Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Criminal Justice

Test 2 court cases

QuestionAnswer
Spinelli v US 1969 Probable cause not be based solely on hearsay info
Illinois v Gates 1969 "totality of circumstances", no longer use Agular and Spinelli 2 prong test. Judge could now make practicle decisions based on all circumstances, if there is fair probability that evidence is found good.
Kentucky v King 2011 Police can enter someones home without a warrant. Must knock, ID as police, believe evidence is being destroyed. This is surprising because they were following an unrelated suspect but smelled marijuana from King home. Arrested 3 people
Terry v Ohio 1968 Police officers not entitled to stop and search every person on the street/ everyone they want to talk to.
California v Hodari D 2 police were patrol high crime area. youth fled. police had not seen anything illegal but they knew drugs were common in area. police saw Hodari throw something as he ran. police tackled Hodari and obtained thrown item (crack cocaine). Hodari appeal
Outcome of California v Hodari D sided with police, tackle was sort of force, seizure when officer attacked Hodari, discarded item gave probable cause
Minnesota v Dickerson 1993 Officer did pat down of Dickerson, no weapon but did find a small lump in pocket and was cocaine. Dickerson arrested for possession. arrest did not hold because officer admitted he didn't immediately recognize is as cocaine. cocaine suppressed.
Illinois v Wardlow 2000 Police in increase drug sale neighborhood. when police approach wardlow ran down ally. during pat down found gun. conviction challenged. court said police have reason for suspicion when someone runs away from them in a particularly increase crime area.
Carrol v US 1925 During prohibition. Carroll convicted for transport of liquor that was taken from his car without warrant. appealed, court sustained conviction
Husty v US 1931 court upheld search of parked car because police didnt know when it would be moved
Chambers v Maroney 1970 Warrentless search of vehicle at police station after arrest
NY v Belton 1981 scope of vehicle search incident to arrest. after custodial arrest police may search entire passenger compartment and any containers may be opened to search
California v Acevedo 1991 court ruled police could open and unopened container to search within a car without a warrant if probable cause to believe the container contains contraband/evidence
Knowles v Iowa 1998 a speeding ticket does not give police authority to search car
Arizona v Gant 2009 police officer must demonstrate actual+continuing threat from arrastee or need to preserve evidence related to the crime in order to conduct warrantless vehicle search incident to arrest. once vehicle occupants arrested and secured must justify search.
Delaware v Prouse 1976 against random spot checks. officer stopped Prouse who had no violations. officer was not acting with procedures, officer approached car and smelled marijuana+saw it on floor. arrested and indicted. SC said stop was "wholly capricious" +violate 4thA
What did the SC say b/c of Delaware v Prouse court upheld states right to use sobriety check point and roadblock
Indinapolies v Edmond 2000 court ruled against the use of road block to look for drugs. cant use to look for general criminal activity. different than sobriety check points b/c drunk drivers immediate danger. diff than illegal alien check point b/c protect borders
Illinois v Lidster 2004 court allowed use of road blocks as investigative tool to find witnesses against recent crimes
Burdeau v McDowell 1921 court said 4thA does not protect against private individuals not acting in conjuction with law enforcement ex: if dry cleaner finds drugs in pocket it can be used as evidence
US v Martinez-Fuerte 1976 court said border patrol agents do not need probable cause on warrant to stop and briefly question authorized check points.
Illinois v Lafayette 1983 court upheld inventory search of arrastees shoulder bad. found illegal drugs.court pointed out that searches protect suspects property, against false theft claims therefore do not require probable cause/ warrant as long as they are part of regular/routine
Hester v US 1924 court ruled police officer can enter and search a field w/o warrant
Oliver v US and Maine v Thorton 1984 Fences and no tree passing signs provide no reasonable expectation of privacy to owners of properties large enough to include areas that extend beyond curtilage
Harris v US 1968 Harris' car seen leaving robbery. car impounded as evidence.arrasting officer inventoried car. started to rain and officer rolled up passenger window. officer sees registration card to robbery victim. registration admissible as evidence
Weeks v US 1914 court prohibits use of evidence obtained by federal agents if they violated the 4th A
Mapp v Ohio 1961 extended exclusionary rule to states. court said 4th A incorporated by inference in due process clause of 14thA
Escobedo v Illinois 1964 court said questioning becomes accusatory the accused as the right to an attorney present
Miranda v Arizona 1966 court specified in detail that the accused must be informed of their rights before questioning
Created by: ejohnson17