Solved

Match the Court Case to Its Outcome

Question 51

Matching

Match the court case to its outcome.

Premises:

Responses:

Pennsylvania v. Labron

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

U.S. v. Drayton

The Court specified two conditions for a plain view search: (1) The police officer’s presence where the plain view search is made must be lawful, and (2) the discovery must be inadvertent. That is, if police have probable cause before the search, they must obtain a warrant.

Bond v. United States

The Court had to determine whether the anonymous tip that a person was carrying a gun was sufficient to justify a stop and frisk of that person. In this case the officers’ suspicion that the suspect was carrying a weapon was not supported by their own observations. The anonymous tip also provided no additional information to test the informant’s credibility (such as having provided good information to the police in the past or more details that predicted the suspect’s movements). As a result, the Court held that there was insufficient evidence from an anonymous tip to establish reasonable suspicion of law violation, so the stop and frisk was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Terry v. Ohio

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

Mapp v. Ohio

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Florida v. J. L.

The Court placed limits on random “squeezing” of carry-on luggage. In this case a border patrol agent boarded a bus in Texas to check the immigration status of passengers. On his way off the bus he squeezed the soft luggage passengers had placed in the overhead bins. In one bag, he felt the form of a “brick-like” object, which was ultimately discovered to be a brick of methamphetamine. Although the officer’s presence on the bus was lawful, the Court noted that squeezing the bags was “physically invasive,” and more intrusive than mere visual inspection. The Court held that bus passengers have a reasonable expectation that their carry-on bags willnot be inspected in an “exploratory manner” absent other evidence of unlawful conduct.

Ohio v. Robinette

Police officers are not required by the Fourth Amendment “to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.” This finding is consistent with earlier decisions that do not require police notification of suspects of their right to refuse consent.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Chimel v. California

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Premises:

Pennsylvania v. Labron

U.S. v. Drayton

Bond v. United States

Terry v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio

Florida v. J. L.

Ohio v. Robinette

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Chimel v. California

Responses:

People stopped for traffic violations do not have to be told they are free to go before their consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary.

The case that established the legal authority and limits for a “stop and frisk”.

When there is probable cause for a belief that a car holds contraband and the car can move, the police have authority to search it without a warrant

Applied the exclusionary rule to the states; the exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.

The case that established the authority of police to conduct a warrantless search in a lawful arrest.

Another well-established exception to the warrant requirement occurs when a search is made with the consent of the suspect. The primary concern here is the voluntariness of the consent.

Correct Answer:

Premises:

Responses:

Pennsylvania v. Labron

U.S. v. Drayton

Bond v. United States

Terry v. Ohio

Mapp v. Ohio

Florida v. J. L.

Ohio v. Robinette

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Chimel v. California