U.S. v. Marine, 51 M.J. 425

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. a “stop and frisk” is a limited exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause for government searches and seizures requiring, first, that the police officer’s stop must be justified at its inception by a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and, second, that the stop be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances giving rise to the stop
2. race alone does not amount to reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention
3. the length of an investigative detention may be so long as to render the stop, even temporarily, of a person unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment where law enforcement did not diligently pursue a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel the suspicions quickly
4. in determining whether evidence has been derived from illegal police activity and, therefore, is the fruit of the poisonous tree, the pertinent inquiry is whether the seizure of the evidence has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint considering factors such as temporal proximity between the illegality and the seizure of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of the official misconduct
5. a lawful arrest of a person who was initially illegally detained or seized is an intervening circumstance sufficient to dissipate any taint caused by an earlier illegal stop
6. any taint derived from an initial improper investigative stop of appellant did not bar admission of evidence seized during a subsequent search incident to apprehension where: (1) there was an intervening lawful apprehension of appellant for disrespect which was sufficient to dissipate any taint caused by an earlier illegal stop; and (2) any misconduct by guards was not so flagrant as to warrant application of the exclusionary rule

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Derivative evidence

1. in determining whether evidence has been derived from illegal police activity and, therefore, is the fruit of the poisonous tree, the pertinent inquiry is whether the seizure of the evidence has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint considering factors such as temporal proximity between the illegality and the seizure of the evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of the official misconduct
2. a lawful arrest of a person who was initially illegally detained or seized is an intervening circumstance sufficient to dissipate any taint caused by an earlier illegal stop
3. any taint derived from an initial improper investigative stop of appellant did not bar admission of evidence seized during a subsequent search incident to apprehension where: (1) there was an intervening lawful apprehension of appellant for disrespect which was sufficient to dissipate any taint caused by an earlier illegal stop; and (2) any misconduct by guards was not so flagrant as to warrant application of the exclusionary rule

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Stop and frisk

1. a “stop and frisk” is a limited exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause for government searches and seizures requiring, first, that the police officer’s stop must be justified at its inception by a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and, second, that the stop be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances giving rise to the stop
2. race alone does not amount to reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention
3. the length of an investigative detention may be so long as to render the stop, even temporarily, of a person unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment where law enforcement did not diligently pursue a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel the suspicions quickly

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the legal basis for a stop and frisk is reviewed de novo