Examine the four scenarios.

1. Name date period
Which term matches each of the four different cases? Read each carefully and think about the questions
asked. Scratch down some answers so you may respond with good class participation.
Stop and Frisk
Consent
Hot Pursuit
Plain View
1. Police may search suspects if they believe the person is a risk. The following circumstances
should be considered when studying the case Terry v. Ohio. Police were patrolling an area in
downtown Cleveland, an area that was known for shoplifting and pickpockets. The detective in this
case had been patrolling the area for thirty years. He became suspicious of the actions of two men.
The police officer believed that Mr. Terry and an accomplice, Mr. Chilton were casing a jewelry store.
A third man approached Mr. Terry and Mr. Chilton. When the police stopped them a pat down search
was conducted. In the pockets of Mr. Terry and Mr. Chilton the detective found guns. The third man
was unarmed. Mr. Terry and Mr. Chilton were subsequently arrested, tried and convicted of
possessing concealed weapons. The issue in this case became whether the police had the right to
conduct a pat down search. Given Mr. Terry's suspicious behavior, the Court decided the police
officer was found justified in questioning him, and was entitled to conduct a pat down search.
"Suspicious behavior?' Can it be defined? Maybe, what is considered to be suspicious behavior for
one person is not for another? Do you think that race or sex might play a role in this scenario? How
about the wealth or the location of the area? Did the officer have sufficient reason to investigate the
situation? How would you have decided this case?
2. Persons voluntarily agree that the police may conduct a search without a warrant and without
probable cause. Normally a person may only grant permission to search his or her belongings or
property. The search must be wholly voluntary; it may not be coerced or implied in any manner.
Permission given on the basis of deception by the police is not voluntary. The Supreme Court stated
the general rule in United States v. Matlock, 1974, holding that permission may be given by the
defendant or any third party with common authority to the premises or property. Common authority
means that the party has joint access to or control over a patron's room. Thus, in Matlock, a woman
who lived with the defendant could give permission to search the bedroom, where evidence was found
that helped bolster the case against her arrested housemate. Would you give permission to have the
belongings of your roommate searched? Would this violate the trust between the two people in any
way? How about if your roommate was engaged in a criminal activity of some kind? Would that make
a difference? Should a parent be able to give permission to have a child's room searched?
3. Objects connected with a crime can be seen by the police from a place where he or she has a right
to be. However, sometimes, a search under a warrant naming certain specific objects to be seized may
result in discovery of evidence of an unrelated crime. In Harris v U.S., 1968, the Supreme Court has

2. upheld seizure of the evidence of a second offense as long as what is found was in sight during the
legitimate search for something else. The discovery of evidence must be genuinely accidental,
however, if constitutional limits on the search warrant or the scope of the original search are to be
extended.
Police officers executed an arrest warrant charging the defendant with a drug offense. During the
execution of the warrant, he consented to a search of his apartment. The consent form stated, “to have
conducted a complete search of the premises and property located at …” It further stated, “I do freely
and voluntarily consent and agree that any property under my control…may be removed by the
officers…if said property shall be essential in the proof of the commission of any crime in violation of
the Laws of the United States…” Armed with this consent, the officers searched his home. In addition
to finding drug evidence, they also discovered and took two computers, which they believed would
either be subject to forfeitures of evidence of drug dealing. After bringing the computers to the police
station, the officers obtained a search warrant allowing them to search the files on the computers for
“names, telephone numbers, ledger receipts, addresses, and other documentary evidence pertaining to
the sale and distribution of controlled substances.” During the subsequent search of the computer, the
detective did not find any relevant text file, but he did find “JPG” image depicting child pornography.
He then continued to search for more “JPG” files and found numerous other such images. The
defendant argues that the search of the computer exceeded the scope of the warrant. Is the defendant
right? Was the search of the computer files parts of his permission or not?
4. When the police are chasing a suspect and know where he or she is, they are not required to get a
search warrant before entering the building that they have seen the suspect enter. It is also lawful to
seize evidence found during a search conducted after the chase.
After driving erratically and being followed by police cruisers with flashing lights, the defendant drove
through lawns, crosswalks and the way to his home. Once home, the defendant pulled into his driveway.
Officer McQuate brought his cruiser to a stop behind the defendant's car and immediately began walking
toward it. The cruiser's headlights remained illuminated, and with the defendant alighted, McQuate
noticed his flushed face, bloodshot and watery eyes, and swaying stance, and detected an odor of alcohol.
He repeatedly directed the defendant to come to the front of the cruiser, but the defendant insisted that he
needed to let his dog, which was tied up and barking, into the house. McQuate acquiesced but instructed
him to return immediately. After the defendant let the dog inside, he quickly followed. McQuate
immediately proceeded after him, ordering him to return to the cruiser. Once in the house, McQuate
instructed the defendant to go outside for a field sobriety test. The defendant refused, saying: "I'm in my
own house now. I'm not going to do anything." McQuate arrested the defendant for driving under the
influence of alcohol. The defendant's blood test revealed an alcohol content of .16, twice the legal limit.
In Llaguno, two suspects committed two robberies, abducted a young girl, killed four people, and
wounded three others, including one police officer. Police shot and captured one of the suspects after the
getaway car crashed and rescued the girl unharmed. The other suspect fled on foot. The officers decided
to go to the address on the car registration. The house was 2 miles from the crash site. Before going to the
house, the officers drove to police headquarters to get a sledgehammer and a shotgun. The officers then
went to the house and entered without a warrant. They arrested a suspect in the house. Which arrest was
constitutional, which one was not, and why?