Con Law Final: Cases Questions With Complete Solutions

Aguilar v. Texas correct answer: Incorporated warrant requirements Boyd v. United States correct answer: Emphasizes: Search and Seizure Background: A search on imports was conducted to prove that fees were not paid. Ruling: The Court ruled held that "a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man's private papers" and that the search was "an 'unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Chapman v. California correct answer: supreme court established the harmless error rule, holding that at times, a denial of a federal constitutional right can be of insufficient magnitude to require reversal of a conviction on appeal. Florida v. Harris correct answer: police may search car on public road when police dog has alerted police to smell of drugs Illinois v. Wardlow correct answer: Flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, however a defendants unprovoked flight from officers in areas of heavy narcotics trafficking supports reasonable suspicion that may be involved in criminal activity and justifies a stop. Miller v. United States correct answer: United States v. Miller involved a criminal prosecution under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms (including but not limited to fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns) to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit Murray v. United States correct answer: Officer entered a warehouse without a warrant and observed burlap-wrapped bales which they suspected contained marijuana. Officers left the warehouse and then obtained a warrant based on an untainted affidavit. Court said that independent source doctrine can apply if can find that police would have applied for the warrant even if they had not entered the warehouse. Rochin v. California correct answer: a search cannot be exploratory, it cannot be unreasonable, and it cannot shock the conscience Smith v. United States correct answer: held that the exchange of a gun for drugs constituted "use" of the firearm for purposes of a federal statute imposing penalties for "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking crime U.S. v. Di Re correct answer: Michael Di Re was convicted on a charge of knowingly possessing counterfeit gasoline ration coupons in violation of § 301 of the Second War Powers Act, 1942. United States v. Banks correct answer: Knock and announce. Officers waiting to serve a search warrant could lead exigency due to the destruction of evidence. Adams v. Williams correct answer: Reasonable suspicion of r a stop and frisk need not be based only upon an officer's personal observations but may also be based on information supplied by another person. Under these circumstances, a police officer's action in reaching the spot where the gun was thought to be hidden constituted a limited and reasonable intrusion designed to insure the officer's safety. Florida v. J.L. correct answer: Call for service alone does not justify detention Payton v. New York correct answer: W/o exigent circumstances you can not enter a house unless you have a warrant Tennesse v. Garner correct answer: police use of force is under the 4th Amendment; police cannot use deadly force against a fleeing felon whom they know to be unarmed and not threatening Terry v. Ohio correct answer: (stop and frisk search): a stop and frisk search may be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal behavior United States v. Martinez-Fuerte correct answer: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border and that the checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Santana correct answer: In United States v. Santana (1976), the Supreme Court had to decide whether the police need a warrant to arrest a person who retreats into her home after the police begin to chase her. United States v. Sharpe correct answer: "Much as a 'bright line' rule would be desirable, in evaluating whether an investigative detention is unreasonable, common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria." United States v. Watson correct answer: When an arrest occurs in the presence of a prime, or when there is probable cause that a crime has been committed, a warrantless arrest is permitted. Warden v. Hayden correct answer: May enter a place for the purpose of search and seizure if you are in fresh pursuit of a fleeing felon