The answer is "Free to leave test." The Free to Leave test was established in the Florida v. Bostick case, which determined that a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or terminate the encounter with law enforcement. This test is used to determine if a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred during a police encounter. It assesses whether a person's freedom of movement has been unreasonably restricted by the actions or behavior of law enforcement officers.
Michigan v. Long discusses the legality of conducting a protective sweep of a vehicle during a lawful arrest. A protective sweep is a limited search that is conducted to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers by checking for hidden weapons or potential threats. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a protective sweep of a vehicle is permissible if there is a reasonable belief that the suspect may be armed and dangerous, and if the search is limited to areas where a person could hide. This decision clarified the circumstances under which law enforcement officers can search a vehicle for their own safety.
This describes probable cause, which is a legal standard that refers to having enough specific facts to lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a fair probability of criminal activity. It is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, which only requires an officer's reasonable belief.
Reasonable suspicion is used when there are specific and articulable facts that give rise to a particularized and objective basis for suspecting an individual of criminal activity. It is a lower standard than probable cause and allows law enforcement officers to briefly detain and question individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. This standard is used to balance the need for effective law enforcement with protecting individual rights and privacy.
A probationer cannot be searched for any reason whatsoever. While probationers have fewer privacy rights compared to individuals not on probation, their Fourth Amendment rights still apply. Therefore, a search of a probationer must be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, just like any other search.
The reason "check for drugs or weapons" is not a legitimate reason for inventory searches. Inventory searches are conducted to protect the property of detainees and ensure that their belongings are properly accounted for. They are not meant to be used as a means to search for drugs or weapons. This type of search would require separate legal justification, such as probable cause or a search warrant.
When an officer uses physical force or shows authority to restrict a person's freedom, it is referred to as a seizure. This can occur when an individual is detained, arrested, or otherwise restrained against their will. The term "seizure" is commonly used in legal contexts to describe the act of taking control over someone's liberty.
The right to counsel in your defense is not a 4th Amendment Protection. The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and ensures that warrants can only be issued with probable cause. The right to counsel, on the other hand, is protected under the 6th Amendment, which guarantees the right to legal representation in criminal cases.
All of the above factors are needed for a special needs search of kids in school. Reasonable suspicion that a student has something against the law is necessary to justify a search. Individualized suspicion means that the suspicion is specific to a particular student and not based on generalizations. The search must also be initiated by a school official, ensuring that it is conducted by someone with the authority to do so. Therefore, all of these factors are required for a special needs search of kids in school.
Terry v. Ohio is the correct answer because it is the landmark Supreme Court case that established the rule allowing officers to conduct a frisk when they have a reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and dangerous. In this case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment allows for a limited search for weapons when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and poses a threat to their safety. This ruling set the precedent for the "stop and frisk" practice used by law enforcement officers today.
Extends only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found, and may last only as long as necessary to dispel the RS of danger.”
