Term
| Give a brief summary of Draper v. U.S. |
|
Definition
| Probable cause was upheld after police corroborated every bit of information given by a reliable informant except actual possession of drugs. Informant stated defendant would arrive by train on one of two days. |
|
|
Term
| Draper v. U.S. involves what issue? |
|
Definition
| Establishment of probable cause. |
|
|
Term
| Give a brief summary of Whren v. United States. |
|
Definition
| Officer in unmarked car, in "high crime area", witnessed the driver of a truck commit minor traffic offenses. The officer stopped the truck and while approching the vehicle observed two large plastic bags of crack cocaine in the defendant's hands. The defendent was arrested and charged with violation of federal drug laws. The Supreme Court said the stop was lawful. |
|
|
Term
| Whren v. United States involves what issue? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| State v. Smith involves what issue? |
|
Definition
| Conclusory statements do not justify probable cause to issue a search warrant |
|
|
Term
| Give a brief summary of State v. Smith. |
|
Definition
| The Court held that mere conclusory statements which give the magistrate no basis to make a judgement regarding probable cause are insufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant. |
|
|
Term
| Illinois v. Gates led the Court to develop what new test? |
|
Definition
| Totality of Circumstances |
|
|
Term
| State v. Driggers involves what issue? |
|
Definition
| Using information from an Identifiable Source to establish probable cause for a search warrant |
|
|
Term
| Mapp v. Ohio involves what issue? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What case led the Court to expand the exclusionary rule to "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution" regardless of whether by state or federal officers? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What case led the Court to expand the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence which was obtained by state officers but was given to federal officers who intend to use it? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Give a brief summary of Arizona v. Evans. |
|
Definition
| Evans was arrested following a routine traffic stop when it was discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. A search of the vehicle revealed a bag of marijuana and he was charged with possession. At trial he tried to suppress the marijuana as fruit of an unlawful arrest, however the Court ruled the officer was acting objectively reasonably when he relied on the computer record. |
|
|
Term
| What is the legal principle derived from Michigan v. Long? |
|
Definition
| If while conducting a lawful frisk for weapons an officer inadvertently discovers other incriminating evidence the officer may seize the evidence as long as a showing can be made that the belief that a weapon was concealed on the detainee was justified |
|
|
Term
| What is the legal principle derived from Terry v. Ohio? |
|
Definition
| A stop and frisk of an outer garment of a suspect to check for concealed weapons is justifiable when the officer has specific articulable facts that warrant the suspicion of criminal conduct |
|
|
Term
| What is the legal principle derived from Florida v. Royer? |
|
Definition
| Moving a detained person should be avoided unless there is a very good reason to do so |
|
|
Term
| What is the legal principle derived from State v. Rodriquez? |
|
Definition
| In assessing whether an investigative detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether police diligently pursued an alternate means of investigation that would likely confirm or dispel suspicion quickly |
|
|
Term
| What is the legal principle derived from Dunaway v. New York? |
|
Definition
| Transporting a suspect to the police department for questioning will probably transform an investigative detention into a full custody arrest unless the suspect is advised that he/she is not under arrest and is free to go at any time |
|
|
Term
| What is significant about Graham v. Connor? |
|
Definition
| It made it clear that the standard for an officer's use of force upon a "seized free citizen" was whether the officer's force was "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment |
|
|
Term
| What is significant about Tennesse v. Garner? |
|
Definition
| As a result, officers have specific justifications in which officers can use deadly force |
|
|
Term
| The case of Kent v. United States embodies what legal principle? |
|
Definition
| A juvenile has the right to a hearing in family court before their case is transferred to general sessions court |
|
|
Term
| The case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania embodies what legal principle? |
|
Definition
| Trial by jury for juveniles is not constitutionally required by law |
|
|
Term
| The case of In Re Winship embodies what legal principle? |
|
Definition
| In juvenile cases the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" |
|
|
Term
| The case of West v. United States embodies what legal principle? |
|
Definition
| Established the standard to determine whether a juvenile gave a valid waiver of their Miranda Rights |
|
|
Term
| The case of In Re Gault embodies what legal principle? |
|
Definition
| Juveniles have Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment protection same as adults |
|
|
