DSST Intro to Law Enforcement

Richards vs wisconsin in 1997 court ruled it may be

Info iconThis preview shows pages 12–13. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Richards vs Wisconsin in 1997 – court ruled it may be dangerous and life-threatening for officers to knock and announce their presence at the premises, the no knock exception can be utilized k. Illiniois vs McArthur in 2001 – the court ruled that where a suspect is outside of the house and the officers believe that contraband is in the home or illegal activity is taking place; then they may restrain the suspect until a search warrant is obtained l. Free to Leave test – US vs Mendenhall in 1980 – articulated by Justice Potter Stewart – the free to leave test for determining whether a person has been seized within the meaning of the 4 th Amendment m. Atwater vs Lago Vista in 2001 – the 4 th Amendment did not prohibit warrantless arrests for minor offenses (seat belt violation) n. Payton vs New York in 1980 – court declared that unless the suspect consents or an emergency exists, an arrest warrant is required if the police need to enter the suspects home, this is to ensure the reasonableness aspect of the arrest under the 4 th Amendment and to protect the suspects privacy o. US vs Robinson in 1973 – warrantless searches upon arrest which turned up contraband were admissible as evidence p. Terry vs Ohio in 1968 – Stop and Search – if an officer who suspected that someone were about to commit a robbery had reasonable suspicion to stop and search them , even though there was no probable cause to arrest, without violating their 4 th Amendment rights “Terry-Type” stop q. Fleeing Target Exception – allows warrantless searches of vehicles where there is probable cause r. Knowles vs Iowa in 1998 – court ruled that when a defendant is cited for traffic violation, the officer cannot conduct a full search on the vehicle without permission or probable cause s. Michigan Police Department vs Sitz in 1990- ruled that sobriety checkpoints for both suspicious and non-suspicious drivers was reasonable because it was in the public interest t. National Treasury Employees Union vs Raab in 1989 – court permitted mandatory drug testing where drug interdiction or firearm carrying was necessary u. Florida vs Bostick in 1991 – court ruled that warrantless sweeps of intercity buses did not breach the rights conferred by the 4 th Amendment as long as permission was sought by the passenger before the search was conducted, passengers were not forced to comply v. Escobedo vs Illinois in 1964 – ruled that the suspects have the right to legal counsel during interrogation, as laid out in the 6 th Amendment v.i. Edwards vs Arizona in 1981 – further emphasized when the court prohibited investigators from continuing questioning once the suspect has requested an attorney v.i.1. The Bright-Line Rule (one that can never be crossed) from this case w. Miranda vs Arizona in 1966 – ensured that suspects were advised of their rights in order to satisfy the 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination 120. Robbery is taking or attempting to take anything of value that is owned by another by force or threat of force a. Robbery is different from Larceny in that robbery involves a threat or battery
Background image of page 12

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 13
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page12 / 13

Richards vs Wisconsin in 1997 court ruled it may be...

This preview shows document pages 12 - 13. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online