automatically trigger the 4th ammendment)

(keep in mind, in a consensual encounter, considering all circumstances, would a reasonable person feel free to deny officer requests or terminate the encounter)

Tennessee V. Garner

(officers cannot use deadly force on a fleeing suspect unless the officers have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others)

Graham V. Connor

“Use of Force”

(all uses of force will be held to an objective reasonableness standard; severity can vary on each of the three prongs)

Standard:

1. Severity of the crime

2. Whether the suspect resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest

3. Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or the public

State V. Carrasco

(any person qualified to draw blood can do so)

Maryland v Pringle

Michigan v Long

Navarette v California