Select Page

Criminal Procedure
Stetson University School of Law
McCoun, Thomas Bullitt

I. ENCOUNTERS DO NOT IMPLICATE 4TH AMENDMENT.
a. MENDENHALL. Only when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a seizure has occurred. Nothing in the constitution prevents policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Police office enjoy liberty ever other citizen has to approach others in the street and they have the right to ignore his approach/questions and walk away.
(1) SEIZURE. A person is seized only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained. As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person’s liberty or privacy.
(2) A person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.
(3) Even if the person does not attempt to leave, the following circumstances might indicate a seizure:
(a) The threatening presence of several officers
(b) Display of weapon by an officer
(c) Some physical touching of the person of the citizen
(d) The use of language or tone of voice indicating compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.
b. FEEL FREE TO LEAVE
(1) A confrontation is a seizure only if the officer adds to those inherent pressures of the conversation by engaging in conduct significantly beyond that accepted in social intercourse. Would two ordinary citizens have interacted in that manner?
(2) The mendenhall test allows police to ask questions as long as they don’t throw their weight around unduly.
c. WHEN AN ENCOUTNER BECOMES A SEIZURE
(1) ROVER. Retaining defendant’s ticket and license
(2) IN RE J.G. Unsupported accusations of criminal activity
(3) BOSTICK. Appropriate inquiry is whether the person would feel free to decline the officer’s request or otherwise terminate the encounter.
(4) DRAYTON. Uniform, badge, gun wearing, etc carries little weight in seizure analysis.
(5) HART. That defendant feels an inhibition to leave is not dispositive.
(6) CHESTNUT. Running alongside pedestrian in cop car does not equal a seizure
(7) HODARI. No seizure before cop tackled defendant despite chance because defendant did not stop.
(8) LETSINGER. Yelling “give me your bag” at a suspect who does not relinquish control does not equal seizure.
(9) RAYZOR. Miranda warnings turn an encounter into a seizure.
d. KNOCK AND TALK = Encounter.
(1) FROHRIEP (K & T does not implicate 4th amendment)

II. REASONABLE SUSPICION & STOP AND FRISK
a. TERRY.
(1) Interests served
(a) Crime detection and crime prevention
(b) officer safety
(2) Rule. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity is afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stage of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself, and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
(3) Reasonable Suspicion. The issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. In determining whether the officer acted reasonably, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to d raw from the facts in light of his experience.
(4) In justifying the particular intrusion the officer must point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant intrusion.
(5) In making this assessment it is imperative that it be judged against an objective standard; would the facts available to the officer at the moment of seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.
b. SIBRON (cop; “you know what I’m after” and reaches into pocket).
(1) Before he places a hand on citizen in search of anyting, cop must have reasonable grounds for doing so. In the case of a self protective search for weapons, he must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonable inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous. Defendant’s association with addicts did not indicate dangerousness and Officer’s comment indicated he was not afraid for his safety.
(2) A pat of outer clothing is allowed only to search for weapons. Only when officer discover what may possibly be a weapon, can he place his hands in defendant’s pockets. Here, no attempts at an initial exploration was made, officer simply thrust hands into pocket.
c. HENSELYTerry stops can be used when there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has already been committed.
d. ANONYMOUS TIPS AND REASONABLE SUSPICION
(1) WHITE. Reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause. Anonymous tip alone was insufficient, but policeman’s corroboration of details added enough to supply necessary showing. Tip indicated range of details concerning present and future actions of third parties not easily predicted. Ability to predict behavior indicated inside information. Reasonable for police to believe that defendant, in addition to these innocent activities, also had reliable information concerning the defendant’s criminal activities.
(2) Florida v. J.L. (anonymous tip’s allegation of firearm possession and description of suspect’s appearance insufficient)Corroboration of accurate physical description was insufficient. It does not indicate that tipster’s knowledge of concealed criminal activity. Tip must be reliable In its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to ID a determinate person. Reliability as to the likelihood of criminal activity

isk for weapons can be done.
(2) DAY. Right to frisk does not automatically follow the right to stop. Test for determining the validity of frisk is objective. Officer need only demonstrate substantial possibility defendant possessed an instrumentality would could be utilized to commit bodily harm.
(a) Application. Considering the time of day, location, that defendant exited vehicle without being told, and approached squad car, that officer was alone, there were 3 other occupants in defendant’s vehicle, 1 of the occupants was making movements that could be interpreted as reaching for weapon, officer was justified in taking charge of situation for his own protection by frisking defendant to make sure he was not in danger. Search was proper, it was confined to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover objects capable of use as weapons. Officer would reasonably assume that piece of paper was razor blade. Once officer extracted what he believed could be a razor blade, and saw it was a druggist fold and recognized it as a common method of conveying illegal drugs, he then had probable cause to arrest defendant. Thus, once he had arrested defendant he could conduct a search incident to the arrest. The search of the packet was a valid search incident to arrest.
k. PLAIN FEEL DOCTRINE
(1) DICKERSON. The incriminating nature of the object needs to be immediately apparent to officer. Although officer was lawfully in position to feel lump in defendant’s pocket, because Terry entitled him to place his hands upon defendant’s jacket, the incriminating nature of the object was not immediately apparent to him. Rather, the officer determined that the item was contraband only after conducting a further search, on not authorized by Terry or other exception to the warrant requirement.

III. PROBABLE CAUSE
(A) CARROL

Probable cause is a fact intensive or fact specific inquiry. The facts known to the cop, are they sufficient to support belief?

1. Facts and circumstances known by the cop of which
2. He has reasonably trust worthy information.
a. First hand, direct knowledge, observation, based on the senses:
b. Indirect, through informant
i. Credibility
ii. Reliability
c. Corroboration or
d. Independent complementary investigation
3. Which are sufficient in-themselves
4. To warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief
5. That a crime has been or is being committed.
6. Or that the contraband, evidence is located at the place to be searched.

(B) AGUILLAR-SPINELLI