4 th Amendment Cases

Terry v. Ohio Undercover officer stopped two men after they had carefully looked in store windows several times. A third man joined the routine. The officer stopped and frisked them and found guns on two of the three Undercover officer stopped two men after they had carefully looked in store windows several times. A third man joined the routine. The officer stopped and frisked them and found guns on two of the three Issue: Can the police stop a person on less than probable cause and do the police have a right to frisk? Issue: Can the police stop a person on less than probable cause and do the police have a right to frisk? Ruling: Police have the right to stop a person with reasonable suspicion. They also have the right to frisk when they may fear for their own safety Ruling: Police have the right to stop a person with reasonable suspicion. They also have the right to frisk when they may fear for their own safety

Sibron v. New York 1968 An officer saw a man speak to several know drug addicts in two locations. The officer did not hear any of the conversations. At one point the officer approached the man slid his hand in his pocket and pulled out cocaine. An officer saw a man speak to several know drug addicts in two locations. The officer did not hear any of the conversations. At one point the officer approached the man slid his hand in his pocket and pulled out cocaine. Issue: Did the officer have the right to stop and search the man? Issue: Did the officer have the right to stop and search the man? Ruling: No probable cause or reasonable suspicion. All the man had done was talk to people Ruling: No probable cause or reasonable suspicion. All the man had done was talk to people

Map v. Ohio 1961 Police went to a home searching for bombing and illegal lottery equipment. The woman called her lawyer and declined to let the police search. They searched anyway and found obscene materials. The woman was arrested for breaking a state statute on obscenity Police went to a home searching for bombing and illegal lottery equipment. The woman called her lawyer and declined to let the police search. They searched anyway and found obscene materials. The woman was arrested for breaking a state statute on obscenity Issue: Could the police enter without a warrant? Can the evidence be used in court? Issue: Could the police enter without a warrant? Can the evidence be used in court? Ruling: No and No Ruling: No and No

Katz v. U.S FBI suspected that a man was placing bets illegally over the phone. They “bugged” the phone booth. The man was arrested and prosecuted for illegal betting. FBI suspected that a man was placing bets illegally over the phone. They “bugged” the phone booth. The man was arrested and prosecuted for illegal betting. Issue: Was the 4 th amendment violated when the police eavesdropped without a warrant? Issue: Was the 4 th amendment violated when the police eavesdropped without a warrant? Ruling: Must have a warrant Ruling: Must have a warrant

Carroll v. U.S Police went to an apartment to attempt to purchase liquor. At the time it was illegal to sell liquor. The men agreed to sell three cases of whiskey. The men left the apartment agreeing to return later with the “goods”. Days later the police saw two men in the same car. Police believe that the men were transporting liquor and stopped and searched it. Liquor was found Police went to an apartment to attempt to purchase liquor. At the time it was illegal to sell liquor. The men agreed to sell three cases of whiskey. The men left the apartment agreeing to return later with the “goods”. Days later the police saw two men in the same car. Police believe that the men were transporting liquor and stopped and searched it. Liquor was found Issue: Did the police have probable cause? Could the police search the car without a warrant? Issue: Did the police have probable cause? Could the police search the car without a warrant? Ruling: Police had probable cause to stop them due to the undercover operation. Car search was proper. Ruling: Police had probable cause to stop them due to the undercover operation. Car search was proper.

California v. Greenwood 1988 Police investigated a report that someone was dealing drugs. They instructed the garbage man to bring them his garbage. They found drug paraphernalia in the garbage. Based on this they got a search warrant to search the house and found cocaine and hash. Police investigated a report that someone was dealing drugs. They instructed the garbage man to bring them his garbage. They found drug paraphernalia in the garbage. Based on this they got a search warrant to search the house and found cocaine and hash. Issue: Can the police search garbage? Issue: Can the police search garbage? Ruling: Garbage is abandoned property and can be searched Ruling: Garbage is abandoned property and can be searched

Cupp v. Murphy Mr. Murphy’s wife was killed by strangulation. Mr. Murphy was a suspect. He voluntarily went to the police station for questioning. When there, police noticed a dark spot on his fingernail and asked to scrape under his nail. He refused and the police forcefully took the sample. Mr. Murphy’s wife was killed by strangulation. Mr. Murphy was a suspect. He voluntarily went to the police station for questioning. When there, police noticed a dark spot on his fingernail and asked to scrape under his nail. He refused and the police forcefully took the sample. Issue: Was the search lawful? Issue: Was the search lawful? Ruling: Exigent circumstances Ruling: Exigent circumstances

U.S. vs. Mendenhall 1980 Two DEA agents stopped Mendenhall in an airport because her behavior fit that of a drug courier. She was the last person off the plane and looked very nervous. She did not claim any baggage. DEA identified themselves and asked to search her. She replied “Go Ahead” Two DEA agents stopped Mendenhall in an airport because her behavior fit that of a drug courier. She was the last person off the plane and looked very nervous. She did not claim any baggage. DEA identified themselves and asked to search her. She replied “Go Ahead” Issue: Was the search permissable? Issue: Was the search permissable? Ruling: Consent Ruling: Consent

Warden, Maryland Penitentiary V. Hayden 1967 Man robbed a bank at gun point and fled. Police followed him as he entered a house. Police entered without a warrant and found him and the money in a bedroom. Man robbed a bank at gun point and fled. Police followed him as he entered a house. Police entered without a warrant and found him and the money in a bedroom. Issue: Was the entry and search allowed? Issue: Was the entry and search allowed? Ruling: Hot pursuit Ruling: Hot pursuit

Pennsylvania v Mimms 1977 Police stopped a car with expired tags. The driver was ordered to get out of the car. Officers notice something in the pocket of his jacket and frisked him. They found a loaded revolver Police stopped a car with expired tags. The driver was ordered to get out of the car. Officers notice something in the pocket of his jacket and frisked him. They found a loaded revolver Issue: Was the frisk legal? Issue: Was the frisk legal? Ruling: Stop and Frisk was legal, officer feared for his safety Ruling: Stop and Frisk was legal, officer feared for his safety

New Jersey v. T.L.O Two girls were caught smoking in the restroom. Both were taken to the office, one admitted it the other did not. Principal demanded to see the purse of the girl who denied. During a search he found rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, money, and an index card indicating who owed T.L.O. money Two girls were caught smoking in the restroom. Both were taken to the office, one admitted it the other did not. Principal demanded to see the purse of the girl who denied. During a search he found rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, money, and an index card indicating who owed T.L.O. money Issue: Was search legal? Issue: Was search legal? Ruling: No warrant was necessary, no probable cause standard was necessary Ruling: No warrant was necessary, no probable cause standard was necessary

Mincey v. Arizona 1978 Undercover officer went to an apartment and arranged to purchase heroin. He left the apartment the “get the money” and returned with 9 other officers. A man opened the door and tried to close it right away the undercover officer pushed past him and entered the bedroom. The undercover officer was shot and killed. For four days officers searched the apartment without a warrant. Hundreds of items were seized. Undercover officer went to an apartment and arranged to purchase heroin. He left the apartment the “get the money” and returned with 9 other officers. A man opened the door and tried to close it right away the undercover officer pushed past him and entered the bedroom. The undercover officer was shot and killed. For four days officers searched the apartment without a 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 not create an emergency situation that justified a warrantless search Ruling: Even though a murder took place, it did not create an emergency situation that justified a warrantless search

Chimel v. California 1969 Police obtained a warrant to arrest a man for burglary of a coin shop. They arrested him at his home and asked if they could look around, he refused. They searched anyway and found coins Police obtained a warrant to arrest a man for burglary of a coin shop. They arrested him at his home and asked if they could look around, he refused. They searched anyway and found coins Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: They needed a warrant. They could search the common areas but anything more required a warrant Ruling: They needed a warrant. They could search the common areas but anything more required a warrant

Stanford v. Texas 1965 A Texas law outlawed the Communist Party. It also authorized the issuance of warrant to search for books, record, and other materials which violated the law. A warrant was issued to search John William Stanford’s home. It stated that the police were to look for “any books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, ect… that concern the Communist Party of Texas A Texas law outlawed the Communist Party. It also authorized the issuance of warrant to search for books, record, and other materials which violated the law. A warrant was issued to search John William Stanford’s home. It stated that the police were to look for “any books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, ect… that concern the Communist Party of Texas Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: Illegal search because the warrant issued was a general warrant Ruling: Illegal search because the warrant issued was a general warrant

Ker v. California 1963 George Ker purchase marijuana from a person who was under surveillance. Officers followed Ker but lost him. They ran his plates, went to his house, and had the landlord unlock the door for them. Ker and his wife were arrested for possession of marijuana. George Ker purchase marijuana from a person who was under surveillance. Officers followed Ker but lost him. They ran his plates, went to his house, and had the landlord unlock the door for them. Ker and his wife were arrested for possession of marijuana. Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: The search and arrest was allowed based on probable cause. Today however; this same situation would require a warrant. Ruling: The search and arrest was allowed based on probable cause. Today however; this same situation would require a warrant.

O’Connor v. Ortega 1987 Dr. Ortega was fired from his job. Prior to his dismissal, authorities entered his office and searched his desk. Several items were seized. Dr. Ortega was fired from his job. Prior to his dismissal, authorities entered his office and searched his desk. Several items were seized. Issue: Was the search legal? Issue: Was the search legal? Ruling: No warrant was necessary Ruling: No warrant was necessary

Hudson v. Palmer 1984 Palmer was in prison. Correctional officers searched his cell for contraband. They found that the pillow case was ripped. Disciplinary proceedings took place for destroying state property. Palmer was in prison. Correctional officers searched his cell for contraband. They found that the pillow case was ripped. Disciplinary proceedings took place for destroying state property. Issue: Was the search in violation of Palmer’s privacy? Issue: Was the search in violation of Palmer’s privacy? Ruling: No expectation of privacy in prison. Ruling: No expectation of privacy in prison.

Schmerber v. California 1966 Schmerber was in an auto accident. He was taken to the hospital where a blood sample was taken. He was found to be intoxicated. Schmerber objected to the sample. Schmerber was in an auto accident. He was taken to the hospital where a blood sample was taken. He was found to be intoxicated. Schmerber objected to the sample. Issue: Was the sample legal Issue: Was the sample legal Ruling: Exigent circumstances Ruling: Exigent circumstances

Massachusetts vs. Sheppard Boston police sought to obtain a warrant to search the home of Osborne Sheppard, a suspected murderer. Since the local court was closed for the weekend and O'Malley could not find a new warrant form, he filled out a previously used form instead. Boston police sought to obtain a warrant to search the home of Osborne Sheppard, a suspected murderer. Since the local court was closed for the weekend and O'Malley could not find a new warrant form, he filled out a previously used form instead. Question: If police officers mistakenly believe they have obtained a valid warrant, can a trial court use the evidence they obtained? Question: If police officers mistakenly believe they have obtained a valid warrant, can a trial court use the evidence they obtained? Ruling: The Court maintained that trial courts can use evidence seized by officers who have an "objectively reasonable basis" for mistakenly believing they have obtained valid warrants. Ruling: The Court maintained that trial courts can use evidence seized by officers who have an "objectively reasonable basis" for mistakenly believing they have obtained valid warrants.