Basic Applied 4 th & 5 th Amendment law in context to . FOURTH AMENDMENT.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
OBTAIN A WARRANT
SUPPORT ALL ACTIONS BY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SATISFY EVERY JUDGE SO THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE LOST.
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)
Chimel v. California
People v. Boff, 766 P. 2d 646, 648-649 (1988)
REFERENCE HANDOUT PROVIDED
Failure to understand the law by the very person charged with enforcing it is not objectively reasonable. U.S. v. Tibbetts
An officer may follow a vehicle, wait for a traffic violation, then hope to see contraband in plain sight, smell contraband, or get consent to search.
The United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible for undercover officers to stop a car for a traffic violation in a high drug area even though the stop would not have been made but for the officer’s suspicions about dope. Wren v. U.S.
An officer who observes a traffic violation has probable cause to stop the vehicle regardless of the officer’s motivations or suspicions that are unrelated to the traffic offense. State v. Lopez
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
Maryland v. Wilson
Wyoming v. Houghton
United States v. Place
State v. Hygh
State v. Johnson
Referred to as the Miranda Warning
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)
*Opinion based on the fact the second interrogation was restricted to a crime not related to initial interrogation.