Criminal Proceedures Cases for test 2

Card Set Information

Criminal Proceedures Cases for test 2
2013-11-05 18:46:55
Criminal Proceedures Cases test

Criminal Proceedures Cases for test 2
Show Answers:

  1. Terry V. Ohio
    Reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous in order to conduct a precursory frisk for officer safety

    Vehicle stops and weapons searches of automobiles

    protective sweeps of residences

    plain touch and feel

    stops for loitering

    investigative detentions
  2. South Dakota V. Opperman 1976
    The Supreme Court Held that a warantless inventory is permissible on administrative/regulatory Grounds. 

    however it must 1) follow a lawful impoundment; 2)be of a routine nature, following standard operating procedures; 3) not be a "pretext concealing an investigatory police motive."

    was expanded to inventorying a persons possessions pursuant to a valid arrest. the police may examine containers.
  3. Miranda v. Arizona 1966
    The prosecution may not use statements whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."
  4. Brewer V. Williams
    a defendant was suspected of killing a 10 year old girl. while be transported,  his attorney advised him not to make any statements, and the police promised they would not question the defendant during the trip. during the trip, one officer suggested that the girl deserved a "christian burial". shortly after the defendant admitted to killing the girl and directed the police to her body.

    The Courts said the officers had deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from Williams. just as surely as, and perhaps more effectively than, if he had formally interrogated him
  5. United States V. Wade
    a defendant was placed in a police lineup, without his attorney present, after he was indited for a crime. 

    the supreme court held that this violated his Sixth Amendment because a port-indictment lineup is a "critical stage" in the Criminal Process. further, "the presence of counsel [at post indictment lineup] is necessary to preserve the defendant's basic right to a fair trial"