Criminal Procedure: Exam 2

What are the requirements for a valid search warrant?

Neutral and detached official, sworn affidavit, probable cause (anticipatory warrants allowed), reasonable particularity of place and items, not stale; daytime execution absent reasonable cause.

Who must issue a search warrant?

A neutral and detached official.

What must support a search warrant?

A sworn affidavit and probable cause.

Are anticipatory search warrants allowed?

Yes. Anticipatory warrants are allowed.

What must a search warrant describe with reasonable particularity?

The place to be searched and the items to be seized.

Can a search warrant be based on stale information?

No. The information must not be stale.

When must search warrants generally be executed?

During the daytime, absent reasonable cause.

What happened in Wilson v. Arkansas?

Police entered Wilson's home to execute a warrant without first knocking and announcing their presence.

What did Wilson v. Arkansas establish?

Knock and announce is part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.

What three exceptions to knock and announce were identified in Wilson v. Arkansas?

Threat of violence, prison escape, and destruction of evidence.

What happened in Richards v. Wisconsin?

Police investigating drugs entered a hotel room without announcing after Richards opened the door and then slammed it shut.

What did Richards v. Wisconsin establish?

No blanket exception for drug cases; police need reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous, futile, or inhibit the investigation.

What level of suspicion is required for a no-knock entry under Richards?

Reasonable suspicion.

What three circumstances can justify not knocking and announcing under Richards?

Dangerous, futile, or inhibit the investigation.

What happened in U.S. v. Banks?

Police knocked and announced while Banks was showering, waited approximately 15-20 seconds, and entered by force.

What did U.S. v. Banks establish about wait time?

Wait time is measured by how long it takes to destroy evidence, not how long it takes to get to the door; totality of the circumstances.

What standard is used to evaluate the waiting period under Banks?

Totality of the circumstances.

What happened in Carroll v. Carman?

Police approached a sliding glass door rather than the front door while attempting a knock and talk.

What did Carroll v. Carman establish?

Knock and talk at an accessible front door; qualified immunity because no clearly established law.

Why did the officers receive qualified immunity in Carroll v. Carman?

No clearly established law.

What happened in Bailey v. U.S.?

Police followed and detained Bailey after he had left the property where officers were executing a search warrant.

What did Bailey v. U.S. establish?

Detention incident to a search warrant is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises.

What are the three justifications for detaining individuals during a search warrant?

Threat to officers, facilitating the search, and preventing flight.

What contemporary case does the chart identify as raising issues involving no-knock executions?

The Breonna Taylor case.

What three concerns are behind the knock-and-announce rule?

Violence, privacy, and property destruction.

What happened in Chimel v. California?

Police arrested Chimel inside his home and searched the entire house without a separate search warrant.

What did Chimel v. California establish?

Search incident to arrest limited to the person and the area within immediate control (grab area); justified by officer safety and evidence preservation.

What is the grab area under Chimel?

The area within immediate control.

What two justifications support the Chimel rule?

Officer safety and evidence preservation.

What happened in Riley v. California?

Police searched digital information on Riley's cell phone after arresting him.

What did Riley v. California establish?

Police generally need a warrant to search a cell phone seized from an arrestee; storage capacity and pervasiveness of phones outweigh weak safety and evidence rationales; exigency remains available.

What two characteristics of cell phones were important in Riley?

Storage capacity and pervasiveness.

What exception remains available for cell phone searches under Riley?

Exigency.

What happened in Birchfield v. North Dakota?

The case involved the legality of warrantless breath testing following DUI arrests.

What did Birchfield v. North Dakota establish?

Breath tests incident to a DUI arrest are allowed (reduced expectation of privacy, minimal intrusion).

What two reasons justify breath tests under Birchfield?

Reduced expectation of privacy and minimal intrusion.

What happened in Rawlings v. Kentucky regarding a search incident to arrest?

Police searched Rawlings immediately before formally arresting him.

What did Rawlings v. Kentucky establish about search timing?

Search may come immediately before, at the same time as, or after a formal arrest if probable cause to arrest already existed.

What must exist before a search preceding formal arrest under Rawlings?

Probable cause to arrest already existed.

What happened in Preston v. U.S.?

Vagrancy arrest; car search after the arrestee was removed.

Why was the search invalid in Preston v. U.S.?

Too remote in time and place, with no danger or risk of destruction.

What two risks were absent in Preston?

Danger and risk of destruction.

What happened in U.S. v. Edwards?

Paint chips taken from clothing the next morning.

Why was the search permissible in U.S. v. Edwards?

Exception had not expired because of custody and practical delay.

What two circumstances justified the delayed search in Edwards?

Custody and practical delay.

What happened in U.S. v. Chadwick?

A footlocker came under full and exclusive police control.

What did U.S. v. Chadwick establish?

Footlocker under full and exclusive police control cannot be searched incident to arrest.

What happened in New York v. Belton?

An officer arrested vehicle occupants after discovering marijuana and searched the passenger compartment.

What bright-line rule did New York v. Belton establish?

Entire passenger compartment and containers in it, as within the arrestee's immediate control.

What parts of a vehicle were included under Belton?

The entire passenger compartment and containers in it.

What happened in Thornton v. U.S.?

Thornton exited his vehicle before police contacted and arrested him.

What did Thornton v. U.S. establish?

Belton extends to recent occupants of a vehicle.

What happened in Arizona v. Gant?

Details not provided in the input.

What did Arizona v. Gant establish?

Vehicle search incident to arrest only if the arrestee can reach the car (safety) or it is reasonable to believe evidence of the offense of arrest is inside.

What is the safety justification for a vehicle search under Gant?

The arrestee can reach the car.

What is the evidence justification for a vehicle search under Gant?

It is reasonable to believe evidence of the offense of arrest is inside.

What are the three rationales for searches incident to arrest?

Officer safety, preventing resistance, and preserving evidence.

What happened in U.S. v. Robinson?

Police arrested Robinson for driving with a revoked license and found heroin in a cigarette package during a search of his person.

What did U.S. v. Robinson establish?

Custodial arrest permits a full search of the person; bright line rule with no case by case showing of fear; containers on the person included.

Do police need a case-by-case showing of fear to search the person following a custodial arrest?

No.

Can containers on the arrested person be searched under Robinson?

Yes.

What happened in Gustafson v. Florida?

Following a traffic arrest, an officer searched Gustafson and discovered marijuana cigarettes.

What did Gustafson v. Florida establish?

Same rule applies even without a department policy requiring the search.

What happened in Knowles v. Iowa?

Speeding citation; no custodial arrest.

What did Knowles v. Iowa establish?

No search incident to a routine traffic citation because the rationales are reduced.

What happened in Whren v. U.S.?

Officers stopped a vehicle for traffic violations while investigating suspected drug activity.

What did Whren v. U.S. establish?

Pretext stops are valid if probable cause of a traffic violation exists; officer's subjective intent is irrelevant; remedy lies in the Equal Protection Clause.

Does an officer's subjective intent affect the validity of a traffic stop supported by probable cause?

No. Officer's subjective intent is irrelevant.

What constitutional clause provides a remedy for discriminatory enforcement under Whren?

The Equal Protection Clause.

What is a pretext arrest?

Arresting a driver on probable cause to gain a chance to search.

What happened in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte?

Police stopped a vehicle and obtained permission from a passenger to search it without informing him of his right to refuse.

What did Schneckloth v. Bustamonte establish?

Consent must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; knowledge of the right to refuse is a factor but not required.

What four factors are identified in Schneckloth for evaluating consent?

Youth, length of detention, nature of questioning, and experience.

Is knowledge of the right to refuse consent required?

No.

Who bears the burden of proving consent was voluntary?

The state.

What standard of proof applies to voluntary consent?

A preponderance.

What grounds for invalid consent are listed in the chart?

Not unequivocal and specific, mental disability, threats to obtain a warrant, false claim of a warrant, coercion, trickery.

What must consent be regarding its clarity?

Unequivocal and specific.

What personal condition is identified as a possible ground for invalid consent?

Mental disability.

What two warrant-related actions are identified as grounds for invalid consent?

Threats to obtain a warrant and a false claim of a warrant.

What two additional forms of police conduct are listed as possible grounds for invalid consent?

Coercion and trickery.

What types of searches were involved in U.S. v. Lattimore and U.S. v. Fuentes?

Car search; airport search.

What rule did U.S. v. Lattimore and U.S. v. Fuentes establish?

Withdrawal of consent requires a clear act or unambiguous statement.

What happened in Illinois v. Rodriguez?

A woman gave police permission to search an apartment, although her actual authority to consent was disputed.

What did Illinois v. Rodriguez establish?

Apparent authority: consent from a third party is valid if facts available would lead a reasonable person to believe she had common authority, even if she did not.

Can third-party consent be valid without actual common authority?

Yes, if facts available would lead a reasonable person to believe she had common authority.

What happened in Fernandez v. California?

The objecting occupant was lawfully removed (arrested), and another occupant consented.

What did Fernandez v. California establish?

Consent of co-occupant valid after the objecting occupant was lawfully removed (arrested), absent pretext.

What limitation applies to the removal of an objecting occupant?

Absent pretext.

What is the relationship between deception and coercion?

Deception differs from coercion.

What two forms can consent take?

Express or implied.

What happened in Carroll v. U.S.?

Federal officers suspected that a vehicle was transporting illegal liquor and searched it without a warrant.

What did Carroll v. U.S. establish?

Automobile exception: probable cause allows a warrantless vehicle search because of mobility.

What is required to search a vehicle under the automobile exception?

Probable cause.

What happened in Chambers v. Maroney?

Officers seized a vehicle during a robbery investigation and searched it after taking it to the police station.

What did Chambers v. Maroney establish?

Exception extends to searching the car later at the station.

What happened in California v. Carney?

A mobile home that was readily mobile and in a public place was searched.

What did California v. Carney establish?

Mobile home that is readily mobile and in a public place falls within the exception; reduced expectation of privacy.

What circumstances make the automobile exception applicable to a mobile home?

Readily mobile and in a public place.

What happened in Wyoming v. Houghton?

The case involved a syringe and a passenger's purse.