KEY CASES

United States v. Lopez 443 F.3d 1280 10th Cir. 2006) Pedestrian - held (D) in car while ran check, spotlight, loudspeaker violated
totality rule the “strong presence of two or three factors” may be sufficient to
support the conclusion a seizure occurred; no intervening event

United States v. Carpenter 462 F.3d 981 8th Cir. 2006) Highway stop - Car Search - Drug courier checkpoint-
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, held that:
(1) officer's request for driver's identification and vehicle registration, and
brief retention of documents, did not constitute a seizure, and
(2) officer had reasonable suspicion of drug activity to justify brief detention
of driver for purpose of conducting dog sniff.
Reversed and remanded.

United States v. Jordan 958 F.2d. 1085 D.C. Cir. 1992) Drug Courier - “seized” within meaning of the Fourth Amendment when
narcotics officer asked defendant's consent to search of bag, after officer
had taken and retained defendant's driver's license, where defendant was
intent on getting into waiting car to leave bus terminal parking lot, and
retention of his driver's license prevented him from going about his
business.

Brown v. Illinois 422 U.S. 590 1975)

INS v. Delgado 466 U.S. 210 1984) Immigracion - The Supreme Court, Justice Rehnquist, held that: (1) actions
of INS agents in moving systematically through factory to inquire as to
workers' citizenship while INS agents were stationed at each exit did not
amount to Fourth Amendment seizure of the entire work force of the
factory, and (2) questioning of individual workers did not amount to a
seizure or detention for Fourth Amendment purposes.

United States v. Weaver 282 F.3d 302 4th Cir. 2002) Bank robber (1) encounter in which defendant agreed to accompany officer
to bank was consensual; (2) admission of evidence of other robbery was
harmless; and

Florida v. Bostick 501 U.S. 429 1991) It is axiomatic that police may approach an individual on a public street
and ask questions without implicating the Fourth Amendment's protections.
Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382; Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491,
497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)

Michigan v. Chesternut 486 U.S. 567 1988) Runner - The Supreme Court, Justice Blackmun, held that no seizure of
defendant occurred when police officers in automobile observed defendant,
upon seeing the automobile, start to run, and officers accelerated to catch
up to defendant and then drove alongside him before he discarded a pack
of pills, which the officers then seized.

United States v. 446 U.S. 544 1980)

Mendenhall

United States v. Ford 548 F.3d 1 1st Cir. 2008) Background: Following denial of motion to suppress in the United States
District Court for the District of Massa-chusetts, Joseph L. Tauro, J., 440
F.Supp.2d 16, defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. Defendant appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals, Stahl, Circuit Judge, held that officers' initial
contact with defendant did not consti-tute a seizure.

Tennessee v. Daniel 12 S.W.3d. 420 • Stopped driver in 7-11

• Used the but-for test on taint – ignored intervening cause

• Relied on LaFauve rather than true mendenhall test.

• : (1) officer's conduct in merely approaching defendant in parking lot, inquiring what
was going on, and asking to see his identification did not constitute a seizure of the
person, but (2) officer's retention of defendant's identification to run a computer
warrants check following this consensual police-citizen encounter effectively
immobilized defendant, and thus amounted to a seizure
Pedestrian Bright line - In ILL, ID CHECK only allowed when “the officer reasonably infers
from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has
People v. Mitchell committed an offense
824 N.E.2d 642
(Ill. App. Ct. 2005)
In Green, the purpose for which the officers stopped the defendant was completely unrelated to
the subsequent warrant check that led to the arrest of a passenger in the defendant's vehicle
and a search incident to that arrest. In this case, *1038 the officers stopped defendant for no
apparent reason other than to run a warrant check on him.
 KEY CASES

United States v. Green 111 F.3d 515 7th Cir. 1997) Green boys & busted wrong guy

United States v. Fazio 914 F.2d 950 Lake Geneva coke dealer – search & confession issues
(7th Cir. 1990)

United States v. Robinson 932 F. Supp. Bank Robbery Suspect - D.N.M. 1996) Confession, not o/s warrant
1271
the officers approached Defendant with their guns drawn, ordered him to put his hands on their
patrol car, and immediately handcuffed and frisked him. Even though Defendant cooperated
with the officers, the highly intrusive nature of the encounter rules out any conclusion that this
was a voluntary officer/citizen encounter

As for the final Brown factor, the flagrancy and purpose of the officers' actions, the Court has
already set forth the reasons why the initial arrest offends the Fourth Amendment. In addition,
Defendant's continued presence in the police station was clearly for the purposes of
interrogation and the gathering of further inculpatory information. The law on this point is clear:
“[R]easonable suspicion of crime is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation even though the
interrogation is investigative.”

United States v. Reed 349 F.3d 457 7th Cir. 2003) horse trailer Pot bust +cash

Confession issue

United States v. Simpson 439 F.3d 490 8th Cir. 2006) Pedestrian Chased when suspect ran; mistaken ID; dropped rifle; later o/s
warrant

Wong Sun v. United States 371 U.S. 471 1963)

United States v. Snowden 250 Fed. App'x Drive Thru Drug Bust - District Court
175
(7th Cir. 2007) Thought busting dope dealer, but local recognized Snowden as someone w. felony warrants
Cops had susp to stop car w/ guns
(1) firearm seized as result of detention unlawful at its inception was admissible; (2) law
enforcement agents possessed probable cause specific to defendant to arrest defendant; (3)
agents possessed reasonable suspicion that target of drug investigation was in defendant's car;
and (4) display of weapons during stop of defendant's car did not exceed permissible scope of
investigatory stop.

Herring v. United States 129 S.Ct. 695 Error in Warrant DB - Too bad – poisonous tree N/A evidence was admissible under the good-
2009) faith rule from LEON

(1)Officers in Coffee County arrested petitioner Herring based on a warrant listed in neighboring
Dale County's data-base. (2) A search incident to that arrest yielded drugs and a gun. (3)It was
then revealed that the warrant had been recalled months earlier, though this information had
never been entered into the database.

Petitioner's claim that police negligence automatically triggers suppression cannot be squared
with the principles underlying the exclusionary rule, as they have been explained in our cases.
In light of our repeated holdings that the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and
outweigh any harm to the justice system, e.g., Leon, 468 U.S., at 909-910, we conclude that
when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than
systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterence
does not “pay its way.”

United States v. Carter Defendant, indicted on bank robbery charges, moved to suppress much of
the evidence against him seized in warrantless search of appt.
573 F.3d 418
7th Cir. 2009) held: (1) teller's out of court identification of defendant was admissible; (2)
evidence seized during defendant's arrest was admissible; and (3)
defendant's statement thereafter was admissible.

State v. Page 103 P.3d 454

Idaho 2004).

U.S. v. Johnson 383 F.3d 538 Cop recognized (d) as person w/ o/s warrant
C.A.7 (Ill.),2004 warrant purges Illegal traffic stop – cited Green
KEY CASES