Difference between revisions of "Search and Seizure"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
'''Consent''' | '''Consent''' | ||
*Stoner v. California | *Stoner v. California | ||
| − | *Bumper v. North Carolina | + | *Bumper v. North Carolina - A search cannot be justified as lawful on the basis of consent when that "consent" has been given only after the official conducting the search has asserted that he possesses a warrant. |
| − | *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte | + | *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte - When the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and 14th Amendment requires that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances. Prosecution is not required to demonstrate that the subject knew he could refuse to consent to establish voluntariness. |
| − | *United States v. Matlock | + | *United States v. Matlock - Consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared. Proof must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| − | *Illinois v Rodriguez | + | *Illinois v Rodriguez - Officers need only to reasonably believe that person who consents to search of apartment is common authority. The validity of the search will be based on totality of the circumstances and the reasonable person test. |
| − | *Florida v. Bostick | + | *Florida v. Bostick - The test for whether seizure has occured for purposes of the Fourth Amendment is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel that he was not free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. |
| − | *United States v. Randolph | + | *United States v. Randolph - No valid consent when co-occupant states his refusal to permit entry over the consent of his co-occupant. |
'''Border Searches, Plain view, Open Fields, Public Schools, Railroad Employees, Administrative Searches''' | '''Border Searches, Plain view, Open Fields, Public Schools, Railroad Employees, Administrative Searches''' | ||
| − | *United States v. Flores-Montana | + | *United States v. Flores-Montana - |
| − | *Arizona v. Hiccks | + | *Arizona v. Hiccks - |
| − | *California v. Greenwood | + | *California v. Greenwood - |
| − | *Oliver v. United States | + | *Oliver v. United States - |
| − | *New Jersey v. TLO | + | *New Jersey v. TLO - |
| − | *Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association | + | *Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association - |
| − | *Camara v. Municipal Court | + | *Camara v. Municipal Court - |
| − | *New York v. Burger | + | *New York v. Burger - |
===Zimbabwe=== | ===Zimbabwe=== | ||
