NCJ Number
125684
Editor(s)
L L Weinreb
Date Published
1990
Length
345 pages
Annotation
This chapter presents 42 edited, leading U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving interpretations of the U.S. Constitution in cases regarding arrest and search and seizure.
Abstract
The cases reviewed include Wolf v. Colorado (1949) and six cases decided in 1990. The latter consist of Horton v. California, New York v. Harris, Minnesota v. Olson, Illinois v. Rodriguez, and Maryland v. Buie. Maryland v. Buie concludes that the fourth amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer has a reasonable belief, based on specific ad articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors a person posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. Illinois v. Rodriquez holds that a warrantless search of a premises is valid if officers reasonably believe that an authorized person has consented to the search. Minnesota v. Olson concluded that a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a house where Olson was a house guest involved an unconstitutional arrest. New York v. Harris holds that where police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the prosecution's use of a statement made by the defendant outside of the home, even though the statement is taken after an invalid arrest in the home. Horton v. California concludes that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate "plain view" seizures, it is not a necessary condition. Cases are presented under the categories of "remedies," "stop-and-frisk," and "investigation." Case footnotes.