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
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-
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.