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.