A.S.S Case Law complete
4th amend protects people, not places
Two Prong Test
1. Person exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
2. Expectation must be one society is prepared to accept as reasonable (objective) -
Katz v. US
Seizure occurs when Gov termination of movement is affected "means intentionally
applied" = seizure - Brower v Inyo County
For Seizure:
1. application of physical Force (however slight)
2. show of authority to which subject yields - Cali v. Hodari
Protection from self- incrimination
Need: Custody and interrogation - Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda warnings don't need to be verbatim if conveyed satisfactory - Florida v Powell
Staying silent after Miranda implies understanding: stay silent or invoke rights -
Berghuis v Tompkins
Just because suspect has attorney, doesn't mean police can't ask if silent, but still doing
things for police- not violation - Montejo v Louisiana
Time limit on Miranda warnings= 14 days - Maryland v. Shatzer.
Trickery/deception okay unless calculated to make untruthful confession or offensive to
due process - Creager v. State
Can't create exigency by engaging/threatening conduct violating 4th amend - Kentucky
v. King.
Exigent circumstances like breaking up fight permit warrantless entry - Brigham City, UT
v. Stuart
Peace officers free to approach and ask questions if they recognize persons can refuse
to identify, refuse to cooperate, refuse to answer questions, and simply walk away -
Florida v. Royer.
Reasonable person would not feel free to leave - Crain v State
, Implied consent if following orders of officers such as handing over your phone while
remaining silent. - Lemons v State
Clarifies what custody is
1. Physically deprived of freedom of action
2. When LEO says can't leave
3. LEO create situation where person would believe freedom is restricted
4. Probable cause to arrest and LEO don't tell suspect hes free to leave - Ramirez v.
State of Texas
"Free to leave" : Take persons into custody for purposes of charging them with a crime
based on an officer's establishment of probable cause - US v. Mendenhall
Peace Officer Must be able to articulate specific facts/ circumstance to justify arrest
regarding "suspicious places and circumstances" - Dyar v. State
Handcuffing does not = arrest - Rhodes v State of TX
Back of patrol car + handcuffs + questions == NOT OKAY - Gordon v State
Traffic stop =/= custody for Miranda purposes
Officer has to explain if under arrest - Stansbury v California
A search warrant must be obtained absent exigent circumstances or consent, for LEO
to legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party. -
Steagald v U.S.
If police overstep 4th Amendment, evidence excluded/inadmissible
"elephant in matchbox" - Mapp v. Ohio
Exception to Exclusionary Rule: Good faith mistake while gathering evidence is
admissible at trial - US v Leon.
Good faith: isolated negligence okay
Systematic error or reckless disregard of the constitution: not okay - Herring v. U.S.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, evidence obtained by illegal government action = excluded
- Wong Sun v. US
Limited pat down for weapons (4th amend exception for officer safety) - Terry v. Ohio.
Frisk justified by totality of circumstances - In the Matter of P.M.
Reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk need not be based only upon a police officer's
personal observations, but may also be based on information supplied by another
person - Adams v. Williams.
4th amend protects people, not places
Two Prong Test
1. Person exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
2. Expectation must be one society is prepared to accept as reasonable (objective) -
Katz v. US
Seizure occurs when Gov termination of movement is affected "means intentionally
applied" = seizure - Brower v Inyo County
For Seizure:
1. application of physical Force (however slight)
2. show of authority to which subject yields - Cali v. Hodari
Protection from self- incrimination
Need: Custody and interrogation - Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda warnings don't need to be verbatim if conveyed satisfactory - Florida v Powell
Staying silent after Miranda implies understanding: stay silent or invoke rights -
Berghuis v Tompkins
Just because suspect has attorney, doesn't mean police can't ask if silent, but still doing
things for police- not violation - Montejo v Louisiana
Time limit on Miranda warnings= 14 days - Maryland v. Shatzer.
Trickery/deception okay unless calculated to make untruthful confession or offensive to
due process - Creager v. State
Can't create exigency by engaging/threatening conduct violating 4th amend - Kentucky
v. King.
Exigent circumstances like breaking up fight permit warrantless entry - Brigham City, UT
v. Stuart
Peace officers free to approach and ask questions if they recognize persons can refuse
to identify, refuse to cooperate, refuse to answer questions, and simply walk away -
Florida v. Royer.
Reasonable person would not feel free to leave - Crain v State
, Implied consent if following orders of officers such as handing over your phone while
remaining silent. - Lemons v State
Clarifies what custody is
1. Physically deprived of freedom of action
2. When LEO says can't leave
3. LEO create situation where person would believe freedom is restricted
4. Probable cause to arrest and LEO don't tell suspect hes free to leave - Ramirez v.
State of Texas
"Free to leave" : Take persons into custody for purposes of charging them with a crime
based on an officer's establishment of probable cause - US v. Mendenhall
Peace Officer Must be able to articulate specific facts/ circumstance to justify arrest
regarding "suspicious places and circumstances" - Dyar v. State
Handcuffing does not = arrest - Rhodes v State of TX
Back of patrol car + handcuffs + questions == NOT OKAY - Gordon v State
Traffic stop =/= custody for Miranda purposes
Officer has to explain if under arrest - Stansbury v California
A search warrant must be obtained absent exigent circumstances or consent, for LEO
to legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party. -
Steagald v U.S.
If police overstep 4th Amendment, evidence excluded/inadmissible
"elephant in matchbox" - Mapp v. Ohio
Exception to Exclusionary Rule: Good faith mistake while gathering evidence is
admissible at trial - US v Leon.
Good faith: isolated negligence okay
Systematic error or reckless disregard of the constitution: not okay - Herring v. U.S.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, evidence obtained by illegal government action = excluded
- Wong Sun v. US
Limited pat down for weapons (4th amend exception for officer safety) - Terry v. Ohio.
Frisk justified by totality of circumstances - In the Matter of P.M.
Reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk need not be based only upon a police officer's
personal observations, but may also be based on information supplied by another
person - Adams v. Williams.
