Illegally seized evidence was properly admitted to impeach defendant's false trial testimony, given in response to proper cross-examination, where evidence did not squarely contradict defendant's testimony on direct examination. United States v. Havens, 446 US 620 (1980).
Arcane concepts of property law do not control ability to claim 4th amendment protections. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 US 98 (1980).
Resemblance to "drug courier profile" was insufficient basis for seizure. Reid v. Georgia, 448 US 438 (1980).
Objective facts and circumstantial evidence justified investigative stop of smuggler's vehicle. United States v. Cortez, 449 US 411 (1981).
Automobile exception does not extend to closed, opaque container located in luggage compartment. Robbins v. California, 453 US 420 (1981).
Police placement of beeper in container of precursor chemical used to manufacture illicit drug and subsequent surveillance of defendant's car by monitoring beeper transmission was not prohibited by fourth amendment. U.S. v. Knotts, 460 US 276 (1983).
Under facts of case, detention and interrogation of airline passenger fitting "drug courier profile" was unconstitutional. Florida v. Royer, 460 US 491 (1983).
Under "independent source" doctrine, evidence discovered during valid search was admissible regardless whether initial entry was illegal. Segura v. U.S. 468 US 796 (1984).
"Good faith" exception to exclusionary rule allowed admission of evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on search warrant, issued by detached and neutral magistrate, later found to be unsupported by probable cause. U.S. v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).
"Good faith" exception to exclusionary rule discussed. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 US 981 (1984).
If "wanted flyer" has been issued on basis of articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that wanted person has committed a crime, other officers may rely on flyer to stop and question person. United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985).
In assessing whether detention is too long to be justified as investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether police diligently pursued means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. United State v. Sharpe, 470 US 675 (1985).
Proposed surgery under general anesthetic to recover bullet from accused robber's body was unreasonable search. Winston v. Lee, 470 US 753 (1985).
Fingerprints were not admissible where police transported suspect to station house for fingerprinting without consent, probable cause, or prior judicial authorization. Hayes v. Florida, 470 US 811 (1985).
Apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to reasonableness requirement. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985).
Where officer stopped car for traffic violations and reached into car to move papers obscuring vehicle ID number, discovered evidence was admissible. New York v. Class, 475 US 106 (1986).
Reasonable expectation of privacy wasn't violated when police, acting on anonymous tip, flew over defendant's enclosed backyard and observed marijuana plants. California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207 (1986).
Defendants have no reasonable privacy interest in trash left on curb for pick-up; therefore, warrantless search is not prohibited under federal law. California v. Greenwood, 486 US 35 (1988).
Use of roadblock to halt defendant's automobile constitutes seizure. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 US , 103 LEd 2d 628 (1989).
Impeachment exception to exclusionary rule does not extend to use of illegally obtained evidence to impeach testimony of defense witness other than defendant. James v. Illinois, 493 US , 107 LEd 2d 676 (1990).
The "reasonableness" of the investigative detention: An "ad hoc" constitutional test. Wiseman. 67 MLR 641 (1984).
The exclusionary rule and the 1983-1984 term. Gammon. 68 MLR 1 (1984).
The constitutionality of the canine sniff search: From Katz to dogs. Fitzgerald. 68 MLR 57 (1984).
Analyzing the reasonableness of bodily intrusions. Sarnacki. 68 MLR 130 (1984).
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: The latest example of "new federalism" in the states. 71 MLR 166 (1987).
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Wiseman. WBB Aug. 1986.
Search and seizure--abandonment. 1974 WLR 212.
Terry revisited: Critical update on recent stop-and-frisk developments. 1977 WLR 877.
The future of the exclusionary rule and the development of state constitutional law. 1987 WLR 377.
CONSENT AND STANDING
The fact that consent to the search of a car was given while defendant was in custody does not establish involuntariness. It is not improper for the police to tell defendant that if a search did not produce stolen goods he would be released. Gautreaux v. State, 52 W (2d) 489, 190 NW (2d) 542.
Where police opened a package in possession of an express company without a warrant or the consent of the addressee, persons later arrested in possession of the package, other than the addressee, have no standing to challenge the evidence on the ground of illegal search. Defendants would have to establish a possessory interest in the package at the time of the search. State v. Christel, 61 W (2d) 143, 211 NW (2d) 801.
Defendant qualified as a person aggrieved under the Jones "automatic" standing doctrine to challenge admissibility of evidence taken from his wife, it appearing that he and his wife were in each other's presence in his automobile when arrested for the same crime; a search of her person at that time would have been at a place where defendant had a legitimate right to be; the object of the search, incident to the arrest for robbery could only be for weapons and incriminating evidence against him and his wife; and this situation carried over into a custodial search of the wife which was thereafter conducted at the police station. State v. Mabra, 61 W (2d) 613, 213 NW (2d) 545.
Sons of murdered property owner did not as such have authority to consent to search of premises. Kelly v. State, 75 W (2d) 303, 249 NW (2d) 800.
Person living in tent in yard of house had no authority to grant consent to warrantless search of house. Police officer's observation through a window of cigarette being passed in the house did not constitute probable cause for warrantless search of house for marijuana. "Plain view" doctrine discussed. State v. McGovern, 77 W (2d) 203, 252 NW (2d) 365.
Under facts of case, estranged wife had no authority to consent to warrantless search of property owned jointly with defendant husband. State v. Verhagen, 86 W (2d) 262, 272 NW (2d) 105 (Ct. App. 1978).
Paramour whose access to premises was at whim of lover had no legitimate expectation of privacy necessitating search warrant. State v. Fillyaw, 104 W (2d) 700, 312 NW (2d) 795 (1981).
Impoundment and subsequent warrantless inventory search of car, including locked glove box, were not unconstitutional. Automatic standing discussed. State v. Callaway, 106 W (2d) 503, 317 NW (2d) 428 (1982).
Defendant had no standing to contest legality of search of van because of lack of dominion and control over van. State v. Wisurmerski, 106 W (2d) 722, 317 NW (2d) 484 (1982).
Where defendant's mother admitted police into home to talk to her son, subsequent arrest of son was valid. State v. Rodgers, 119 W (2d) 102, 349 NW (2d) 453 (1984).
Where police reentered home to recreate crime 45 hours after consent to enter, evidence seized was properly suppressed. State v. Douglas, 123 W (2d) 13, 365 NW (2d) 580 (1985)
Passengers had no "legitimate expectation of privacy" in glove box or under seat of car. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 US 128 (1978).
Airport stop of person fitting drug courier profile was reasonable and subsequent search was pursuant to voluntary consent. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 US 544 (1980).
Court may not suppress otherwise admissible evidence on ground that it was seized unlawfully from 3rd party not before court. United States v. Payner, 447 US 727 (1980).
Defendants charged with crimes of possession may only claim benefits of exclusionary rule if their own 4th amendment rights have in fact been violated. United States v. Salvucci, 448 US 83 (1980).
Where police entered 3rd party's house to execute arrest warrant, evidence discovered during search was inadmissible. Steagald v. United States, 451 US 204 (1981).
Prisoner has no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in cell. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 US 517 (1984).
State need not prove that defendant consenting to search knew of right to withhold consent. Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 US 1 (1984).
Warrantless entry to premises is permitted under fourth amendment where entry is based upon third party consent and where officers reasonably believed third party to possess authority to consent. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 US , 111 LEd 2d 148 (1990).
As a matter of federal law, appellant cannot assert an alleged violation of his wife's Fourth Amendment rights as a basis for suppression, at his trial, of evidence taken from his wife. Mabra v. Gray, 518 F (2d) 512.
Zurcher: third party searches and freedom of the press. Cantrell. 62 MLR 35 (1978).
State v. Stevens: Consent by deception in the context of garbage searches. 1987 WLR 191.
PROBABLE CAUSE AND WARRANTS
Probable cause for arrest without a warrant under the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution is applicable in this state. Tests for probable cause discussed. A citizen informer is not subject to the requirement that the officer show prior reliability of his informant. State v. Paszek, 50 W (2d) 619, 184 NW (2d) 836.
Probable cause must exist prior to a search of body orifices. State v. Guy, 55 W (2d) 83, 197 NW (2d) 774.
Search warrant obtained on affidavit containing misrepresentations by police officer as to reliability of unnamed informant is invalid. Where search was conducted within reasonable time following arrest based on probable cause, search will be sustained even though it was conducted in execution of invalid warrant. Schmidt v. State, 77 W (2d) 370, 253 NW (2d) 204.
Affidavits for search warrants need not be drafted with technical specificity nor demonstrate quantum of probable cause required in a preliminary examination; the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence are permissible, and doubtful or marginal cases should be resolved by the preference to be accorded to warrants. State v. Starke, 81 W (2d) 399, 260 NW (2d) 739.
Probable cause for arrest on charge of homicide by intoxicated use of motor vehicle justified taking blood sample without search warrant or arrest. State v. Bentley, 92 W (2d) 860, 286 NW (2d) 153 (Ct. App. 1979).
Defect in portion of search warrant did not invalidate entire search warrant. State v. Noll, 116 W (2d) 443, 343 NW (2d) 391 (1984).
"No knock" warrant to search drug dealer's house was invalid because of lack of specific information to indicate evidence would be destroyed otherwise. State v. Cleveland, 118 W (2d) 615, 348 NW (2d) 512 (1984).
At "Franks hearing" challenging veracity of statement supporting search warrant, defendant must prove that falsehood was intentional or with reckless disregard for truth and that false statement was necessary to finding probable cause. State v. Anderson, 138 W (2d) 451, 406 NW (2d) 398 (1987).
Anonymous telephone tip that specified vehicle was driven by unlicensed person did not create articulable and reasonable suspicion of illegality justifying investigatory stop of auto and driver. 68 Atty. Gen. 347.
Where defendant makes substantial preliminary showing that affiant's false statement, knowingly or recklessly made, was basis of probable cause finding in search warrant affidavit, hearing must be held. Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978).
"Open-ended" search warrant was unconstitutional. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 US 319 (1979).
Warrant to search premises for contraband implicitly carries with it limited authority to detain occupants during search. Michigan v. Summers, 452 US 692 (1981).
Where officer, after stopping defendant's car at routine driver's license checkpoint, saw tied-off party balloon in plain sight, officer had probable cause to believe balloon contained illicit substance. Hence, warrantless seizure of balloon was legal. Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730 (1983).
Court abandons "two-pronged" test of Aguilar and Spinelli and replaces it with "totality of the circumstances" approach in finding probable cause based on informer's tips. Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213 (1983).
Under new "totality of circumstances" test, informant's tip met probable cause standards. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 US 727 (1984).
Probable cause is required to invoke plain view doctrine. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 US 321 (1987).
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE
An officer who is making an arrest for a traffic violation, after defendant opens his door, can arrest for a narcotics violation based on narcotics in plain sight in the room. Schill v. State, 50 W (2d) 473, 184 NW (2d) 858.
Police officers properly in an apartment where drugs were discovered may pat down the pockets of a stranger who walks in and may seize a large, hard object felt, in order to protect themselves. State v. Chambers, 55 W (2d) 289, 198 NW (2d) 377.
After stopping defendant properly and frisking his person, which disclosed several cartridges, the police were justified in looking under the car seat and in the glove compartment for a gun. State v. Williamson, 58 W (2d) 514, 206 NW (2d) 613.
When a valid arrest is made without a warrant, the officer may conduct a limited search of the premises. Leroux v. State, 58 W (2d) 671, 207 NW (2d) 589.
Where an officer, mistakenly believing in good faith that occupants of a car had committed a crime, stops the car and arrests the occupants, the arrest is illegal, but a shotgun in plain sight on the back seat may be seized and used in evidence. State v. Taylor, 60 W (2d) 506, 210 NW (2d) 873.
When officers stopped a car containing 3 men meeting the description of robbery suspects within 7 minutes after the robbery and found a gun on one, they could properly search the car for other guns and money. State v. Russell, 60 W (2d) 712, 211 NW (2d) 637.
Given a valid arrest, a search is not limited to weapons or evidence of a crime, nor need it be directed to or related to the purpose of the arrest, because one who has contraband or evidence of crime on him travels at his own risk when he is validly arrested for any reason, hence the reasonableness of a search incident thereto no longer depends on the purpose of the search in relation to the object of the arrest. State v. Mabra, 61 W (2d) 613, 213 NW (2d) 545.
The evidence of the finding of the body in the open fields approximately 450 feet from the house was properly admitted into evidence. Conrad v. State, 63 W (2d) 616, 218 NW (2d) 252.
Seizure by police of a large quantity of marijuana from defendant's 155-acre farm did not contravene their 4th amendment rights. State v. Gedko, 63 W (2d) 644, 218 NW (2d) 249.
The search of defendant's wallet leading to discovery of the newspaper article was proper in order to find weapons which might be secreted therein, such as razor blades, or evidence of possession of hashish, for which he had also been arrested. State v. Mordeszewski, 68 W (2d) 649, 229 NW (2d) 642.
The seizure by police officers of a box of cartridges from under the edge of a couch on which defendant was resting at the time of his arrest was proper under the plain-view doctrine, since if police have a prior justification to be present in a position to see an object in plain view and its discovery is inadvertent, the object may be seized, and the use of a flashlight by one of the officers did not defeat the inadvertence requirement. Sanders v. State, 69 W (2d) 242, 230 NW (2d) 845.
Totality of circumstances justified search for concealed weapon. Penister v. State, 74 W (2d) 94, 246 NW (2d) 115.
Doctrine of exigency is founded upon actions of police which are considered reasonable; element of reasonableness is supplied by compelling need to assist victim or apprehend those responsible, not need to secure evidence. West v. State, 74 W (2d) 390, 246 NW (2d) 675.
Warrantless search by probation officer was constitutionally permissible where probable cause existed for officer's attempt to determine whether probationer has violated probation. State v. Tarrell, 74 W (2d) 647, 247 NW (2d) 696.
Plain view doctrine does not apply if observation is not made inadvertently or if officer does not have right to be in place from which observation is made. State v. Monahan, 76 W (2d) 387, 251 NW (2d) 421.
Warrantless searches of automobiles discussed. Thompson v. State, 83 W (2d) 134, 265 NW (2d) 467 (1978).
Criteria used as justification for warrantless search of student by teacher discussed. Interest of L.L. v. Washington County Cir. Ct. 90 W (2d) 585, 280 NW (2d) 343 (Ct. App. 1979).
Warrantless entry under emergency rule justified subsequent entry which did not expand scope or nature of original entry. La Fournier v. State, 91 W (2d) 61, 280 NW (2d) 746 (1979).
See note to 968.25, citing State v. Flynn, 92 W (2d) 427, 285 NW (2d) 710 (1979).
Furnishing police with bank records of depositor who has victimized bank was not unlawful search and seizure. State v. Gilbertson, 95 W (2d) 102, 288 NW (2d) 877 (Ct. App. 1980).
Evidence obtained during mistaken arrest is admissible as long as arresting officer acts in good faith and has reasonable articulable grounds to believe that the suspect is the intended arrestee. State v. Lee, 97 W (2d) 679, 294 NW (2d) 547 (Ct. App. 1980).
Warrantless entry into defendant's home was validated by emergency doctrine where officer reasonably believed lives were threatened. State v. Kraimer, 99 W (2d) 306, 298 NW (2d) 568 (1980).
