44thth Amendment Cases Amendment Cases

Terry v. OhioTerry v. Ohio Undercover officer stopped two men after Undercover officer stopped two men after

they had carefully looked in store windows they had carefully looked in store windows several times. A third man joined the several times. A third man joined the routine. The officer stopped and frisked routine. The officer stopped and frisked them and found guns on two of the threethem and found guns on two of the three

Issue: Can the police stop a person on less Issue: Can the police stop a person on less than probable cause and do the police than probable cause and do the police have a right to frisk? have a right to frisk?

Ruling: Police have the right to stop a Ruling: Police have the right to stop a person with reasonable suspicion. They person with reasonable suspicion. They also have the right to frisk when they may also have the right to frisk when they may fear for their own safetyfear for their own safety

Sibron v. New York 1968Sibron v. New York 1968

An officer saw a man speak to several An officer saw a man speak to several know drug addicts in two locations. The know drug addicts in two locations. The officer did not hear any of the officer did not hear any of the conversations. At one point the officer conversations. At one point the officer approached the man slid his hand in his approached the man slid his hand in his pocket and pulled out cocaine.pocket and pulled out cocaine.

Issue: Did the officer have the right to stop Issue: Did the officer have the right to stop and search the man? and search the man?

Ruling: No probable cause or reasonable Ruling: No probable cause or reasonable suspicion. All the man had done was talk suspicion. All the man had done was talk to peopleto people

Map v. Ohio 1961Map v. Ohio 1961

Police went to a home searching for Police went to a home searching for bombing and illegal lottery equipment. The bombing and illegal lottery equipment. The woman called her lawyer and declined to let woman called her lawyer and declined to let the police search. They searched anyway the police search. They searched anyway and found obscene materials. The woman and found obscene materials. The woman was arrested for breaking a state statute on was arrested for breaking a state statute on obscenityobscenity

Issue: Could the police enter without a Issue: Could the police enter without a warrant? Can the evidence be used in court? warrant? Can the evidence be used in court?

Ruling: No and NoRuling: No and No

Katz v. U.S. 1967Katz v. U.S. 1967

FBI suspected that a man was FBI suspected that a man was placing bets illegally over the phone. placing bets illegally over the phone. They “bugged” the phone booth. The They “bugged” the phone booth. The man was arrested and prosecuted for man was arrested and prosecuted for illegal betting. illegal betting.

Issue: Was the 4Issue: Was the 4thth amendment amendment violated when the police violated when the police eavesdropped without a warrant? eavesdropped without a warrant?

Ruling: Must have a warrantRuling: Must have a warrant

Carroll v. U.S. 1925Carroll v. U.S. 1925 Police went to an apartment to attempt to Police went to an apartment to attempt to

purchase liquor. At the time it was illegal to sell purchase liquor. At the time it was illegal to sell liquor. The men agreed to sell three cases of liquor. The men agreed to sell three cases of whiskey. The men left the apartment agreeing to whiskey. The men left the apartment agreeing to return later with the “goods”. Days later the return later with the “goods”. Days later the police saw two men in the same car. Police police saw two men in the same car. Police believe that the men were transporting liquor and believe that the men were transporting liquor and stopped and searched it. Liquor was foundstopped and searched it. Liquor was found

Issue: Did the police have probable cause? Could Issue: Did the police have probable cause? Could the police search the car without a warrant? the police search the car without a warrant?

Ruling: Police had probable cause to stop them Ruling: Police had probable cause to stop them due to the undercover operation. Car search was due to the undercover operation. Car search was proper. proper.

California v. Greenwood 1988California v. Greenwood 1988

Police investigated a report that someone Police investigated a report that someone was dealing drugs. They instructed the was dealing drugs. They instructed the garbage man to bring them his garbage. garbage man to bring them his garbage. They found drug paraphernalia in the They found drug paraphernalia in the garbage. Based on this they got a search garbage. Based on this they got a search warrant to search the house and found warrant to search the house and found cocaine and hash. cocaine and hash.

Issue: Can the police search garbage? Issue: Can the police search garbage? Ruling: Garbage is abandoned property Ruling: Garbage is abandoned property

and can be searchedand can be searched

Cupp v. MurphyCupp v. Murphy

Mr. Murphy’s wife was killed by Mr. Murphy’s wife was killed by strangulation. Mr. Murphy was a strangulation. Mr. Murphy was a suspect. He voluntarily went to the suspect. He voluntarily went to the police station for questioning. When police station for questioning. When there, police noticed a dark spot on there, police noticed a dark spot on his fingernail and asked to scrape his fingernail and asked to scrape under his nail. He refused and the under his nail. He refused and the police forcefully took the sample. police forcefully took the sample.

Issue: Was the search lawful?Issue: Was the search lawful? Ruling: Exigent circumstancesRuling: Exigent circumstances

U.S. vs. Mendenhall 1980U.S. vs. Mendenhall 1980

Two DEA agents stopped Mendenhall Two DEA agents stopped Mendenhall in an airport because her behavior fit in an airport because her behavior fit that of a drug courier. She was the that of a drug courier. She was the last person off the plane and looked last person off the plane and looked very nervous. She did not claim any very nervous. She did not claim any baggage. DEA identified themselves baggage. DEA identified themselves and asked to search her. She replied and asked to search her. She replied “Go Ahead”“Go Ahead”

Issue: Was the search permissable? Issue: Was the search permissable? Ruling: ConsentRuling: Consent

Warden, Maryland Penitentiary V. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary V. Hayden 1967Hayden 1967

Man robbed a bank at gun point and Man robbed a bank at gun point and fled. Police followed him as he fled. Police followed him as he entered a house. Police entered entered a house. Police entered without a warrant and found him and without a warrant and found him and the money in a bedroom.the money in a bedroom.

Issue: Was the entry and search Issue: Was the entry and search allowed? allowed?

Ruling: Hot pursuitRuling: Hot pursuit

Pennsylvania v Mimms 1977Pennsylvania v Mimms 1977

Police stopped a car with expired Police stopped a car with expired tags. The driver was ordered to get tags. The driver was ordered to get out of the car. Officers notice out of the car. Officers notice something in the pocket of his jacket something in the pocket of his jacket and frisked him. They found a loaded and frisked him. They found a loaded revolverrevolver

Issue: Was the frisk legal?Issue: Was the frisk legal? Ruling: Stop and Frisk was legal, Ruling: Stop and Frisk was legal,

officer feared for his safetyofficer feared for his safety

New Jersey v. T.L.O. 1985New Jersey v. T.L.O. 1985

Two girls were caught smoking in the Two girls were caught smoking in the restroom. Both were taken to the office, restroom. Both were taken to the office, one admitted it the other did not. Principal one admitted it the other did not. Principal demanded to see the purse of the girl who demanded to see the purse of the girl who denied. During a search he found rolling denied. During a search he found rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic papers, marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, money, and an index card indicating bags, money, and an index card indicating who owed T.L.O. moneywho owed T.L.O. money

Issue: Was search legal? Issue: Was search legal? Ruling: No warrant was necessary, no Ruling: No warrant was necessary, no

probable cause standard was necessaryprobable cause standard was necessary

Mincey v. Arizona 1978Mincey v. Arizona 1978 Undercover officer went to an apartment and Undercover officer went to an apartment and

arranged to purchase heroin. He left the arranged to purchase heroin. He left the apartment the “get the money” and returned with apartment the “get the money” and returned with 9 other officers. A man opened the door and tried 9 other officers. A man opened the door and tried to close it right away the undercover officer to close it right away the undercover officer pushed past him and entered the bedroom. The pushed past him and entered the bedroom. The undercover officer was shot and killed. For four undercover officer was shot and killed. For four days officers searched the apartment without a days officers searched the apartment without a warrant. Hundreds of items were seized.warrant. Hundreds of items were seized.

Issue: Was the search valid? Issue: Was the search valid? Ruling: Even though a murder took place, it did Ruling: Even though a murder took place, it did

not create an emergency situation that justified a not create an emergency situation that justified a warrantless searchwarrantless search

Chimel v. California 1969Chimel v. California 1969

Police obtained a warrant to arrest a Police obtained a warrant to arrest a man for burglary of a coin shop. They man for burglary of a coin shop. They arrested him at his home and asked arrested him at his home and asked if they could look around, he refused. if they could look around, he refused. They searched anyway and found They searched anyway and found coinscoins

Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: They needed a warrant. They Ruling: They needed a warrant. They

could search the common areas but could search the common areas but anything more required a warrantanything more required a warrant

Stanford v. Texas 1965Stanford v. Texas 1965

A Texas law outlawed the Communist Party. A Texas law outlawed the Communist Party. It also authorized the issuance of warrant to It also authorized the issuance of warrant to search for books, record, and other search for books, record, and other materials which violated the law. A warrant materials which violated the law. A warrant was issued to search John William Stanford’s was issued to search John William Stanford’s home. It stated that the police were to look home. It stated that the police were to look for “any books, records, pamphlets, cards, for “any books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, ect… that concern the receipts, lists, ect… that concern the Communist Party of TexasCommunist Party of Texas

Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: Illegal search because the warrant Ruling: Illegal search because the warrant

issued was a general warrantissued was a general warrant

Ker v. California 1963Ker v. California 1963

George Ker purchase marijuana from a George Ker purchase marijuana from a person who was under surveillance. Officers person who was under surveillance. Officers followed Ker but lost him. They ran his followed Ker but lost him. They ran his plates, went to his house, and had the plates, went to his house, and had the landlord unlock the door for them. Ker and landlord unlock the door for them. Ker and his wife were arrested for possession of his wife were arrested for possession of marijuana.marijuana.

Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: The search and arrest was allowed Ruling: The search and arrest was allowed

based on probable cause. Today however; based on probable cause. Today however; this same situation would require a warrant. this same situation would require a warrant.

O’Connor v. Ortega 1987O’Connor v. Ortega 1987

Dr. Ortega was fired from his job. Dr. Ortega was fired from his job. Prior to his dismissal, authorities Prior to his dismissal, authorities entered his office and searched his entered his office and searched his desk. Several items were seized.desk. Several items were seized.

Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: No warrant was necessaryRuling: No warrant was necessary

Hudson v. Palmer 1984Hudson v. Palmer 1984

Palmer was in prison. Correctional Palmer was in prison. Correctional officers searched his cell for officers searched his cell for contraband. They found that the contraband. They found that the pillow case was ripped. Disciplinary pillow case was ripped. Disciplinary proceedings took place for proceedings took place for destroying state property. destroying state property.

Issue: Was the search in violation of Issue: Was the search in violation of Palmer’s privacy? Palmer’s privacy?

Ruling: No expectation of privacy in Ruling: No expectation of privacy in prison. prison.

Schmerber v. California 1966Schmerber v. California 1966

Schmerber was in an auto accident. Schmerber was in an auto accident. He was taken to the hospital where He was taken to the hospital where a blood sample was taken. He was a blood sample was taken. He was found to be intoxicated. Schmerber found to be intoxicated. Schmerber objected to the sample.objected to the sample.

Issue: Was the sample legalIssue: Was the sample legal Ruling: Exigent circumstancesRuling: Exigent circumstances

Massachusetts vs. SheppardMassachusetts vs. Sheppard

Boston police sought to obtain a warrant to search Boston police sought to obtain a warrant to search the home of Osborne Sheppard, a suspected the home of Osborne Sheppard, a suspected murderer. Since the local court was closed for the murderer. Since the local court was closed for the weekend and O'Malley could not find a new warrant weekend and O'Malley could not find a new warrant form, he filled out a previously used form instead. form, he filled out a previously used form instead.

Question: If police officers mistakenly believe they Question: If police officers mistakenly believe they have obtained a valid warrant, can a trial court use have obtained a valid warrant, can a trial court use the evidence they obtained?the evidence they obtained?

Ruling: The Court maintained that trial courts can Ruling: The Court maintained that trial courts can use evidence seized by officers who have an use evidence seized by officers who have an "objectively reasonable basis" for mistakenly "objectively reasonable basis" for mistakenly believing they have obtained valid warrants. believing they have obtained valid warrants.