Search and SeizureSearch and SeizureBy Spencer “King of Four Square” MillinerBy Spencer “King of Four Square” Milliner

Amazingly Interesting Cases Amazingly Interesting Cases Explained!Explained!

Think of the Children SlideThink of the Children Slide

Mapp v. OhioMapp v. OhioOn May 23, 1957 officers tried to On May 23, 1957 officers tried to gain entry into Dolree Mapp’s home, gain entry into Dolree Mapp’s home, under suspicion that she was under suspicion that she was harboring a criminal (Virgil harboring a criminal (Virgil Ogletree) involved in the recent Ogletree) involved in the recent bombing of Don “The Kid” King’s bombing of Don “The Kid” King’s residence, as well as possessing residence, as well as possessing illegal betting equipment.illegal betting equipment.

Mapp refused entry until she could Mapp refused entry until she could receive advice from her lawyer.receive advice from her lawyer.

After being informed by her lawyer to not allow After being informed by her lawyer to not allow the officers to enter without seeing a warrant, the officers to enter without seeing a warrant, Mapp continued to refuse their entry.Mapp continued to refuse their entry.

Although this seemed to deter the police, three Although this seemed to deter the police, three hours later, after reinforcements had arrived, hours later, after reinforcements had arrived, they forcibly entered Mapp’s home. At this time they forcibly entered Mapp’s home. At this time Mapp’s attorney Greene arrived at the residence, Mapp’s attorney Greene arrived at the residence, but was barred entrance by the officers.but was barred entrance by the officers.

Mapp v. Ohio Cont.Mapp v. Ohio Cont.

After Mapp asked for a warrant the officers After Mapp asked for a warrant the officers quickly waved a paper in front of her, which she quickly waved a paper in front of her, which she then grabbed (This paper was indeed not a then grabbed (This paper was indeed not a warrant). In response to this, the officers warrant). In response to this, the officers handcuffed Mapp for belligerency.handcuffed Mapp for belligerency.

Although the officers did find Ogletree, he Although the officers did find Ogletree, he proved to be of no use to the bombing case. Not proved to be of no use to the bombing case. Not finding betting equipment, the officers did find a finding betting equipment, the officers did find a number of pornographic materials as well as number of pornographic materials as well as betting slips.betting slips.

Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont.Cont.

Possession of pornographic materials was illegal Possession of pornographic materials was illegal in Ohio, and Mapp was charged with a in Ohio, and Mapp was charged with a misdemeanor gambling charge and a felony misdemeanor gambling charge and a felony obscenity charge.obscenity charge.

Later convicted of the obscenity charge and Later convicted of the obscenity charge and sentenced to serve up to seven years in the Ohio sentenced to serve up to seven years in the Ohio Reformatory for Women, Mapp appealed her Reformatory for Women, Mapp appealed her case three times, eventually to the Ohio case three times, eventually to the Ohio Supreme Court who upheld the conviction. Supreme Court who upheld the conviction. Strangely enough, the Court admitted that the Strangely enough, the Court admitted that the evidence was obtained with an “unlawful” evidence was obtained with an “unlawful” search, but was still admissible.search, but was still admissible.

Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.Cont.

The Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of The Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Wolf v. People of the State of ColoradoWolf v. People of the State of Colorado in their in their decision, stating that the exclusionary rule, decision, stating that the exclusionary rule, which prevents improperly obtained evidence which prevents improperly obtained evidence from being introduced in federal court, need not from being introduced in federal court, need not be applied in state court proceedings.be applied in state court proceedings.

Mapp then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Mapp then took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, appealing on First Amendment grounds. Court, appealing on First Amendment grounds. Mapp’s lawyers argued that Ohio had violated Mapp’s lawyers argued that Ohio had violated her right to freedom of thought and expression her right to freedom of thought and expression by making the possession of obscene materials by making the possession of obscene materials illegal, as well as that the search and seizure illegal, as well as that the search and seizure conducted was unlawful.conducted was unlawful.

Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.Cont.

The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a brief arguing for a reconsideration of brief arguing for a reconsideration of Wolf v. Wolf v. People of the State of ColoradoPeople of the State of Colorado. .

The Supreme Court had actually been waiting for The Supreme Court had actually been waiting for a chance to overturn a chance to overturn WolfWolf, and it seized the , and it seized the opportunity. With a four-vote plurality, the opportunity. With a four-vote plurality, the Supreme Court overturned Supreme Court overturned WolfWolf, which meant , which meant that the exclusionary rule was now applied to that the exclusionary rule was now applied to states.states.

Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Mapp v. Ohio Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont.Cont.

The Supreme Court, largely ignoring the First The Supreme Court, largely ignoring the First Amendment reasons for the appeal, declared Amendment reasons for the appeal, declared that any and all evidence obtained by search and that any and all evidence obtained by search and seizure in violation of the Constitution was seizure in violation of the Constitution was inadmissible in state court, and thus ruled in inadmissible in state court, and thus ruled in favor of Mapp in a 6-3 decision. favor of Mapp in a 6-3 decision.

As a result, state police and courts are obliged to As a result, state police and courts are obliged to follow the Fourth Amendment prohibition against follow the Fourth Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure. Hurray!illegal search and seizure. Hurray!

Mapp v. Ohio (Cont.)^6Mapp v. Ohio (Cont.)^6

Born on February 29Born on February 29thth, Pochacco is an athletic , Pochacco is an athletic dog from the Sanrio Universe. He enjoys playing dog from the Sanrio Universe. He enjoys playing basketball, soccer, and loves eating carrots!basketball, soccer, and loves eating carrots!

Pochacco SlidePochacco Slide

Terry v. Ohio (Not Cont.)Terry v. Ohio (Not Cont.)Terry v. Ohio (Not Cont.)Terry v. Ohio (Not Cont.)While on duty Martin McFadden, a veteran While on duty Martin McFadden, a veteran Cleveland detective, observed two individuals on Cleveland detective, observed two individuals on a street corner. These men proceeded along an a street corner. These men proceeded along an identical route and stared at the same store identical route and stared at the same store window repeatedly, and were soon joined by a window repeatedly, and were soon joined by a third man.third man.

McFadden suspected the trio of “casing” the McFadden suspected the trio of “casing” the store for a possible burglary, and he approached store for a possible burglary, and he approached them. After identifying himself as a policeman them. After identifying himself as a policeman and receiving little cooperation from the trio, he and receiving little cooperation from the trio, he frisked one of the men, whose name was Terry. frisked one of the men, whose name was Terry.

Terry v. Ohio (Yes Cont.)Terry v. Ohio (Yes Cont.)Terry v. Ohio (Yes Cont.)Terry v. Ohio (Yes Cont.)McFadden discovered a gun in Terry’s overcoat, McFadden discovered a gun in Terry’s overcoat, and after ordering the men to enter a store and and after ordering the men to enter a store and face a wall with their hands raised, he removed face a wall with their hands raised, he removed Terry’s pistol and found another revolver on one Terry’s pistol and found another revolver on one of the other men. McFadden had the store of the other men. McFadden had the store owner call the police and placed the three men owner call the police and placed the three men under arrest for carrying concealed weapons. under arrest for carrying concealed weapons.

The trio were convicted for carrying concealed The trio were convicted for carrying concealed weapons and sentenced to one to three years in weapons and sentenced to one to three years in prison. They appealed this conviction reasoning prison. They appealed this conviction reasoning that McFadden performed an unlawful search that McFadden performed an unlawful search and seizure. If this was true, the seized pistols and seizure. If this was true, the seized pistols should not have been admitted in court.should not have been admitted in court.

Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.In Terry’s trial the court denied the motion to In Terry’s trial the court denied the motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that suppress the evidence on the grounds that McFadden had cause to suspicion due to the McFadden had cause to suspicion due to the men’s behavior, as well as the right to pat them men’s behavior, as well as the right to pat them down if he had reasonable cause to believe they down if he had reasonable cause to believe they were armed. were armed.

The court made a distinction between a stop and The court made a distinction between a stop and an arrest as well as a frisk and a search for an arrest as well as a frisk and a search for evidence. After an appellate court affirmed the evidence. After an appellate court affirmed the verdict and the state supreme court dismissed verdict and the state supreme court dismissed the appeal, the case came before the U.S. the appeal, the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court.Supreme Court.

Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch. Dot.Dot.

Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch.Terry v. Ohio Cont. Conch. Dot.Dot.

In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the In an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the stop and frisk practice. Although validity of the stop and frisk practice. Although McFadden did not have probable cause for a full McFadden did not have probable cause for a full search, it was concluded that a stop and frisk search, it was concluded that a stop and frisk search was appropriate for the situation.search was appropriate for the situation.

As a result, the method used within this case As a result, the method used within this case (the Terry frisk) has become a standard by which (the Terry frisk) has become a standard by which officers can measure the lawfulness of searches officers can measure the lawfulness of searches performed without a warrant.performed without a warrant.

Oh goodness how did this get Oh goodness how did this get herehere

Oh goodness how did this get Oh goodness how did this get herehere

I am not good with computersI am not good with computers

Illinois v. CaballesIllinois v. CaballesIllinois v. CaballesIllinois v. CaballesIllinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped Caballes on an interstate highway for speeding Caballes on an interstate highway for speeding (71mph in a 65mph zone) and then radioed the (71mph in a 65mph zone) and then radioed the police dispatcher to report the stop. Craig police dispatcher to report the stop. Craig Graham, a member of the Illinois State Police Graham, a member of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard this Drug Interdiction Team, overheard this transmission. Graham then proceeded to the transmission. Graham then proceeded to the scene with his narcotics-detection dog.scene with his narcotics-detection dog.

When Graham arrived, Gillette was in the When Graham arrived, Gillette was in the process of writing Caballes a warning. Graham process of writing Caballes a warning. Graham then walked his dog around Caballes’ car, which then walked his dog around Caballes’ car, which then alerted the officers of Caballes’ trunk. then alerted the officers of Caballes’ trunk. Caballes’!Caballes’!

Illinois v. Caballes UltraIllinois v. Caballes UltraIllinois v. Caballes UltraIllinois v. Caballes Ultra

Investigating Caballes’ trunk, the officers Investigating Caballes’ trunk, the officers discovered in the area of $250,000 worth of discovered in the area of $250,000 worth of marijuana and promptly arrested Caballes. This marijuana and promptly arrested Caballes. This entire incident took less than ten minutes.entire incident took less than ten minutes.

Although Caballes moved to suppress the seized Although Caballes moved to suppress the seized evidence, the judge denied the motion. After evidence, the judge denied the motion. After being convicted, Caballes was sentenced to being convicted, Caballes was sentenced to twelve years in prison and a $256,136 fine. twelve years in prison and a $256,136 fine. Caballes understandably decided to appeal.Caballes understandably decided to appeal.

Illinois v. Caballes Ultra Illinois v. Caballes Ultra SupremeSupreme

Illinois v. Caballes Ultra Illinois v. Caballes Ultra SupremeSupreme

Although the Appellate Court affirmed the Although the Appellate Court affirmed the verdict, Caballes second appeal paid off. In a 4-3 verdict, Caballes second appeal paid off. In a 4-3 vote, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the vote, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision. The ISC concluded that since the decision. The ISC concluded that since the canine search was performed without any facts canine search was performed without any facts or suspicion of drug activity, it escalated the or suspicion of drug activity, it escalated the routine traffic stop into a drug investigation. routine traffic stop into a drug investigation.

The case was then brought upon the U.S. The case was then brought upon the U.S. Supreme Court, which in a super secret surprise Supreme Court, which in a super secret surprise decision reversed the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision reversed the Illinois Supreme Court’s reversal. Golly!reversal. Golly!

Illinois v. Caballes Self Serve Illinois v. Caballes Self Serve OnlyOnly

Illinois v. Caballes Self Serve Illinois v. Caballes Self Serve OnlyOnly

Justice Stevens explained in his Court opinion Justice Stevens explained in his Court opinion that the actual invasion of Caballes’ privacy was that the actual invasion of Caballes’ privacy was negligible.negligible.

“A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no “A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

As drug-sniffing dogs are trained only to detect As drug-sniffing dogs are trained only to detect contraband materials, items no person is legally contraband materials, items no person is legally allowed to possess, they are not considered to allowed to possess, they are not considered to cause an invasion of privacy. cause an invasion of privacy.

Illinois v. Caballes High Illinois v. Caballes High OctaneOctane

Illinois v. Caballes High Illinois v. Caballes High OctaneOctane

The legality of drug-detecting canines was not The legality of drug-detecting canines was not the only issue the Supreme Court concerned the only issue the Supreme Court concerned itself with however. itself with however.

An otherwise legal seizure can become unlawful An otherwise legal seizure can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond a reasonable time. If if it is prolonged beyond a reasonable time. If Caballes was detained longer than necessary by Caballes was detained longer than necessary by Gillette so as to buy time for the dog sniffing, the Gillette so as to buy time for the dog sniffing, the seizure would have become unconstitutional. As seizure would have become unconstitutional. As this was not the case, the Supreme Court this was not the case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Caballes guilt in a 6-2 decision. reaffirmed Caballes guilt in a 6-2 decision.

Illinois v. Caballes OmegaIllinois v. Caballes OmegaIllinois v. Caballes OmegaIllinois v. Caballes Omega

As a result, the use of drug sniffing dogs is now As a result, the use of drug sniffing dogs is now permitted on traffic stops. However, several permitted on traffic stops. However, several states have passed legislation to prevent the states have passed legislation to prevent the willy-nilly use of these canines.willy-nilly use of these canines.

Color in Fun - Scooby-DooColor in Fun - Scooby-DooColor in Fun - Scooby-DooColor in Fun - Scooby-Doo

Scooby-Doo, although excellently trained to sniff Scooby-Doo, although excellently trained to sniff and discover a wide range of foodstuffs, has no and discover a wide range of foodstuffs, has no

capabilities or history of drug sniffing.capabilities or history of drug sniffing.

According to Shaggy, anyway.According to Shaggy, anyway.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Scary Stories to Tell in the DarkDark

super scary illustration slidesuper scary illustration slide

Scary Stories to Tell in the Scary Stories to Tell in the DarkDark

super scary illustration slidesuper scary illustration slide