New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 5 Notes

by: Freddi Marsillo

Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 5 Notes SOC 2146

Marketplace > George Washington University > Sociology > SOC 2146 > Bill of Rights Criminal Justice Week 5 Notes
Freddi Marsillo
GPA 3.55

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover stop and frisk, Terry v. Ohio, and everything else that we discussed this week.
The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice
Saltzburg, S
Class Notes
Criminal, Justice, sociology, bill, Of, rights
25 ?




Popular in The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice

Popular in Sociology

This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by Freddi Marsillo on Wednesday September 28, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to SOC 2146 at George Washington University taught by Saltzburg, S in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 2 views. For similar materials see The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice in Sociology at George Washington University.


Reviews for Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 5 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/28/16
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 5 9/28/16 1:56 PM Warrantless Arrests • Arrest versus summons • Gustafson v. Florida (1973) – Justice Stewart suggests arrest for th minor offense might violate 4 Amendment • Atwater (2001) – Custodial arrests always okay for any crime o Seatbelt violation punishable only by fine Watson (1976) • Watson arrested for stolen credit card • Khoury tells postal inspector Watson has card • Khoury has provided 5-10 tips previously • Khourt delivers card to postal inspector • Postal inspector asks Khoury to get additional cards from Watson • Khoury meets Watson in restaurant, gives signal • Officers arrest, find no cards • Ask Watson for permission to search car • Find 2 cards in other names under floor mat • C.A. held arrest illegal; no exigent circumstances • Common Law Rule – officer may arrest for crime committed in presence and for felonies • Codified in 18 U.S.C. 3061 • White: Common Law Rule is constitutional • Powell – anomalous to protect property more than people; but practical reasons o Officers might wait to get warrant, then have no time o Early warrant might become stale ▯ Almost impossible unless probable cause disappears • Marshall – felonies once involved only the most serious crimes Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) • Gail Atwater stopped in her pickup truck in Texas with 3 year old son and 5 year old daughter in front seat • No seatbelts • Officer arrests Atwater • Officer requests driver’s license and insurance documents o Purse stolen the day before • Atwater asks to take her children to friend’s house o Officer refuses o But friends happen by to pick up children th • 4 Amendment permits arrests for minor criminal offenses (said Justice Souter) • O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissent Warrantless Arrests Why arrest for minor crimes • Officer gets a free search • Officer gets to punish • Person goes to jail for crimes not punishable by imprisonment So why do officers arrest for minor crimes? Some thoughts: • “To humiliate the arrestee by subjecting her to the “perp walk,” where the arrestee is deliberately marched before the news media so that she can be photographed and publicly displayed” • “Another practical reason that law enforcement officers arrest people is because they get the benefit of the “free” or automatic search incident to arrest that has been discussed above. If they issue a summons or citation, they do not get to make the search” • “The final practical reason why law enforcement officers like to make arrests is that an arrest gives them an opportunity to engage in custodial interrogation” Arrests and Reasonable Force • Tenn v. Garner (1985) – cannot shoot fleeing felon – rejects common law • Graham v. Connor (1989) – 4 thAmendment governs claim of use of excessive force • Relevant factors o Severity of crime at issue o Whether suspect is immediate threat o Whether suspect actively resists or evades Scott v. Harris (2007) • Harris drives 73 mph in 55 mph zone • Deputy flashes lights to pull him over • Harris flees at speeds exceeding 85 mph • Almost caught in parking lot, but escapes and collides with Deputy Scott’s car • Scott obtains permission to use a “precision intervention technique” – applies his push bumper to rear of Harris’s car • Harris’s car goes over embankment and Harris is rendered a quadriplegic • Harris sues Scott for use of excessive force • District Court denies motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds • C.A. affirms relying on Garner • Sup Ct reverses • Scalia: irrelevant whether Scott had permission to act as he did • Rejects argument that Garner established “a magical on/off switch that triggers rigid preconditions whenever an officer’s actions constitute ‘deadly force’” • Threat posed by flight on foot of unarmed suspect not remotely comparable to extreme danger posed by Harris • All that matters is whether Scott’s action was reasonable • Courts ordinarily views facts in light most favorable to non-movant, but here there is a videotape • Harris’s “version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him” o Lower courts disagreed • Harris placed himself and public in danger • Harris produced choice between two evils that Scott confronted • Scott did not have to cease chase • Scott’s action was certain to eliminate the threat, whereas ceasing pursuit was not • “We are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger” • Stevens, dissents, and argues that lower court judges are more familiar with hazards of driving on Georgia’s roads Forrester (San Diego Anti-Abortion Protests) • Anti-abortion protestors all lie down on ground and refuse to move • Officers give them verbal warning • Arrest those who refuse to leave • Give another chance to move voluntarily • Apply “pain compliance techniques” – wrist or arm twisting, pressure point holds • Jury verdict for officers upheld Co. of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991) • Class action lawsuit – Riverside, CA o Co. combines P.C. determinations with arraignment • Plaintiffs want 36 hour rule for post-warrantless arrest hearing • Majority – “hearings must b prompt; not immediate” under Gerstein v. Pugh • 48 hours presumptively reasonable – may be too long in particular cases • Gov’t must justify longer delay • Scalia – presumption that anything longer than 24 hours is too long o Entitled to hearing as soon as arrest was complete and magistrate could be procured o About protecting the innocent • Marshall, Blackmun & Stevens – agree with Scalia that “prompt” means immediately upon completion of administrative steps incident to arrest Arrest at Home: Payton v. NY (1980) • Cannot arrest a suspect in her home without a warrant absent exigent circumstances • An arrest warrant is all that is needed • If the officer has a search warrant, that authorizes entry and probable cause to arrest would justify an arrest th • Katz: 4 Amendment protects people, not places. Is this really true? • If an officer violates Katz and enters a home without a warrant, the arrest is still good but the entry is deemed to be a 4 th Amendment violation • Hotel and motel rooms are considered homes when properly rented Arrest in Another’s Home: Steagald v. US (1981) • Search warrant required to look for suspect in third party’s home o Protect privacy interests of homeowner • Standing issues (expectations of privacy) are important o Police enter Steagald’s home to find Lyons o Steagald can complain; it’s his house ▯ Lyons has no interest in the house ▯ Once in house, can arrest Lyons with probable cause Minn v. Olson (1990) • Gunman robs gas station, kills manager • Officer suspects Ecker • Goes to Ecker’s home as Olson arrives • Olson takes evasive action, goes out of control and stops • Ecker arrested, other man escapes • Police find money and murder weapon in car • Also find papers with Olson’s name and address • Woman calls police to say Olson was driver • Woman calls again and says Olson confessed to Louanne and Julie and gives their address • Police go and find Duplex o Louanne and Julie not home o Louanne’s mother lives in bottom and confirms that Olson had been living upstairs o Mother says Olson is out o Promises to call police when he returns • Overnight guest has reasonable expectation of privacy – but for Olson, the police had probable cause to arrest him • Overnight guests o Arrest warrant required o Guest has reasonable expectation of privacy • The question is, how do police know who is an overnight guest? • Does this mean that homeowner gets less protection? (i.e. no search warrant) Minn v. Carter (1998) • Two men cutting up cocaine in apartment • Officer saw them by looking through crack in otherwise closed blind after informant gave a tip • Officer phones in info so search warrant can be obtained • Men leave apartment in car • Car stopped and men arrested • Police return to apartment and arrest third person • The issue is whether officer’s observation was an unconstitutional search • Holding: men have no right to complain; no right of privacy in the apartment • Rehnquist joined by O’Connor o Commercial, short period, no connection • Scalia (with Thomas) concurring o Not “their home” • Kennedy concurring o Distinguished between business (not protected) and social guests (protected) • Ginsburg (with Stevens and Souter) dissenting o All guests protected • Breyer (agreed with Ginsburg and concurred in result; no search) • 5 votes for protecting social guests • Apartment renter’s rights not at issue in this case Terry v. Ohio (1968) • May be the most important decision for law enforcement • Terry and Chilton oddly circle around, walk back and forth, pausing to stare into a store window – looks suspicious • McFadden – o 39 years experience o 35 as detective o Sees Terry and Chilton o Watches them, follows them, approaches 3 men o Pats them down, seizes gun from them & arrests them • Warren notes limits of exclusionary rule • Rejects notion that stop is not a seizure or frisk is not a search • Will not isolate stop and frisk from 4th Amendment • Claims not to depart from emphasis on warrants and probable cause – but bows to practical necessity • Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” • Officer may protect self; would a reasonable officer believe that an individual is armed; no inchoate or unparticularized suspicion; specific reasonable inferences are required • Harlan – right to stop must exist if there is a right to frisk • When articulable suspicion of crime of violence, right to frisk is automatic • White – officer may address questions to anyone o Person may refuse to cooperate and go on his way • Douglas – probable cause standard Adams v. Williams – tip from known person that suspect in car has heroin and handgun • High crime area, 2:15 a.m. • Officer asks occupant to open door • Occupant opens window • Officer reaches in, removes revolver from waistband • Arrests occupant, searches and finds heroin, machete, and second revolver Three Categories of Intrusions 1) Arrest and search incident to arrest • Probable cause required 2) Stop and frisk • Reasonable suspicion required • Prolonged detention may turn a stop into an arrest (Florida v. Royer) 3) Encounter • No reasonable suspicion required Reasonable Person Test • U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) – Justice Stewart proposes that the test be whether an innocent person would have believed he was not free to leave • Adopted by court in INS v. Delgado (1984) • Arguably focuses on the wrong person, the suspect, rather than on the police officer, whose conduct is being assessed • Arguably is unrealistic Florida v. Royer (1983) • Miami airport – plain clothes detectives see Royer • Approach Royer and ask to talk – he says okay • Royer gives them his ticket and driver’s license • Airline ticket says Royer; luggage says Holt • Royer becomes nervous • Detectives ID themselves as narcotics officers • Detectives, with the ticket and license, ask Royer to accompany them to small room; he does • Detectives retrieve his bags, ask for consent to search and Royer lets them • Detectives find marijuana • Supreme Court finds this to be an arrest • Majority says failure to cooperate cannot alone be justification for detention • Dissenters argue that this was a reasonable suspicion detention Florida v. Bostick (1991) • Officers with badges, insignia and zipper pouch board bus • Ask to see ticket and ID • Explain purpose and request consent to search • Court rejects “would suspect feel free to leave” test • Substitutes “would suspect feel free to decline or terminate” o Remand US v. Drayton (2002) • Officers with visible badges and concealed weapons board bus • 2 stationed at door and rear; 1 questions passengers • Obtains consent to search Brown and Drayton • Court holds no seizure • Nothing coercive or confrontational • Prior arrest of Brown did not seize Drayton • Cites Delgado o 3 dissents – “air of unreality” Passengers in Cars • Brendlin v. California (2007) passengers are seized when a car is stopped by police • PA v. Mimms (1977) – Officer making valid traffic stop may order suspect out of car • MD v. Wilson (1997) – Mimms applies to passengers • NY v. Class (1986) – Officer may move papers to see VIN • AZ v. Johnson (2009) – police may frisk passenger with reasonable suspicion California v. Hodari D (1991) • Officers encounter group of youth huddled around car • Hodari ran away and threw a small rock • Officer tackles Hodari, handcuffs him, and arrests him after determining rock was cocaine • Physical touching is a seizure • Refusal to submit to authority is not US v. Sokolow (1989) • DEA agents stopped Sokolow • Paid $2100 for 2 plane tickets from roll of $20s • Traveled under a name that did not match name under which his phone was issued (number given to ticket agent) • Traveled from Honolulu to Miami and stayed only 48 hours • Appeared nervous during trip • Checked no luggage nor did his female companion • Innocent factors considered together may establish reasonable suspicion • That factors are in profile does not weaken them • Rejects argument that encounters should be preferred • Marshall and Brennan dissent Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada (2004) • Police receive telephone report of assault • Red and silver GMC truck, man assaulting woman • Officer finds truck, man and woman, skid marks • Man looks intoxicated; officer asks for ID • Man refuses, taunts officer, tells him to arrest o ID requested and refused 11 times • Stop and identify statute o Premised upon reasonable suspicion o Distinguished from vagrancy laws • Stop upheld = reasonable suspicion • ID is part of a Terry stop • Nevada may punish refusal to identify if request is related to crime investigated • Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissent o Officer may demand ID, but unreasonable to punish a refusal to provide ID US v. Arvizu (2002) Border patrol stop triggered by magnetic sensors – officer intercepts car and watches it th • 9 circuit identifies certain factors as “out of bounds” in reasonable suspicion inquiry o Slowing down o Failure to acknowledge officer o Raised position of children’s knees o Odd waving by children • S Ct: “Terry, however, precludes this sort of divide and conquer analysis” • Conduct not suspicious in one setting might be suspicious in another Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) • Flight from police • High crime area • Flight and area = reasonable suspicion • Stop, frisk, seizure of gun, arrest • 4 dissenters argue flight in high crime area is not enough th US v. Weaver (8 Circuit 1992) • Officer can rely on knowledge that young black LA gangs were flooding Kansas City with cocaine • Came on flight from source city for drugs • Had no ID • Appeared unusually nervous with officers US v. Berry (5 th Circuit 1982) (en banc) • Drug courier profiles • “Profile is nothing more than an administrative tool of the police” • Match with profile does not automatically establish suspicion • Match with profile does not preclude use in establishing suspicion Does Officers Consider Race? May They? • State v. Ruiz – Hispanic person properly stopped in area in which only African Americans frequented except to buy drugs • City of St. Paul v. Uber (MN App. 1990) – car in area where prostitution flourishes at 2:15 am o Uber is Caucasian male o No reasonable suspicion US v. Hensley (1985) • Completed crime – Ohio tavern robbery • Informant says Hensley drove getaway car • Flyer states Hensley is wanted for investigation • Should be presumed armed and dangerous • Stop in Kentucky o Officer lets Hensley go o Other officers say there might be a warrant o Hensley stopped while warrant is sought o Gun seen under passenger seat, passenger arrested o Search of car, another gun found, Hensley arrested o Collective knowledge justifies stop – unanimous court • Steps along the way – 1) stop (Terry), 2) gun seen (plain view), 3) arrest of passenger (gun violation), 4) search of car (incident to arrest or under auto exception), 5) arrest of Hensley (gun crime) • Terry permits stop upon reasonable suspicion that person has completed a felony 9/28/16 1:56 PM 9/28/16 1:56 PM


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.