- Hayden v New York (can go into residence for arrest warrant) Florida v Jardines - dog sniff outside home requires probable cause Brizuela v Sparks - pathway to door considered curtilage Sunlight rule - Marshall v United States State v Bowling (underneath garage door) Payton v New York (1980) Bailey v Swindell (2019) Lange v California (2021) no hot pursuit with misdemeanor Lewis v State (2021) United States v Dunn (1987) Caniglia v Strong (2021) community caretaking Hannon v. State - circumstances have to justify the action State v Reece (2015) Cooper v State Andrews v State (2002) wyo Morris v State (1995) courtesy ride abandoned "Do you have anything to do with this?" "Does everything in there belong to you?" Katz v US (1967) warrantless wire 1. Did suspect expect privacy? 2. Would society consider it reasonable? 3. Both required US v Jones (2012) gps US v Richmond State v Bruzzese (1983) not intent, just actions California v Hodari D (1991) United States v Espinoza (2007) State v Shine (2016) car blocks pedestrian People v Bouser (1994) US v Chan-Jimenez (1997) US v Strickland (1990) voluntary consent Pokatilov v State (2017) consent to search State v Peoples (2005) consent with implied threats U.S v Berg (2008) consent Harless v Turner consent Allow someone to watch search where possible. US v Gonzalez-Basulto , saying nothing as consent State v Douglas (1985) common authority Illinois v Rodriguez (1990) apparent authority People v Stacey (1974) State v Miranda (2023) State v Crumb (1997) consent to search child's room Fernandez v California (2014) non-consenting occupants leaves/is arrested US v Rodriguez-Preciado (2005) US v Camargo-Chavez US v Torres (1981) air vent US v Bey (2018) headlong flight Torres v State (2015) after curfew 3 types of protective sweeps in homes- 1) immediate control 2) under immediate control - weapons, evidence, and means of escape 3) adjacent areas - only people United States v Ford (1995) people in people sized places US v Stover (6th cir 2007) State v Kubit People v Raibley (2003) Hernandez v United States -squeezing bag for weed smell Mincey v Arizona (1978) get a warrant for crime scene Comm v Whitman (2000) Privacy search vs trespass search Torres v Madrid (2021) seizure use of force with intent to subdue United States v Jacobsen People v Roth detention Carroll v United States (1925) vehicles inherently mobile Chamber v Maroney (1970) Michigan v Thomas (1982) warrantless search does not vanish once vehicle is immobilized US v Gastiaburo (1995) search after 38 days impound Cady v Dombrowski (1973) community caretaking for accidents S. Dakota v Opperman (1976) caretaking search of an impounded vehicle California v Carney (1985) RVs are cars if easily drivable State v Speights (2021) touching hood for heat Taylor v Saginaw (2019) chalking tires Pryce v State Wyo not extension of a stop to talk to passenger and driver separately Whren v US (1996) pretextual stops Anderson v State (2023) signal 100ft prior is valid in Wyoming Rodriguez v US (2015) traffic extensions Arizona v Johnson (2009) inquiries that extend US v Campbell (2022) returns are related US v Holt (2001) travel plans to explain violations are good to ask about US v Mason (2010) passenger questioning US v Smith (2019) asking about weapons permissable US v Buzzard (2019) generally illegal questions alright for highway safety US v Bernard (2019) consent US v Green (2014) US v Goodwill (2022) People v White (2002) wrongful extending Don't need reason to remove occupants due to officer safety Brendlin v California not free to leave when detained Arizona v Johnson detained for traffic stop Maryland v Wilson (1997) getting occupants out of vehicle 2019-08-16 shooting passenger danger Asymmetrical gait as weapon indicator US v Infante-Ruiz passenger's silence is not consent US v Eldridge (1993) driver can give consent to search If you can justify for a weapon frisk on a person, you can frisk their vehicle State v Trovell - look or peek is not a search People v Cantor May return to vehicle Could break free Handcuffs can fail State v Chang (2008) Reason for warrant does not get search US v Del Rosario (2020) caretaking reasons for impounding vehicles State v Krall (2023) inventory not exception to warrant requirement US v Ludwig K9 open air sniff allowed in public US v Cornejo (2016) K9 cannot extend search 1 second US v Mercado (2002) AAA rule US v Ross (1982) scope still applies to warrantless search Wyoming v Houghton (1999) containers inside vehicle Single Purpose Containers - announces it's contents in a way that a reasonable officer knows only contraband is inside US v Byrd (2017) unauthorized driver has protected interest US v Magnum (1996) it's not mine, it's the driver's State v Smith (1996) single Purpose container US v Watson (2018) no reasonable suspicion from possible future firearm use FL v J.L (2000) anon tip State v Pacszek (1971) Navarette v California US v Williams (2010) no pc collective knowledge US v Ragsdale collective knowledge State v Wallace (2002) constructive possession - prove link Illinois v Wardlow (2000) unprovoked flight Undercover identity must match conduct US v Harrison (2011) no false emergencies US v Hardin (2008) water leak is false emergency US v Song Ja Cha long freeze for search warrant US v Shrum (2018) freeze after overdose Home freezes: Prohibiting entry Maintain status quo Entry & exclude US v Doubet (1992) Illinois v McArthur (2001) 4 factors: PC that evidence is inside the home Balance intrustion to privacy You diligently pursue a search warrant You have reason to believe evidence will be destroyed Michigan v Summers (1981) detention to promote safety with complete control State v Privott (2010) NJ, lifting shirt is not patdown, it is search In Wyoming winter should be fine State v Williams (2010) asking them to shake bra is patdown US v Hammond criminal record alone not enough for a patdown Minnesota v Dickerson (1993) Weapons - could be good for manipulation in frisks Contraband - bad for manipulation in frisks US v Rogers (1997) Michigan v Long (1983) suspect may be dangerous by reaching weapons People v Lafitte, nature of the weapon California v Beheler (1984) - arrest like custody Told/free to leave A confession Enforced isolations + handcuffs? Number of officers present Coercive influences Illinois v Perkins (1990) attorney assigned, no questions People v Orozco (2019) right to counsel, then they have to initiate or 14 day break in custody Martin v Martinez - it must be read, even if they say they know it Nobody can invoke Miranda except the suspect Prison is not 'Miranda custody' People v Enraca (2012) Suspects can reinitiate, but Miranda must be re-read.