Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Arizona vs. Gant (2009) Case No longer fully briefed for students.
Relevant Case Facts:
On August 25th, 1999, Tucson police received an anonymous tip that a residence was being used
to sell drugs. When police went to the home, Rodney Gant answered the door, identified himself,
and told the officers the owner of the home was not present but would return later. After leaving
the house the police officers discovered that Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving with a
suspended license. The officers returned that evening and arrested a man for providing a false
name and a woman for possession of drug paraphernalia. About that time Gant returned home
and the officers placed him under arrest after he voluntarily got out of and walked away from his
car. A search of Gant’s car revealed a gun and a bag of cocaine. Gant was charged with drug
violations. Gant’s attorneys claimed the evidence should be suppressed because it was found as a
result of a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The state argued that the
search met the “incident to valid arrest” exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court
judge allowed the evidence to be used and Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in
prison but the Arizona Supreme Court reversed.
Legal Question: When police arrest the occupant of a vehicle, may they search the vehicle
without a warrant?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Breyer):
Dissenting (Alito):
Safford Unified School District #1 vs. Redding (2009)
Relevant Case Facts:
On October 8th, 2003, Savana Redding, a 13 year old student at Safford (Arizona) Middle School
was called to assistant principal Kerry Wilson’s office where Wilson told Redding several
students claimed that she was giving prescription-strength ibuprofen to fellow students. Redding
denied the charge and allowed Wilson to search her backpack where he found nothing. Wilson
then instructed administrative assistant Helen Romero to take Redding to the school nurse’s
office to search her clothes for the pills. Romero and the nurse, Peggy Schwallier, asked Redding
to remove her jacket, socks, shoes, stretch pants and T-shirt (both without pockets). Finally,
Savana was told to pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her
underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree. No pills were found. April
Redding, Savana’s mother, sued the school district and the school officials involved for
conducting a strip search of her daughter in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district
court found no violation but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that under T.L.O students have a
right to personal privacy that was unreasonably violated here. The school district appealed and
the Court granted certiorari.
Legal Question: Was Savana Redding’s Fourth Amendment right violated by a strip search
conducted on the reasonable suspicion that she brought forbidden prescription drugs to school?
Reasoning:
Concurring in Judgment and Dissenting in Part (Thomas):
CUT CASE IT HAS BEEN DELETED
Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)
Relevant Case Facts:
Staff at the public hospital operated in the city of Charleston by the Medical University of South
Carolina became concerned about the apparent increase in the use of cocaine by patients
receiving prenatal treatment. To combat this situation, the hospital adopted Policy M-7, which
provided that a patient should be tested for cocaine through a urine test if she met one of more of
various criteria. Those who tested positive were referred to a substance abuse program, and a
threat of law enforcement intervention was used. The police would be notified, however, only if
the patient tested positive for cocaine a second time or missed an appointment with a substance
abuse counselor. The document also listed charges that could be used against the women. These
included that, if, after the 28th week she tested positive and the baby was delivered while she
tested positive, she could be charged with unlawful neglect of a child. The police were also
instructed to ascertain the name of the person who provided the drugs to the patient (by
interrogating the patient).
Legal Question: Is a hospital’s performance of a test to obtain evidence of a patient’s criminal
conduct for law enforcement purposes unreasonable if the patient has not consented to the search?
Reasoning:
Concurring in the judgment (Kennedy):
Dissenting (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas [in part]):
Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1) (1968)
Relevant Case Facts:
While patrolling in plain clothes, officer McFadden observed two men he had never seen before.
He saw them pace along the street and pause in front of the same store 24 times. After each pass
they conferred, and the office also saw a third man join the two briefly. Thinking they were
casing the store for a robbery, the approached them and identified himself as a police officer. He
asked them to identify themselves, and Terry mumbled something inaudible. The office then
spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing and found a gun in his overcoat pocket. He
also found a gun on one of the other men, and arrested them on concealed weapons charges.
Legal Question: Is it always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a
limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Douglas):
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Relevant Case Facts:
The police tried to enter Mapp’s house on the ground that she was harboring a fugitive who was
suspected of blowing up Don King’s house. Mapp would not let them in because they did not
have a search warrant. The officer waited, and three hours later tried to enter again. When
Mapp did not answer her door, the police forced their way into the home. At the same time,
Mapp’s attorney arrived and tried to see her, but the police would not let him do so. Hearing the
police break in Mapp also came down and argued with them and demanded to see a warrant.
The office held up a piece of paper, claimed it was a warrant, and shoved it down Mapp’s blouse.
The search turned up no evidence of the fugitive, but they did seize some obscene pictures that
were illegal to possess under Ohio law. At trial the warrant was never produced, but Mapp was
found guilty of possession of obscene material.
Legal Question: Does the exclusionary rule apply to the states through the 14th Amendment?
Reasoning:
Concurrence (Black):
Concurrence (Douglas):
Dissents (Harlan, Frankfurter, and Whittaker):
United States v. Leon (1984)
Relevant Case Facts:
The Burbank police received a tip from a person of unproven reliability identifying two people
as drug dealers who were selling methaqualone and cocaine from their residence and from
another home. The police began to investigate and conducted surveillance on both houses.
Following a series of leads they expanded the scope of the investigation, during which they
identified two men – including Leon – as participating in the drug operation. Based on their
observations and investigations the police obtained a warrant to search the residences and cars.
The searches resulted in the seizure of illegal substances.
Legal Question: Should the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule be modified so as not to bar
introduction of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant
issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probably
cause?
Reasoning:
