Important Case Law for Law Enforcement
Davis v. US (2011) – Current Binding Case Law
As long as a police officer is acting in good faith, they can rely on previously settled precedent or case law, even if it is later overturned.
Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Terry Frisk
An Officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him/her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.
Adams v. Williams (1972) – Stop & Frisk
The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without the fear of violence.
Florida v. Royer (1983) – Inquiry is not detention
Police do not violate the 4th amemdment by engaging a person in voluntary conversation, and if there is no detention-no seizure within the meaning of the 4th amendment-then no constitutional rights have been violated.
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) – Plain Touch
As long as a police officer is conducting a lawful pat down search for weapons, they may seize an object they know to be contraband based solely on their sense of touch.
Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) – Admission is PC
A search incident to arrest requires probable cause to arrest said person, whether that person is under “actual” or “constructive” arrest at that time. An admission of committing an offense is probable cause.
US v. Watson (1976) – In Custody – Can Consent
A warrantless arrest based on probable cause is valid. An individual placed under arest in police custody can still voluntarily consent to a search.
Lange v. California (2021) – No Entry on Misdemeanor
Viewing a suspect run into a home on does not give enough cause for warrantless entry on misdemeanor charges.
Muehler v. Mena (2005) – Handcuffs during search
Using handcuffs to restrain someone during the search of a residence is considered reasonable under the 4th amendment.
US v. Santana (1976) – Hot Pursuit Entry
Pursuit and warrantless arrest are valid if a felony suspect moves from a public place into their residence. An arrest that begins in a doorway is considered to have began in a public place.
US v. Dunn (1987) – Curtilage/Open Field
Structures outside of curtilage are not protected under the 4th amendment.
Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) – Emergency Aid, Entry w/o Warrant
Officers may enter a home without a warrant when it is believed that an occupant is seriously injured and requires immediate treatment.
Payton v. New York (1980) – Entry w/o Warrant
Police cannot make entry into a residence without a warrant for a felony suspect, unless the suspect is known to be in the residence at that time.
US v. Robinson (1973) – Search Incident to Arrest
Regardless of the reason for an arrest, a complete search of the arrested person can be completed.
Vale v. Louisiana (1970) – Search Incident to Arrest (Home)
In order for a brief sweep of a home, the arrest must have taken place inside the home.
Arizona v. Gant (2009) – Search Incident to Arrest (Vehicle)
Officers may search a vehicle of its recent occupant only if it is believed that the arrestee had access to the vehicle, and it may contain evidence of the offense the arrest was made for.
US v. Banks (2004) – Knock & Announce (Time)
15 to 20 seconds before forced entry satisfied the 4th amendment needs. The need to knock and announce gives way when it is believed that the suspect may be destroying evidence.
Carroll v. US (1925) – Automobile Search
A vehicle can be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause for contraband inside the vehicle.
Pennsylvania v. Labron (1996) – PC Search (Vehicle)
If a vehicle is readily mobile and PC exists to believe there is contraband inside, officers may search the vehicle without more.
US v. Downs (1998) – PC (Marijuana/Burnt Marijuana)
Courts have stated there is a difference between the smell of raw marijuana and burnt marijuana. The strong smell of raw marijuana potentially means that the vehicle is being used to transport large amounts. Therefore, the officer is not limited to searching just the passenger compartment.
US v. Downs, 151 F. 3d 1301 – Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 1998
Maryland v. Dyson (1999) – Automobile Exception (Searches)
The automobile exception has no other requirements that need to be met.
California v. Carney (1985) – Automobile Exception (Parked Car)
A warrantless search of a parked car was justified under the automobile exception, as long as it is supported by probable cause.
US v. Johns (1985) – Automobile Exception (Tow)
If PC was established to search a vehicle at the time of impoundment, it is reasonable to search packages found in the vehicle days later.
Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) – Automobile Exception (Containers)
Searches of containers within a vehicle are permitted as long as they might contain the object of the search.
Collins v. Virgina (2018) – Automobile Exception (Curtilage)
The automobile exception does not permit warrantless entry of a home to search a vehicle within.
Florida v. Jimeno (1991) – Containers in Vehicle (Consent Search)
Consent to search a car is generally believed to be a consent to search any bags or containers within.
Illinois v. Lafayette (1983) – Search of Arrestee’s Belongings
During a search incident to arrest, containers or articles in the possession of the arrestee can be search as well.
Chimel v. CA (1969) – Search Incident to Arrest (General)
Area searches incident to arrest are limited to the immediate control area.
Knowles v. Iowa (1998) – Search Incident to Arrest (Citation)
Although an offense may be an arrestable one, search incident to arrest does not apply to citations.
Texas v. White (1975) – Move Vehicle Prior to Search
If there is probable cause to search a vehicle, it may be moved back to the police station or impound lot for safety and then searched.
US v. Chadwick (1977) – Search (90 mins after arrest)
Evidence found during a search 90 minutes after an arrest must be suppressed, no exigency exists that justifies this as incident to arrest.
US v. Ross (1982) – Search (Containers in Vehicle)
If officers have PC to search a vehicle, then they have PC to search any containers/objects in the vehicle that may conceal the object of the search.
US v. Di Re (1948) – Search of a Person (Traffic Stop)
Presence in a vehicle does not allow for the person to be searched.
Michigan v. Long (1983) – Terry Frisk of Vehicle
Officers may frisk a vehicles passenger area if they reasonably suspect a weapon is present as presented in Terry v. Ohio.
US v. Graham (2007) – Terry Frisk of Vehicle
A terry frisk of a vehicle is based on specific, and articulable facts. (Dipping shoulder as you approach, coupled with other facts). Michigan v. Long held a vehicle frisk was lawful due to officer safety issues.
US v. Graham, 483 F. 3d 431 – Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2007 – Google Scholar
Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) – Search (Community Caretaking)
Officers can search a disabled/impounded vehicle if they believe that it contains a firearm. The vehicle may be searched for that firearm in an effort to retrieve it under community caretaking.
New Jersey v. TLO (1985) – School Searches
School officials may search students upon reasonable suspicion rahter than probable cause.
US v. Matlock (1974) – Cohabitant Consent to Search
A warrantless search with the consent of a person cohabitating with the suspect, and claiming to be a spouse, does not violate the 4th amendment rights of the suspect.
Fernandez v. CA (2014) – Mutual Consent to Search
If two co-tenants are present, they must both consent to a search. The search is reasonable if only one party is present or the objecting tenant leaves. If one of the tenants is under arrest and not present, they no longer have to give two party consent. In this case, the present party need only give consent.
Georgia v. Randolph (2006) – Mutual Consent to Search
One resident objecting to a search overrides the other parties consent. All present parties must consent for the search to be valid.
Michigan v. Fisher (2009) – Warrantless Entry (Home)
An officer may make warrantless entry into a home if there are exigencies present that would make a reasonable person believe entry would prevent further harm.
Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) – Entry w/o Proper Consent
Officers are not in violation if they enter a property after receiving consent from a person that they believed was a resident of the premises.
Steagald v. US (1981) – Entry of 3rd Party Home (Warrant)
An arrest warrant must be present, and the suspect known to be inside a 3rd party residence prior to entry.
Ybarra v. Illinois (1979) – Search of Persons during Warrant
A search warrant for a business/employee does not permit searches of any customers.
Hanlon v. Berger (1999) – Search Warrant (Private Parties)
Officers violated the 4th amendment when they allowed a media crew to accompany them onto the premises and observe a search.
Groh v. Ramirez (2004) – Search Warrant (Items)
A warrant must state what items are to be seized or searched
Cupp v. Murphy (1973) – Search to Prevent Evidence Destruction
Limited searches to preserve evidence may be allowed without a warrant
California v. Hodari (1991) – Abandoned Property (Flight)
A seizure has not occurred where a suspect has fled rather than complying with an order to stop. Any property abandoned during the flight is considered abandoned.
Ohio v. Robinette (1996) – Consent Search
It is not required to advise a suspect that they are free to go before his consent to a search will be recognized as voluntary.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) – Right to Refuse (Consent)
A persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent search if a factor, but nor necessarily a prerequisite for a voluntary search.
Cardwell v. Lewis (1974) – Expectation of Privacy (Vehicle)
One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle, and it seldom serves as a residence or a storage area for personal belongings.
Byrd v. US (2018) – Expectation of Privacy (Rental Car)
A driver of a rental vehicle maintains the same level of privacy that they would in their personal vehicle. Whether or not they are listed on the rental agreement.
Chapman v. US (1961) – Expectation of Privacy (Renter)
A landlord cannot consent to the search of a home he rents out to another
US v. Jeffers (1951) – Expectation of Privacy (Hotel)
Defendants maintain an expectation of privacy in a hotel room, even if the room is rented by another and they have access to the room.
Minnesota v. Olson (1990) – Expectation of Privacy (Hotel)
Overnight guests in homes or hotel rooms of a 3rd party have an expectation of privacy on those premises.
Kylio v. US (2001) – Expectation of Privacy (Thermal)
Using a thermal imager on a home is a search and requires a warrant
Katz v. US (1967) – Expectation of Privacy (People)
The 4th amendment protects people, not places.
Stoner v. California (1964) – Consent to Search (Hotel)
A hotel manager cannot consent to a search of a guest’s room, even though they possess a key.
Maryland v. Buie (1990) – Protective Sweep Following Arrest
Protective sweeps are allowed to ensure officer safety during arrests.
Michigan v. Summers (1981) – Detention During Search
A warrant to search for contraband founded on PC, carries with it the limited authority to detain occupants of the premises during the search.
Shipley v. California (1969) – Arrest Outside Home
A warrant is required to search the home of a defendant after they are arrested outside.
US v. Place (1983) – Search in Public
Sniffing of a person’s belongings in a public location by a trained K9 is not a 4th amendment violation.
Maryland v. Pringle (2003) – Constructive Possession
If probably cause exists to arrest occupants of a vehicle containing contraband. It is reasonable to believe that the occupants had knowledge of the contraband and exercised dominion of control over the contraband. It would be reasonable to believe that the defendants committed the crime of possession either jointly or solely.
US v. Romano (1965) – Possession/Presence
Defendants presence at the scene of an illegal operation was deemed sufficient to authorize conviction for possession, custody, or control over the items.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) – Plain View Seizure
Officers may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.
Abel v. US (1960) – Abandoned Property
Voluntarily abandoned property cannot be complained about. It is no longer protected under the 4th amendment once it is abandoned.
US v. Knights (2001) – Probation Search
Probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Many times, reasonable suspicion + probation condition= warrantless search. Probation conditions should first be confirmed.
United States v. Knights, 534 US 112 – Supreme Court 2001 – Google Scholar
Ker v. California (1963) – Notice of Search
If notice of a search may allow for the destruction of evidence, it is not required.
South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) – Inventory Searches (Impound)
Inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles are lawful.
Colorado v. Bertine (1987) – Inventory Searches (Policy)
Inventory searches are valid only when conducted by policy.
Carpenter v. US (2018) – Cell Phone Data
A warrant is needed to access historical cell site data
Riley v. California (2014) – Search (Contents of Phone)
Officers must obtain a warrant before accessing he contents of a cell phone
US v. Jones (2012) – Search (GPS)
Attaching a GPS to a vehicle is considered a search, warrant is needed.
Oliver v. US (1984) – Open Fields
No expectation of privacy outdoors in open fields. Only exception would be curtilage that is immediately surrounding a home.
California v. Greenwood (1988) – Trash Rips
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash placed at the curb. Trash is placed in a publicly accessible area and could be considered abandoned property.
US v. Race (1976) – K9 Indication (Probable Cause)
The indication of drugs after a free air sniff from a well trained drug detection K9 is sufficient to establish probable cause.
United States v. Race, 529 F. 2d 12 – Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 1976
Florida v. Harris (2013) – K9 Indication (Probable Cause)
Police K9s are reliable and a positive indication for narcotics provide PC that contraband is located within the vehicle.
Illinois v. Caballes (2005) – K9 Free Air Sniff
A free air sniff during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the 4th amendment.
US v. Ludwig (1993) – K9 (Prolong Traffic Stop)
Extended stop and detention can be justified with articulable reasonable suspicion. In this instance, heavy smell of cologne, nervous behavior, and inconsistent travel story.
Brinegar v. US (1949) – PC Standard
PC exists where facts, and circumstances within the officers knowledge, and trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe a crime has been or is being committed.
Henry v. US (1959) – PC Standard
PC does not require an officer to think more likely than not someone was engaged in criminal activity. The belief by the officer only needs to be reasonable.
Texas v. Brown (1983) – PC (Experience)
PC can change with the officers experience, knowledge, and training.
Rios v. US (1960) – PC (Detention)
PC is not required to justify momentary detention when the officer has no intention to detain the suspect beyond the requirements of a routine interview.
US v. Arvizu (2002) – Totality of Circumstances
Reasonable suspicion can arise from the totality of circumstances.
US v. Hensley (1985) – Traffic Stop (Suspicion)
Officers may briefly stop a vehicle to investigate reasonable suspicion that the occupants are involved in a crime.
US v. Whren (1996) – Pretextual Stops
A stop is lawful if the officer had probable cause, regardless of the motive.
New York v. Class (1986) – VIN Verification
There is no expectation of privacy of a VIN #. It is required by law to be in public view while the vehicle is being operated.
Bugles and Bullets Foundation 