INTRODUCTION TO LAW SOCIETY QUINONES FINAL EXAMINATION SUBJECT GUIDE Fall 2015 Facts Terry v Ohio USSC Officer was on regular patrol when he noticed Terry with another man They were all taking turns walking by a store window and peering in They did their walk bys more than a dozen times Officer had 35 years of experience and had become reasonably suspicious He approached and frisked them and found guns and spare bullets Officer did not reach under Terry s clothing until he felt outline of gun and then did so only to remove the gun It is important to note that the Officer frisked BEFORE arresting Verdict at Trial Level Pre Trial motion to suppress guns and spare bullets as part of an unlawful search was denied o Officer originally made a stop not an arrest therefore legal burden of suspicion is low o Officer originally did a frisk not a full blown search therefore legal burden of suspicion is lower Defendant was found guilty Verdict at Appellate Level s District Court of Appeals Affirmed bullets Supreme Court Affirmed o Officer had enough reasonable suspicion to frisk suspects and find the gun and spare o Officer did not exceed reasonable scope of search by frisking outer clothing the defendant after having enough evidence to form reasonable suspicion 4th Amendment Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Relevant Amendment s Appellant s Argument The moment when the officer stopped Terry was an arrest and therefore the officer needed probable cause The frisk that the officer did of Terry was a search and therefore the officer needed probable cause Legal Issue Reasoning Is it always unreasonable for police to stop and frisk a person without probable cause for an arrest Officers often must act quickly to search for weapons on suspects that could be dangerous to o For this reason the warrant normally required by the 4th Amendment cannot be themselves of the public applicable The actions of Terry may not individually have been suspicious but in total they gave the officer a reason to be suspicious Given that the Officer has reason to believe Terry was going to commit a robbery Officer When conducting his frisk the officer limited to only checking for weapons as to ensure had reason to believe Terry might be armed the safety of himself and those around him Therefore the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and there was no error by the trial Court for letting them into evidence Important Notes The Court draws a distinction between a stop and frisk and making an arrest seizure o Stop and frisk only requires a reasonable suspicion given the evidence the officer o Arrest or full on searches require warrant probable cause Reasonable suspicion must be articulable a hunch is not enough The frisk must be limited to searching for weapons that could harm the officer and has observe surrounding public Brown v Texas USSC Facts Police were patrolling during the daytime when they saw Brown with another man in an alley in a high crime area The two men walked away from one another as police approached Officers stopped Brown and asked him to identify himself and Brown refused By refusing Brown violated a Texas law that requires people to identify themselves when lawfully stopped by an officer Officers did not claim to believe Brown was armed Officers did not claim to suspect Brown of any particular conduct Verdict at Trial Level Defendant s motion to suppress was denied and he was convicted o The trial court found that Brown had been lawfully stopped Verdict at Appellate Level s District Court of Appeals Reversed o Brown s 4th Amendment rights were violated because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to believe Brown was engaged in criminal conduct Supreme Court Did not go to Supreme Court 4th Amendment Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Relevant Amendment s Appellant s Argument The officer s stop of Brown was not lawful because the officer did not have enough evidence to amount to reasonable suspicion The stop violated Brown s 4th Amendment Rights Did the officer have enough evidence to demonstrate reasonable suspicion before he Legal Issue Reasoning stopped Brown The 4th Amendment requires that a seizure must be based on specific objective facts Although officers may stop suspects without probable cause this officer could not articulate his reasonable suspicion The fact that Brown was in a neighborhood that was frequented by drug users is not enough to show that Brown himself was involved in criminal activities Important Notes The Court weighed the importance of asserting a police presence in a crime riddled neighborhood by having Brown identify himself against Brown s 4th Amendment Rights Ultimately they found that the circumstances did not justify intruding about Brown s 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures Seibert vs Florida FSC Facts Seibert had been doing cocaine with friends the night before the incident After finishing their drug use all of the friends left except Seibert and a female Seibert spent several hours alone with the girl and when his roommate returned he refused to let the roommate in Seibert then told his roommate that he was going crazy and was going to kill himself Seibert s roommate immediately called 911 who then dispatched police to check on Siebert inches Officers knocked for several minutes before Siebert answered and opened the door a few Officers could only see part of Siebert s torso and none of his arms or legs Officers pushed their way into the apartment and had Seibert sit down on a bed Officers glanced around to ensure nobody else was in the room and saw through a slightly open bathroom door than a severed foot was in the edge of the bathtub Siebert tried to escape was captured by police and tried for killing and dismembering the young woman he had been left alone with Verdict at Trial Level Siebert was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death Verdict at Appellate Level s Florida Supreme Court Affirmed Relevant Amendment s 4th Amendment Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Appellant s Argument Officers violated Seibert s rights by conducting a search inside the house Legal Issue Reasoning Did the officers violate Seibert s 4th Amendment Rights by conducting a search and seizure without a warrant Officers originally entered the home for procedural reasons o Welfare check requires that officers see the arms and legs of the person to confirm o This reason allows them