Blog

In the Riley case, why didn’t the US Supreme Court follow the rule it established Robinson and Gustafson cases? In other words, why is a cell phone treated differently then the contents of a cigarette package, if they were both found during a full search incident to a lawful arrest?

What did the officer find during the search of Robinson and what kind of container was it in?

When should tests run in CI/CD?

 As it pertains to the petitioner Riley, explain the facts of the Riley v.California case, which led to the filing of his appeal.

According to the US Supreme Court a search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Prior to the Robinson and Gustafson cases what were the two reasons an officer could search an arrested person under this exception?

Why did the police officer begin the initial search of Gustafson?

Why did the police officer begin the initial search of Robinson?

When is model-based testing useful?

Deputy Jill was patrolling in her unit, when she saw Reggie driving his old pick-up down a secluded county road. Deputy Jill initiated a traffic stop to see if Reggie was up to no good.  Since it was starting to rain, Deputy Jill decided to place Reggie under arrest and to question him further at the Sheriff’s office. She performed a pat-down incident to the arrest and found a crumpled cigarette package in his shirt pocket. She opened the cigarette package and found what appeared to be crack cocaine. Reggie was prosecuted for possession of a controlled substance. His attorney is arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because his 4th amendment rights were violated. Based on the facts above, was there a legal search incident to a lawful arrest?

Which standard of evidence was established as the necessary proof that can legally justify an investigative detention and a “stop and frisk” for weapons?