Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Criminal Justice
Test 2 court cases
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 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
Popular Criminal Justice sets