Case Laws
Case Laws
Embedded Files
"Keeping our Community Safe." - LSCSO Slogan | Join Us Today!
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - The Miranda case is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, "custody" is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. "Interrogation" is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person.
A example Of This case law is: A person is stopped by a deputy on a traffic violation. During a stop, the deputy finds narcotics in the car. The deputy asks the person questions about any narcotics and receives verbal yes answers. Based on those answers, the deputy detains the person and questions them more. During the questioning, the deputy receives a written incriminating statement from the person.
Under the Miranda ruling, the court stated the following:
1. The defendant was in custody (arrested) during the interrogation.
2. The person was interrogated.
3. The deputy did not read the person the Miranda warnings.
4. An incriminating written statement was given.
The result: The written statement is suppressed and inadmissible.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1(1968) - A deputy can briefly detain a person, based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, long enough to dispel the suspicion or to allow it to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. The deputy is also permitted to do a limited "frisk" search of the person without a warrant. Before the deputy can frisk search the subject, They must:
1. Have articulable facts that the person could be armed with a weapon.
2. Limit the search to pat searching the outer garments of the suspect to feel for objects that might be weapons.
3. Only reach inside the clothing after feeling such objects.
A example Of This case law is: A deputy is working a high crime area when a known gang member walks by with their hands in their pockets. The deputy, believing the person has a gun, stops the person, and frisks them. During the frisk, the deputy finds a gun in the subject's pocket.
The court stated:
1. The person was detained and frisked under the circumstances stated.
2. The deputy was allowed to detain the person.
3. The detention was brief.
4. The deputy had reason to believe the person had a weapon.
5. The deputy limited the search.
The result: The gun was admissible and is considered a legal search.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) - This case sets aside the standard for determining the excessive use of force as established in the 1973 case of Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2nd Cir. 1973). If the use of force violates the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then the standards listed in this Amendment will be used."All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard." In other words, was the decision of the deputy reasonable based on the information he had at the time.
The case further dictates that the arrest must be reasonably proportionate to the need of force as measured by:
The severity of the crime.
The danger to the deputy.
And, the risk of flight.
A example Of This case law is: A person has robbed a store. The robber leaves the store and walks to the street. A deputy driving by notices the subject and pulls them over. As the deputy is approaching the car, the robber drives off. The deputy, fearing for their safety, pursues the suspect. During the pursuit, the suspect crashes and flees on foot. The deputy uses force to take down the subject.
The court stated:
1. Both incidents were a seizure under the 4th Amendment.
2. The arrest was reasonable because of the robbery.
3. The deputy had reason to fear for their safety.
4. The suspect ran, therefore, the flight risk was high.
5. The force used was a reasonable amount.
The result: The deputy is cleared of excessive force charges.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (USSC)(1985) - The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements:
- The deputy has the probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the deputy or others.
- There must be no other means reasonably available to the deputy to prevent escape or avoid the danger.
- The shooting must not be excessive in light of the seriousness of the crime being pursued and the threat the suspect poses at the time.
A example Of This case law is: An deputy witnesses a person running from a convenience store with an unknown object in their hand. The deputy radios the incident in and begins the pursuit on foot. During the pursuit, the person turns around, and the deputy sees a knife. The suspect is cornered and refuses to drop the weapon. The suspect makes a sudden movement, and the deputy fires two shots.
The court stated:
1. Both incidents were a seizure under the 4th Amendment.
2. Use of deadly force was reasonable to prevent escape.
3. Deadly force was not excessive.
4. The suspect's actions were sudden, and the deputy was justified in shooting.
The result: The deputy is cleared of excessive force charges.
Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) - It is not reasonable to use a flash-bang device under the Fourth Amendment by throwing it blindly into a room occupied by several innocent sleeping bystanders absent a strong governmental interest. In this case deputies threw a flash-bang device in a room where Boyd was sleeping on the floor. The device went off next to her burning her arm.
Before deploying a flash-bang, the deputy needs to:
Weigh the severity of the threat.
Look at the deployment area to minimize injury.
Give a warning where possible.
A example Of This case law is: An incident report reads as follows: Deputies are serving a warrant to a residence. While the deputy knocks on the door, an individual is heard moving through the house. The deputies have no visual on the suspect and can only hear him. After hearing him, the deputies throw a flash-bang into the residence. The device detonates in the middle of the room.
The court stated:
1. Throwing a flash-bang at a suspect without looking was unreasonable.
2. The device caused significant injuries to the victim.
3. The incident violated the 4th Amendment.
The result: The flash-bang was not reasonable and the deputy is found negligent.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, states that a deputy ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A example Of This case law is: During a traffic stop, the deputy instructs the subject to get out of the car. As the deputy approaches the vehicle, the subject takes off. The deputy orders the subject to the ground and then frisks him. During the search, the deputy finds narcotics.
The court stated:
1. Both incidents were a seizure under the 4th Amendment.
2. The arrest was a traffic stop.
3. The person was ordered out of the car and was frisked.
4. The drugs were a legitimate reason to stop the person.
5. The order to stop was lawful.
The result: The drugs were seized legally.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, states that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.
A example Of This case law is: Deputies pull a car over for a routine traffic stop. During the stop, the deputies notice a large bulge in the passenger's shirt. The deputies order the passenger out of the car and perform a pat-down. During the search, they find a gun and a bag of cocaine.
The court stated:
1. All three incidents were a seizure under the 4th Amendment.
2. The stop was a traffic stop.
3. The passengers were ordered from the car.
4. The person was frisked and the gun and cocaine were found.
5. The deputies had a good reason to suspect the passenger.
The result: The cocaine and gun were seized legally.
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, states that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop. However, the subsequent search that followed the stop had to be related to the initial traffic offense.
A example Of This case law is: The defendant was involved in a reckless driving incident and the deputy pulls him over. After stopping the vehicle, the deputy smells marijuana. The deputy looks around the interior and finds marijuana.
The court stated:
1. A stop made because of a traffic infraction is a seizure under the 4th Amendment.
2. Marijuana was a secondary basis and cannot be used to extend the stop.
The result: The marijuana is not admissible.
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, states that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver. Therefore, police must issue a warrant or give Mirandas before questioning a passenger.
A example Of This case law is: During a traffic stop, a passenger begins shouting. The deputy opens the back door and tells the passenger to calm down. The passenger continues to yell and resist. The deputy grabs the passenger and takes him to the ground. During the scuffle, the deputy asks the subject why he is so angry.
The court stated:
1. Both passengers were in "custody" during the stop.
2. No warrant or Mirandas were issued.
3. The passenger was not allowed to refuse to answer the question.
4. The testimony was allowed in court.
The result: The deputy violated the 4th Amendment.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrant-less searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. It states that the Fourth Amendment does not protect private property taken or used in the course of a traffic violation.
A example Of This case law is: A driver is suspected to have stolen a vehicle and is seen leaving a residence. The deputies pull him over and find stolen property in the trunk of the car.
The court stated:
1. The car was a "private area."
2. The car was searched as a result of the traffic stop.
3. There was probable cause.
The result: The stolen items were admitted into evidence.
MacWade v. Kelly, 460 F. 3d 260 (2006), was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals that upheld the employ of random, suspicionless container searches by the governement to safeguard mass transportation facilities.
A example Of This case law is: Deputies are working a busy bus station. During the day, the deputies witness a man pour a liquid into a water fountain. The deputies then follow the man to the restroom. After the man exits the restroom, the deputies ask him what he did. He replies that he was drinking the liquid.
The court stated:
1. Searching a person without suspicion or warrant is an unlawful seizure.
2. The deputies had no right to stop the person.
3. Random searches are constitutional.
4. The random search was based on reasonable suspicion.
The result: The random search was lawful.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse