Black-letter propositions
- 01
Consent must be voluntary and within actual or apparent authority.
- 02
Search incident to lawful arrest reaches the arrestee and immediate control area, with special vehicle rules.
- 03
Vehicle searches may rest on probable cause, arrest-related grounds, inventory policy, or consent, each with distinct scope.
- 04
Exigency includes emergency aid, hot pursuit, and imminent evidence destruction not impermissibly police-created.
- 05
Terry permits a brief stop on reasonable suspicion and a frisk only on separate suspicion of armed dangerousness.
- 06
Plain view requires lawful vantage and access and immediately apparent incriminating character.
Use this attack sequence under time
Frame the issue
Classify consensual encounter, stop, or arrest.
Resolve the next checkpoint
State cause level when action occurred.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Name one exact exception and its scope.
Finish the conclusion
Analyze duration, manner, and later search separately.
Common wrong turns
- A valid traffic stop does not automatically justify frisk.
- Probable cause to search a car does not automatically allow search of a passenger's body.
- Inventory requires standardized noninvestigatory criteria.
Worked example
An officer stops a driver for speeding and frisks him solely because traffic stops can be dangerous.
The stop is valid, but the frisk needs individualized reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. General danger alone is insufficient.
Practice this topic
Exigency and brief stops
Cornell says exigent circumstances are essentially exceptions to the warrant requirement. It quotes a definition as circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or other prompt action was necessary to prevent physical harm, the destruction of evidence, the escape of the suspect or another consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts. In Missouri v. McNeely the Court noted examples such as emergency assistance to an occupant, hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect and entering a burning building.
Courts look at the time of the warrantless action to ask whether a reasonable officer would believe it urgent to act and impractical to secure a warrant.
Stops, frisks and levels of suspicion
Cornell describes a stop-and-frisk as a brief non-intrusive stop for which the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. If police reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous they may frisk the outer clothing. Rodriguez v. United States held a stop exceeding the time needed for its purpose violates the Constitution.
Probable cause requires more than reasonable suspicion, which permits only brief investigative stops and pat-downs, and a person arrested without a warrant must be promptly brought before a judge for a probable cause determination.
Frequently asked questions
What is the controlling rule for warrant exceptions and police encounters?+
Each warrant exception has its own cause level, justification, scope, and duration; a lawful seizure does not automatically authorize a search.
How should I analyze warrant exceptions and police encounters on the bar exam?+
Classify consensual encounter, stop, or arrest. State cause level when action occurred. Name one exact exception and its scope. Analyze duration, manner, and later search separately.
What are exigent circumstances?+
Circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe prompt action was necessary to prevent harm, destruction of evidence, escape or another consequence improperly frustrating law enforcement.
What is required for a Terry stop?+
Reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed by the person stopped.
When may police frisk a person?+
When they reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous, and then only a quick pat-down of the outer clothing.
How does reasonable suspicion differ from probable cause?+
Probable cause requires more; reasonable suspicion permits only brief, limited investigative stops and pat-downs on specific articulable facts.
What did Rodriguez v. United States say about the length of a stop?+
A stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which it was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures.