LOUISIANA POST STUDY GUIDE PREMIUM
REVIEW SET 2026 TESTED MATERIALS
◉ US v. Robinson. Answer: Scope of the search of a person incident
to arrest is for evidence of a crime, means of escape, & weapons
◉ Chimel v. California. Answer: Incident to arrest an officer may
search the person and the "area within the immediate control"
◉ Coolidge v. New Hampshire. Answer: a neutral and detached
magistrate
◉ Maryland v. Garrison. Answer: Where police reasonably believe
their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant
does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights
◉ US v. Jones. Answer: Court found that police use of a GPS tracker
constituted a 'search' and required a valid warrant
◉ Arizona v. Gant. Answer: Police may only search a vehicle incident
to arrest if: The arrestee might access the vehicle @ the time of
search, or the vehicle contains evidence of the offense he was
arrested for. (Overturned NY v Belton 1981)
,◉ Mapp v. Ohio. Answer: Established the exclusionary rule was
applicable to the states
◉ Weeks v. US. Answer: established exclusionary rule
◉ US v. Leon. Answer: good faith exception
◉ Katz v. US. Answer: 1967, the government can not tap your phone
without a warrant. (Overturned Olmstead v US 1928)
◉ Terry v. Ohio. Answer: stop and frisk
◉ Illinois v. Wardlow. Answer: Mere presence in crime area isn't
sufficient for terry stop
◉ Whren v. US. Answer: said that the courts are not required to
consider an officer's motive for stopping a vehicle as long as the
officer had an objective basis for the stop. Because of Whren, pretext
stops do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
◉ Brinegar v. US. Answer: right to be convicted by proof beyond a
reasonable doubt
, ◉ Alabama v. White. Answer: Court decided an anonymous tip to
police provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop
◉ Illinois v. Gates. Answer: totality of the circumstances
◉ Levels of Proof. Answer: -Absolute Certainty
-Beyond Reasonable Doubt
-Clear and Convincing Evidence
-Probable Cause
-Reasonable Suspicion (Stop and Frisk)
-Suspicion
-Reasonable Doubt
-Hunch/No Info
◉ Fruits of the Poisonous Tree. Answer: Evidence derived from an
illegal or unconstitutional act is also inadmissible
◉ Exclusionary Rule Exceptions. Answer: 1. if the state can show it
was obtained from a source independent of the original illegality
2. if an intervening act of free will of the defendant breaks the chain
between the evidence and the original illegality.
3. if the state can show that the evidence inevitably would have been
discovered anyway.
REVIEW SET 2026 TESTED MATERIALS
◉ US v. Robinson. Answer: Scope of the search of a person incident
to arrest is for evidence of a crime, means of escape, & weapons
◉ Chimel v. California. Answer: Incident to arrest an officer may
search the person and the "area within the immediate control"
◉ Coolidge v. New Hampshire. Answer: a neutral and detached
magistrate
◉ Maryland v. Garrison. Answer: Where police reasonably believe
their warrant was valid during a search, execution of the warrant
does not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights
◉ US v. Jones. Answer: Court found that police use of a GPS tracker
constituted a 'search' and required a valid warrant
◉ Arizona v. Gant. Answer: Police may only search a vehicle incident
to arrest if: The arrestee might access the vehicle @ the time of
search, or the vehicle contains evidence of the offense he was
arrested for. (Overturned NY v Belton 1981)
,◉ Mapp v. Ohio. Answer: Established the exclusionary rule was
applicable to the states
◉ Weeks v. US. Answer: established exclusionary rule
◉ US v. Leon. Answer: good faith exception
◉ Katz v. US. Answer: 1967, the government can not tap your phone
without a warrant. (Overturned Olmstead v US 1928)
◉ Terry v. Ohio. Answer: stop and frisk
◉ Illinois v. Wardlow. Answer: Mere presence in crime area isn't
sufficient for terry stop
◉ Whren v. US. Answer: said that the courts are not required to
consider an officer's motive for stopping a vehicle as long as the
officer had an objective basis for the stop. Because of Whren, pretext
stops do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
◉ Brinegar v. US. Answer: right to be convicted by proof beyond a
reasonable doubt
, ◉ Alabama v. White. Answer: Court decided an anonymous tip to
police provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop
◉ Illinois v. Gates. Answer: totality of the circumstances
◉ Levels of Proof. Answer: -Absolute Certainty
-Beyond Reasonable Doubt
-Clear and Convincing Evidence
-Probable Cause
-Reasonable Suspicion (Stop and Frisk)
-Suspicion
-Reasonable Doubt
-Hunch/No Info
◉ Fruits of the Poisonous Tree. Answer: Evidence derived from an
illegal or unconstitutional act is also inadmissible
◉ Exclusionary Rule Exceptions. Answer: 1. if the state can show it
was obtained from a source independent of the original illegality
2. if an intervening act of free will of the defendant breaks the chain
between the evidence and the original illegality.
3. if the state can show that the evidence inevitably would have been
discovered anyway.
