Terry v. Ohio (1968)
The Stop and Frisk Doctrine
- Facts: A detective observed three men casing a store and suspected a robbery. He stopped them and performed a pat-down, finding a weapon.
- Ruling: Officers can stop and briefly detail a person if they have reasonable suspicious of criminal activity. If they also have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, they can frisk for weapons.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977)
Ordering a Driver Out of a Vehicle
- Facts: Officers stopped a car for an expired plate and ordered the driver out. They saw a bulge under his jacket and found a gun.
- Ruling: Officers may order a driver out of the vehicle without additional justification beyond the traffic stop itself
- If driver refuses, reasonable force may be used
Brendlin. California (2007)
Passenger Detention During Traffic Stop
- Facts: Officers stopped a car, arrested the passenger (Brendlin) on a warrant, and found drugs.
- Ruling: Passengers, like drivers, are seized during a traffic stop and lawfully detained incident to the driver’s detention.
- Passengers cannot leave during a traffic stop unless released by an officer.
- Officers can order both drivers and passengers out of the vehicle.
- Officers cannot demand a passenger’s ID without independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Illinois v. Caballes (2005)
K9 Sniffs & Traffic Stops
- Facts: A K9 alerted to drugs during a routine stop without prolonging it.
- Ruling: K9 sniffs DO NOT constitute a 4th Amendment search if they do not extend the stop.
- If waiting for a K9 extends the stop, reasonable suspicion is required (Rodriguez v. U.S. 2015)
- Officers cannot detain longer than necessary without additional justification
Knowles v. Iowa (1998)
No Search Incident to Citation
- Facts: Officers issued a citation but searched the vehicle anyway, finding drugs.
- Ruling: Officers cannot conduct a search incident to citation - a full search requires probable cause or an exception.
- Officers can search if they have probable cause to believe contraband is present.
- There is no search incident to citation of the person either. However, police can search a person if they have probable cause to believe the search will uncover contraband related to the reason for the citation. But this is not a search incident to arrest because a citation is not an arrest.
Michigan v. Long (1983)
Vehicle Protective Searches
- Facts: Officers saw a suspect act suspiciously, frisked the vehicle, and found a knife.
- Ruling: Officers can frisk a vehicle if they reasonably suspect weapons may be accessible.
- Justified because occupants may return to the vehicle and access weapons.
- Limited to areas within immediate reach.
Minnesota v. Dikerson (1993)
The Plain Feel Doctrine
- Facts: During a Terry frisk, an officer felt drugs in a suspect’s pocket but manipulated the object before seizing it.
- Ruling: The plain feel doctrine allows seizure only if contraband is immediately apparent without manipulation. Dickerson continued.
- If an officer is unsure, they can: ask the suspect what it is or ask for consent to retrieve it
- If admission is made this established probable cause for an arrest.
Ohio v. Robinette (1996)
No “Free to Leave” Requirement
- Facts: An officer obtained consent for a search after giving a warning but without telling the driver he was free to go.
- Ruling: Officers do no need to tell someone they are free to leave before asking for consent to search.
Payton v. New York (1980) & Steagald v. U.S. (1981)
Home Entry and Arrest Warrants
- Facts: Officers entered a home to arrest a suspect without a warrant.
- Ruling: Payton - An arrest warrant allows officers to enter the suspect’s home if they believe they are inside. Steagald - A search warrant is needed to enter someone else’s home to arrest a suspect.
- A valid warrant is valid regardless of felony or misdemeanor.
- The address on the warrant is irrelevant if the officers can prove the home is where the suspect currently is.
- Officers DO NOT need to contact the court to update the warrant’s address before executing it.
Whren v. U.S. (1996)
Pretextual Stops
- Facts: Officers stopped a car for a traffic violation but were looking for drug activity.
- Ruling: Pretextual stops are legal if based on a lawful traffic violation
Brigham City, UT v. Stuart (2006)
- Ruling: Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.
United States v. Santana (1976)
Hot Pursuit for Felonies
- Ruling: Police may enter a suspect’s home without a warrant if they are in “hot pursuit” of a felony suspect and the entry is necessary to prevent escape, destruction of evidence, or harm to officers or others
- If you have probable cause to arrest someone for a felony, and they flee into their home while you’re actively pursuing them, you CAN follow them inside without a warrant.
Hiibel v. 6th Judicial district Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
Forcing Someone to Identify Themselves
- Ruling: An officer can require a person to identify themselves during a valid investigative stop (Terry stop), as long as the demand is based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the state has a “stop-and-identify” law
- Officers cannot compel ID during a consensual encounter, if the state has no stop-and-identify law, or if an arrest is not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause
Case law which constitutes enough reasonable suspicion to compel identification?
United States v. Hensley (1985)
- A person closely matches the description of a suspect from credible witness
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)
-A person is seen acting in a manner consistent with criminal activity
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
- Officers CANNOT demand ID without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985)
Officers can demand ID and detain a passenger of a vehicle if there’s valid reason to suspect the passenger of a separate offense.
Ex:
- passenger is evasive, actin nervously, or matching a suspect description
- drug paraphernalia or open containers are in plain view near the passenger
- the passenger hides an item or gives a false name, creating suspicion of another offense
Delaware v. Prouse (1979)
No Random ID Checks Without Cause
- Random stops to check driver’s licenses or vehicle registrations without reasonable suspicion are unconstitutional
- Demanding ID without reasonable suspicion is an unreasonable seizure
Rodriguez v. United States (2015)
- Facts: A police officer stopped Rodrigue for a traffic violation and issued a warning. The officer then extended the stop to conduct a K9 sniff without reasonable suspicion. The sniff lead to the discovery of drugs
- Issue: Can an officer extend a completed traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion?
- Holding: No, a traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond the time needed to handle the reason for the stop unless there is independent reasonable suspicion
- Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that extending the stop beyond its initial purpose, even briefly, without additional suspicion violated the 4th Amendment
Rodriguez v. United States (2015) - Reasonable Suspicion to Extend a Traffic Stop
To legally extend a stop beyond its original purpose, officers need specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity. Examples include:
- Odor of Narcotics - smell of marijuana or other drugs
- Extreme Nervousness - Excessive sweating, shaking, or avoiding eye contact
- Conflicting Statements - Driver and passenger give inconsistent travel details
- Known Criminal History - Prior drug offenses tied to the driver or passenger
- Unusual Travel Plans - impulsive or illogical trip details
- Concealment Efforts - Avoiding rolling down windows or blocking access to areas
- 3rd-Party Vehicle - Car registered to someone not present, with no good explanation
- Visible Contraband - Drug paraphernalia, baggies, or cash bundles in plain view
United States v. Ross (1982)
- Issue: Can police search closed containers in a car without a warrant if they have probable cause?
- Holding: Yes, the automobile exception allows searching any part of the vehicle were contraband may be found.
- Reasoning: Probable cause extends to all compartments and containers in the vehicle, meaning officers do not need a separate warrant for locked or closed container.
