◆ SpookStack

1984+85 Supreme Court Tern Cases Decided t. Criminal Procedure A. Investigative Detention A unanimous Court held that the investigative detention doctrine - first recognized in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - is applicable to completed offenses as well as prospective and on-going offenses, and that a "wanted flyer" issued by a police department may form the basis for the stop. The officers making such a stop need not have knowledge of all of the underlying facts so long as the issuing agency is in possession of specific, articulable facts amounting to reasonable suspicion. 2. U.S. v. Sharpe, 105 $.Ct. 1568 (3-20-85) In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court upheld the 20- minute detention of an individual suspected of trafficking in marihuana, Rejecting the appellate court”s effort to establish a per se rule regarding the allowable time for an investigative stop, the Court held that the reasonableness of the stop should be considered in light of purposes to be served by the stop and the time reasonably needed to effectuate that purpose. The Court noted that the examination should focus on whether the police acted diligently in pursuing steps which are likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. e 105 §.Ct. 1643 (3-20-85) Hayes v. Florida, C : lay In an 8-0 decision the Court held that the investigative detention of a person at the police station for Fingerprinting violates the Fourth Amendment unless there is either probable cause to arrest, consent or judicial authorization for the detention. The Court suggested that a brief detention on the street for the purpose of fingerprinting might be reasonable if (1) there ts reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime; (2} there is a reasonable basis for believing that fingerprinting will resolve the situation; and (3) the procedure fis carried out with dispatch. 4. Florida v. Rodriguez, 105 $.Ct. 308 (11-14-84) In a per curiam opinion (from which three Justices dissented) the Court reversed a state court”s suppression of narcotics seized from a drug courtler suspect”s luggage at an airport. The state court had ruled that no reasonable suspicion existed to stop the suspects, and that a subsequent consent to fo: a oy . x, fo ; t = a _— et # a1 QSURE ee