Case Law Review

Card Set Information

Case Law Review
2011-05-25 22:56:15
Case Law

Case Law for LT Test
Show Answers:

  1. Officers on patrol stopped a subject and conducted a pat frisk of his vehicle per Terry, locating a knife and marijuana in the front console. After inventory, they located more 446 in the trunk.
    Michigan v. Long
  2. Officers obtained a search warrant for kidnapping suspects apartment. He arrived home and parked his car while search was in progress. Det. search his car without a warrant, finding evidence. Court ruled, in nevada to search a vehicle without a warrant, officers must have PC and Exigent circumstances.
    STATE of Nevada v. HARNISCH II
  3. Officers stop a vehicle for speeing, and seize $763 cahs from the glove box and cocaine from behind the back seat armrest and arrested the three occupants of the vehicle after they denied owership of the drugs/cash. The front passenger claimed guilt by association. Courts ruled that a reasonable officer would conclude there was PC for possession either jointly or soley. constructive possession.
  4. Undercover officers provide marked money to Herion dealer during a "buy." They return to her residence to make an arrest and to preserve evidence. They encounter the suspect in the doorway of their residence. The suspect runs inside where the police follow and arrest, collecting evidence. by retreating into a private residence an otherwise legal arrest set in motion in a public place can not be defeated. "hot pursuit"
    United States v. Santana
  5. This states statutes authorized police officer to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest. Upon review, police are prohibited from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. An arrest warrant founded on PC implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.
    Payton v. New York
  6. In Carson City, a snitch drug dealer works with agents to get a better sentence. He lures another drug dealer into Carson from Stockton, CA with a known and described vehicle. Agents set up on the meet location, a storm prevents his pass over the Sierras. The following day the meet happens and agents set up. They watch described vehicle arrive and suspect along with a female and infant go inside walmart and eat. Approached by agents, suspect is detained and escorted outside, asked to identify his vehicle. Snitch arrives for a 1 on 1 which is positive. Pat down of suspect reveals no 446, they search his vehicle without a warrant and locate 446. He is arrested. He argued that agents should have had a warrant. Courts agreed that agents should have sought an anticipatory warrant if they could show PC to believe contraband will be located on the premises at the time that the search will take place. There was no exigency coupled with the PC, therefore search was bad.
    Barrios-Lomeli v. STATE of Nevada
  7. This is a case where the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right ot search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. In this case a wife allowed a police search while the husband on scene objected. The wife (bitch) escorted police to the husbands room where they located paraphernalia. Police called DA who advised seek a warrant. They did and then located 446. Found to be bad based on husbands initial objection.
    Georgia v. Randolph
  8. Officer investigating drug dealers offered them a key ingrediant which was legal, however it was obscure. After using the ingrediant and making the drugs, the susupect was arrested. He cried about it and said it was entrapment. Entrapment is when officer instiagte criminal acts by otherwise innocent persons in order to lure them to commit crimes. This guy was making drugs before the police gave him the ingrediant. No entrapment.
    United States v. Russell
  9. suspects appeared to have been casing a joint for a 407. Officer stopped all three and conducted a pat frisk of their outer clothing. He felt a pistol in the outer clothing of two of the suspects and removed the guns. He transported all three to the station. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others in endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has PC to arrest him or absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
    Terry v. Ohio