skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 50999 Find in a Library
Title: SEARCH AND SEIZURE - STOPS
Journal: AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW  Volume:16  Issue:1  Dated:(SUMMER 1978)  Pages:29-36
Author(s): T AINSWORTH
Corporate Author: American Bar Assoc
Criminal Justice Section
United States of America
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 8
Sponsoring Agency: American Bar Assoc
Washington, DC 20005-1009
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS RELATING TO THE STOP DOCTRINE IN SEARCH AND SEIZURES ARE NOTED, WITH ATTENTION TO THE LIMITS OF INITIAL DETENTION STOPS, LIMITS OF POLICE ACTION AFTER STOPS, AND THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE.
Abstract: WITH RESPECT TO THE LIMITS OF INITIAL DETENTION STOPS, THE COURT IN 1977 DENIED CERTIORARI IN TWO CASES WHICH UPHELD DETENTION STOPS OF AUTOMOBILES (FLOWERS VS. U.S. AND BENSON VS. NEBRASKA), RULED THAT POLICE MAY CONDUCT A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF AN AUTOMOBILE PROVIDED THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE (CARROLL VS. U.S. -1924), HELD THAT THE POTENTIAL MOBILIY OF A STATIONARY AUTOMOBILE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH (COOLIDGE VS. NEW HAMPSHIRE -1971), AND AVOIDED THE EXIGENCY REQUIREMENT, PERMITTING A WARRANTLESS SEARCH BASED ON THE RELATIVELY LOW EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN AN AUTOMOBILE (U.S. VS. CHADWICK - 1977). THE COURT WAS PRESENTED WITH THREE CASES WHICH EXAMINED THE ALLOWABLE EXTENT OF POLICE ACTION DURING A DETENTION BASED ON THE STOP DOCTRINE ARTICULATED IN TERRY VS. OHIO (1968). IN PENNSYLVANIA VS. MIIMS (1978), A POLICE OFFICER ORDERED THE PETITIONER FROM HIS CAR DURING A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS HIS USUAL PRACTICE. IN DIAZ VS. NEW YORK (1977), AN OFFICER, AFTER SEEING WHAT HE THOUGHT TO BE A DRUG EXCHANGE, ORDERED THE DEFENDANT TO TURN OFF THE IGNITION AND GET OUT OF A CAR STOPPED AT A RED LIGHT. IN WORTHINGTON VS. THE U.S. (1976), AGENTS WHO HAD BEEN TRACKING A PLANE, STOPPED THE PLANE AND ENTERED IT ACTING ON THE TIP OF AN INFORMANT WHO CLAIMED THE PLANE CONTAINED MARIHUANA. IN MIMMS, THE COURT UPHELD A STATE SUPREME COURT RULING THAT THE POLICE OFFICER'S ACTION IN ORDERING THE DEFENDANT OUT OF HIS CAR AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP WAS UNREASONABLE AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. IN DIAS AND WORTHINGTON, THE COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, INDIRECTLY AFFIRMING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IN BOTH CASES. WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, UNDER WONG SUN VS. U.S. (1963), EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF INFORMATION GAINED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MUST BE SUPPRESSED. THERE ARE THREE EXCEPTIONS TO THE WONG SUN DOCTRINE: (1) IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL IS SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCT FROM THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY MEANS OF THE PRIMARY LEGALITY, IT MAY BE PRESENTED; (2) IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHOW THAT IT OBTAINED THE EVIDENCE THROUGH INDEPENDENT AND LAWFUL MEANS, IT MAY BE INTRODUCED; AND (3) EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHING A DEFENDANT WHO TESTIFIES ON HIS OWN BEHALF. THE COURT HAS GRANTED CERTIORARI IN ONE CASE IN THIS AREA (U.S. VS. CECCOLINI - 1978), WHILE DENYING REVIEW IN TWO OTHERS. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (KBL)
Index Term(s): Judicial review; Police legal limitations; Search and seizure; Search warrants; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50999

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.