Legal cases Louisiana post Exam questions with accurate || || || || || || || ||
detailed solutions ||
Coolidge v. New Hampshire - ✔✔A state's chief investigator and prosecutor ( state AG) is not
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
neutral and detached, so any warrant issued by him or her is not valid.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Maryland v. Garrison - ✔✔The validity of a warrant must be judged in light of the information
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
available to the officers at the time they obtained the warrant. A warrant that is overboard in
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
describing the place to be searched is valid if based on a reasonable but mistaken belief at the time
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
the warrant is issued. Also see, exclusionary rule lecture under good faith exceptions.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Arizona v. Gant (2009) - ✔✔Police may only search the arrestee's vehicle subsequent to his
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
arrest, when it is reasonable that the arrestee could access a weapon or destroy evidence of his
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
arrest, contained within the vehicle.
|| || || ||
U.S. v. Jones - ✔✔Placing a GPS device and monitoring the device requires a search warrant.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Weeks v. U.S. - ✔✔Feds adopt the exclusionary rule
|| || || || || || || ||
Mapp v. Ohio - ✔✔States adopt the exclusionary rule and state it's an essential part of both the
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
4th and 14th amendments.
|| || ||
Aguilar v. Texas - ✔✔Established two prong tests for determining probable cause on the basis of
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
information obtained from an informant. || || || ||
Spinelli v. United States - ✔✔"Innocent-seeming activity and data" and a "bald and
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
unilluminating assertion of suspicion in an affidavit are not to be given weight in magistrate's || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
determination of probable cause. An officer may use credible hearsay to establish probable cause, || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
but an affidavit based on an informant's tip must satisfy the two-pronged Aguilar test.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
, Illinois v. Gates - ✔✔Abandoned the requirement of the two independent tests as they were too
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
rigid, holding instead that the two prongs should be treated merely as relevant considerations in
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
the totality of the circumstances.
|| || || ||
Draper v. U.S. - ✔✔A leading case on information plus corroboration
|| || || || || || || || || ||
New York v. Quarles - ✔✔Established the public safety doctrine and affirmed reasonable
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
suspicion for the detention of a person matching the description of a rape suspect located nearby
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
the scene of the crime and within minutes of it.
|| || || || || || || || ||
Haves v. Florida - ✔✔Reasonable suspicion alone does not permit the police to transport a
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
suspect to the police station to obtain fingerprints. Probable Cause or judicial authorization is
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
required
Minnesota v. Dickerson - ✔✔During a frisk of a suspect's outer clothing an officer may remove a|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
weapon or contraband from his pockets if it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item is
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
in fact a weapon or contraband.
|| || || || ||
State (LA) v. Waters - ✔✔A vehicle travelling on the roadway at 0310 hours was stopped after its
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
tires bumped the fog line. The legality of the stop was challenged and the courts ruled that the
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
officer's observations not only met the Reasonable Suspicion standard, but also met that of
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Probable Cause based on the wording of LRS 32:79 -improper lane use. || || || || || || || || || || ||
State (LA) v. Surtain - ✔✔An officer must fear for his safety or believe that a suspect is armed in
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
order to frisk the suspect during an investigatory stop
|| || || || || || || ||
State (LA) v. Jackson - ✔✔- A warrantless search of a vehicle was challenged in a motion to
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
suppress evidence after the officer removed a can of bug spray from the vehicle and located 13
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
bags of marijuana in the false bottom of the can. The officer testified that when he retrieved the
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
paperwork from the glove compartment, he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana (exception to || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
warrant rule) coming from the interior of the vehicle and observed the suspect during the stop
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
placed something on floorboard of the vehicle. Decision of the court of appeals reversed;
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
judgment denying the motion to suppress reinstated; case remanded. || || || || || || || ||
detailed solutions ||
Coolidge v. New Hampshire - ✔✔A state's chief investigator and prosecutor ( state AG) is not
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
neutral and detached, so any warrant issued by him or her is not valid.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Maryland v. Garrison - ✔✔The validity of a warrant must be judged in light of the information
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
available to the officers at the time they obtained the warrant. A warrant that is overboard in
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
describing the place to be searched is valid if based on a reasonable but mistaken belief at the time
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
the warrant is issued. Also see, exclusionary rule lecture under good faith exceptions.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Arizona v. Gant (2009) - ✔✔Police may only search the arrestee's vehicle subsequent to his
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
arrest, when it is reasonable that the arrestee could access a weapon or destroy evidence of his
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
arrest, contained within the vehicle.
|| || || ||
U.S. v. Jones - ✔✔Placing a GPS device and monitoring the device requires a search warrant.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Weeks v. U.S. - ✔✔Feds adopt the exclusionary rule
|| || || || || || || ||
Mapp v. Ohio - ✔✔States adopt the exclusionary rule and state it's an essential part of both the
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
4th and 14th amendments.
|| || ||
Aguilar v. Texas - ✔✔Established two prong tests for determining probable cause on the basis of
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
information obtained from an informant. || || || ||
Spinelli v. United States - ✔✔"Innocent-seeming activity and data" and a "bald and
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
unilluminating assertion of suspicion in an affidavit are not to be given weight in magistrate's || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
determination of probable cause. An officer may use credible hearsay to establish probable cause, || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
but an affidavit based on an informant's tip must satisfy the two-pronged Aguilar test.
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
, Illinois v. Gates - ✔✔Abandoned the requirement of the two independent tests as they were too
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
rigid, holding instead that the two prongs should be treated merely as relevant considerations in
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
the totality of the circumstances.
|| || || ||
Draper v. U.S. - ✔✔A leading case on information plus corroboration
|| || || || || || || || || ||
New York v. Quarles - ✔✔Established the public safety doctrine and affirmed reasonable
|| || || || || || || || || || || || ||
suspicion for the detention of a person matching the description of a rape suspect located nearby
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
the scene of the crime and within minutes of it.
|| || || || || || || || ||
Haves v. Florida - ✔✔Reasonable suspicion alone does not permit the police to transport a
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
suspect to the police station to obtain fingerprints. Probable Cause or judicial authorization is
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
required
Minnesota v. Dickerson - ✔✔During a frisk of a suspect's outer clothing an officer may remove a|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
weapon or contraband from his pockets if it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item is
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
in fact a weapon or contraband.
|| || || || ||
State (LA) v. Waters - ✔✔A vehicle travelling on the roadway at 0310 hours was stopped after its
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
tires bumped the fog line. The legality of the stop was challenged and the courts ruled that the
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
officer's observations not only met the Reasonable Suspicion standard, but also met that of
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
Probable Cause based on the wording of LRS 32:79 -improper lane use. || || || || || || || || || || ||
State (LA) v. Surtain - ✔✔An officer must fear for his safety or believe that a suspect is armed in
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
order to frisk the suspect during an investigatory stop
|| || || || || || || ||
State (LA) v. Jackson - ✔✔- A warrantless search of a vehicle was challenged in a motion to
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
suppress evidence after the officer removed a can of bug spray from the vehicle and located 13
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
bags of marijuana in the false bottom of the can. The officer testified that when he retrieved the
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
paperwork from the glove compartment, he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana (exception to || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
warrant rule) coming from the interior of the vehicle and observed the suspect during the stop
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
placed something on floorboard of the vehicle. Decision of the court of appeals reversed;
|| || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
judgment denying the motion to suppress reinstated; case remanded. || || || || || || || ||
