CASE LAW

Case Laws Chapter 1-3 o Marbury v Madison (1803)  Claimed authority of judicial review.  The right to define the meaning of the Constitution and to throw out federal, state, and local laws as unconstitutional that do not conform to the Constitution. o Rochin v. California (1952)  Issue:  SC asked to decide whether the petitioner's conviction has been obtained by methods that offend the due process of law.  Facts:  Cops unlawfully breaking into and entering defendant's room, assaulted and battered defendant in room. False imprisonment in hospital.  Swallowed pills and had stomach pumped by authorities.  Convicted of 60 days imprisonment.  District Court of Appeals affirmed conviction.  Limited Scope in Precedent  Irvine v. California (1954) o Entered 3 times with no warrant for a microphone in his home. o Absence of violence compared to Rochin. o U.S. v. Armstrong (1996)  Issue:  Failed to show that the government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.  Facts:  Respondents filed a motion for discovery or for dismissal of the indictment, alleging that they were selected for federal prosecution because they are black. o Katz v. U.S (1967)  Adopted expectation of privacy.  Added a two part test for the protections of the 4 th o Subjective  An individual exhibits a personal expectation of privacy o Objective  Society recognizes this expectation as reasonable. o California v Greenwood (1988)

 Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the home. (Lower courts say it does not)  The court refused to extend fourth amendment protection to garbage left at the curb. o US v Mendenhall (1980)  Two drug agents approached Mendenhall in an airport in Detroit. Asked to see her driver's license and airline ticket.  Held that this was not a Fourth Amendment seizure:  Characterizing every street encounter between a citizen and the police as a "seizure" would be an unrealistic restriction upon a wide variety of legitimate law enforcement practices.  No probable cause (arrest) or reasonable suspicion (search) o California v Hodari  Was Hodari "seized" within the Fourth Amendment.  Established a legal test for Fourth Amendment show of force seizure.  4/5 youth near a car and arrested Hodari even though they did not have reasonable suspicious and just because kids are hanging out together does not constitute probable cause.  Hodari threw the drugs away.  Untouched by police officers, which means he was not seized during that time.  Held that officers were not within the Fourth Amendment and charges were dropped, the heroine rock could not be used as evidence. o Immigration and Naturalization Service v Delgado (1984)  Entered a plant, blocked exits, and asked workers their legal status.  Two-hour sweep.  Workers were free to move around the plant and was restricted by voluntary commitment to their job rather than by federal agents. Chapter 4-6 o Terry v Ohio  Employed a balancing test to establish that brief investigative stops of individuals may be based on reasonable suspicion.  Field interrogations are essential for investigating and detecting street crimes.  Distinguished from custodial arrest by narrow investigative purpose and limited intrusion on individual liberty... o Based on lesser standard of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.  Terry held that officers are entitled to conduct a frisk to protect themselves in those instances they think the suspect is armed or dangerous.  First case in which the Supreme Court approved a search and seizure in a criminal case under Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion.

 Majority rule in Terry:  Police officer may in "appropriate circumstances" approach a suspect to investigate possible criminal behavior despite the fact that the officer does not have probable cause to make an arrest  The standard for stops is reasonable suspicion.  Terry v Ohio (1968) Brief  Was his right to personal security violated by an unreasonable search and seizure?  Argued that the police should be allowed to 'stop' a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion of criminal activity.  Argued against, that the police must be strictly circumscribed by the law of arrest and search. o Alabama v. White (1990)  Police had reasonable suspicion to stop White based on facts provided by informant.  Informant made a number of accurate predictions: o The building she left, time of departure, automobile, and destination.  Close case due to totality of circumstances o Anonymous tip, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability. o Arizona v. Johnson (2009)  Traffic stop frisking of a passenger.  A passenger who was wearing a bandana of a gang and lived in a neighborhood known as the gang's location was asked to step out of the vehicle and frisked.  Found that police are able to interrogate and investigate criminal activity on the part of the passengers that is unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop so long as the investigation does not extend the duration of the stop.  May frisk a passenger or driver when there are reasonable grounds to believe the passenger or drive is armed and dangerous. o Minnesota v Dickerson (1993)  Right of police officer conducting a frisk to seize illegal narcotics.  Must have immediate probable cause to believe the items they encountered are illegal narcotics.  Plain-View Doctrine  Permits law enforcement to seize contraband that they view during the course of a lawful search  Plain-Feel Doctrine  Based on an officer's touch rather than visual examination  Permits police to seize an object that the officer's physical examination indicates is contraband