Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Office of Chief Counsel

Legal Training Division 

October 2016

THE

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

-INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS

Join THE INFORMER E-mail Subscription List

It’s easy! Click HERE to subscribe,

change your e-mail address, or unsubscribe.

THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. No one but the FLETC Legal Division will have 

access to your address, and you will receive mailings from no one except the 

FLETC Legal Division.

Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with quality, useful 

and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in the law, and 

legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and 

do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and written by 

members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the Editor at 

(912) 267-3429 or FLETC-LegalTrainingDivision@dhs.gov. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer delivered 

directly to you via e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The Informer by 

visiting https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. 

This edition of The Informer may be cited as 10 INFORMER 16.
2

The Informer –October 2016

Case Summaries

Circuit Courts of Appeals

Third Circuit

Johnson v. City of Philadelphia: Whether an officer was entitled to qualified immunity

after he shot and killed a suspect who assaulted him and then reached for the officer’s gun...........4

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Toussaint: Whether the emergency-aid exception to the 

Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows officers to conduct warrantless

seizures when exigent circumstances exist..................................................................6

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Calvetti: Whether a Miranda violation invalidated the defendant’s

subsequent consent to search; whether the defendant’s consent was voluntary; whether 

agents were required to tell the defendant that she could refuse to consent, and whether 

officers were justified in extending the duration of the traffic stop.......................................7

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Wright: Whether an officer received valid third-party consent 

to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s computer for child pornography...................8

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Williams: Whether the officers’ warrantless search of the defendant

and his car violated the Fourth Amendment.................................................................9

♦

Fourth Amendment Crossword Puzzle.....................................................11

♦

FLETC Informer Webinar Series 

1. The Fifth Amendment and Compelling Unencrypted Data, Encryption Codes 

and/or Passwords

1 1⁄2 - hour webinar presented by Bob Cauthen, Assistant Chief, FLETC Legal Division. 

This webinar will examine the Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause and three 

United States Supreme Court decisions that form the underpinnings of the legal analysis 

concerning documents and data on electronic devices and then cover federal case law 

analyzing whether, and if so how, the government can compel a suspect or defendant to 

disclose a password or encryption code or produce an unencrypted version of data already 

lawfully in the government’s possession.

Date and Time: Thursday November 10, 2016, 2:30 p.m. EDT

To join this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/informer
3

Bruce’s Brownbag Webinar

Each week, Bruce Barnard selects a very recent Federal case that is "hot off the press" and 

discusses the impact and possible lessons learned for law enforcement officers. This webinar 

series is intentionally offered over the lunch break, so pack your lunch on Wednesday, eat at your 

desk, and join us for an interesting discussion on cases involving the legal aspects of law 

enforcement. The site is always running and you can download slides and recordings of 

previous webinars in the archives on the site. We hope to see you every Wednesday!

1. Wednesday October 26, 2016 - 11:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. (EDT)

2. Wednesday November 2, 2016 - 11:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. (EDT)

To join Bruce’s Brown Bag Webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/bbw

♦

FLETC Informer Rewind Wednesday

When the training schedule does not allow us to provide a “live” webinar, please join us for the 

broadcast of a previously aired webinar. 

1. Wednesday November 2, 2016 - 12:15 p.m. -1:15 p.m. (EDT)

We will replay Constitutional Law for Law Enforcement (originally aired June 2016).

To join a Rewind Wednesday webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/informer

♦

Please check the FLETC Webinar Schedule and News section at: 

https://share.dhs.gov/informer for updates and the most current webinarrelated news. 

♦

To participate in a FLETC Informer Webinar:

1. Click on the link to access the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN).

2. If you have a HSIN account, enter with your login and password information.

3. If you do not have a HSIN account click on the button next to “Enter as a Guest.”

4. Enter your name and click the “Enter” button.

5. You will now be in the meeting room and will be able to participate in the webinar.

6. Even though meeting rooms may be accessed before a webinar, there may be times 

when a meeting room is closed while an instructor is setting up the room.

7. Meeting rooms will be open at least one-hour before a scheduled webinar.

8. Training certificates will be provided at the conclusion of each webinar.
4

CASE SUMMARIES

Circuit Courts of Appeal

Third Circuit

Johnson v. City of Philadelphia, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17138 (3d Cir. Pa. Sept. 20, 2016)

Officer Dempsey was on patrol at 2:00 a.m., when he received a report that a naked man was at a 

nearby intersection standing in the street. Dempsey and two other patrol officers responded to 

the call, but found no one. Around 5:30 a.m., Dempsey responded to another call about a naked 

man on the same block, but again found no one. 

At approximately 6:00 a.m., a passing motorist told Officer Dempsey that a naked man was at a 

nearby intersection standing in the street. Officer Dempsey went to the location and saw a naked 

man, later identified as Kenyado Newsuan, standing in front of a residence. Dempsey estimated 

Newsuan to be six feet tall and 220 pounds. Dempsey did not contact his dispatch to report that 

he had encountered Newsuan or stopped his patrol car. As Newsuan walked toward the residence, 

Dempsey exited his car with his taser in his hand and told Newsuan to “come here.” In response, 

Newsuan began screaming and shouting obscenities at Dempsey and flailing his arms around. 

Dempsey could see that Newsuan was completely naked and had nothing in his hands. Dempsey 

told Newsuan to “come here” several times, but Newsuan ignored him and continued to walk 

toward the residence. Newsuan entered the residence, but emerged a few seconds later. Newsuan 

was still naked and Dempsey could see that he did not have a weapon. 

Upon emerging from the residence, Newsuan began running toward Dempsey and yelling. 

Dempsey gave Newsuan two verbal commands to stop. When Newsuan was five feet away, 

Dempsey fired his taser into Newsuan’s chest. Newsuan kept coming forward and grabbed 

Dempsey’s shirt. A violent struggle ensued. Newsuan struck Dempsey in the head multiple times, 

threw Dempsey up against a parked van, and then pushed him into a parked SUV. As they were 

wrestling against the SUV, Newsuan reached for Dempsey's service weapon. Dempsey removed 

the gun from its holster, wedged it between his body and Newsuan's, and, from a distance of no 

more than two inches, fired two shots into Newsuan's chest. Newsuan attempted to reach for the 

gun, and Dempsey shot him again in the chest. Still grappling, Newsuan reached for the gun again, 

and Dempsey shot him again. Newsuan collapsed face down and died.

Johnson, representing Newsuan’s estate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, among other 

things, that Officer Dempsey used excessive force against Newsuan in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment. 

A claim that a police officer used excessive force during a seizure is analyzed under the Fourth 

Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. There was no dispute that Dempsey seized 

Newsuan for Fourth Amendment purposes when he shot and killed him. The issue was whether 

Dempsey’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. 

First, the court concluded that once Newsuan began reaching for Dempsey’s gun, Dempsey was 

justified in using deadly force to defend himself. Three witnesses to the altercation testified that 

Newsuan rushed at Dempsey, began violently grappling with him, and slammed Dempsey into 
5

multiple cars. All three witnesses agreed that Newsuan then attempted to grab Dempsey’s gun 

out of its holster. At this point, there was a serious risk that Newsuan would kill Dempsey, and 

no reasonable juror could conclude that it was unreasonable for Dempsey to shoot Newsuan. 

Next, the court noted that a proper Fourth Amendment analysis required it to assess not only the 

reasonableness of Dempsey’s actions at the moment of the shooting, but the totality of the 

circumstances leading up to the shooting. 

The plaintiff argued that even if Dempsey was justified in shooting Newsuan after he was attacked, 

the seizure as a whole was unreasonable because Dempsey should never have confronted 

Newsuan in the first place. The plaintiff supported this argument by citing a Philadelphia Police 

Department directive that instructs officers who encounter severely mentally disabled persons, 

including persons experiencing drug-induced psychosis, to wait for back up, to attempt to deescalate the situation through conversation, and to retreat rather than resort to force.

The plaintiff argued that Dempsey knew or should have known that Newsuan was obviously 

mentally disturbed, as Dempsey saw that Newsuan was naked and unarmed. In addition, the 

plaintiff pointed out that Dempsey had responded to two prior calls to the same area concerning a 

naked man standing in the street without receiving any indication that the man was endangering 

or threatening people. As a result, the plaintiff claimed that under these circumstances it was 

unreasonable for Dempsey to ignore departmental policy by initiating a one-on-one encounter 

with Newsuan.

The court disagreed. First, the court did not reject the plaintiff’s argument that official police 

department policies may be considered when determining the reasonableness of an officer’s use 

of force.1 Second, the court noted that the totality of the circumstances analysis should include 

whether the officer’s own reckless or deliberate conduct unreasonably created the need to use 

deadly force. 

However, the court concluded it did not need to address these issues. Whether or not Dempsey 

acted unreasonably at the outset of his encounter with Newsuan, the plaintiff must still prove that 

Dempsey's allegedly unconstitutional actions proximately caused Newsuan's death. Under 

ordinary tort principles, a superseding cause breaks the chain of proximate causation, and the 

Third Circuit has recognized that this principle limits Section 1983 liability for an officer's use of 

force even where the officer's initial actions violate the Fourth Amendment. Here, the court 

concluded that Newsuan's violent, precipitate, and illegal attack on Officer Dempsey severed any 

causal connection between Dempsey's initial actions and his subsequent use of deadly force during 

the struggle in the street. Consequently, the court held that Newsuan's life-threatening assault, 

coupled with his attempt to gain control of Dempsey's gun, was the direct cause of his death.

While the court held that Officer Dempsey did not violate the Fourth Amendment during his 

encounter with Newsuan, it is worth noting the court’s concluding comments.2

 1 The court recognized that the federal circuit courts of appeal are split on the question of whether police department 

policies may be used to assess whether a seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 

2 The question of proximate causation in this case is made straightforward by the exceptional circumstances 

presented--namely, a sudden, unexpected attack that instantly forced the officer into a defensive fight for his life. As 

discussed above, that rupture in the chain of events, coupled with the extraordinary violence of Newsuan's assault, 

makes the Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis similarly straightforward. Given the extreme facts of this case, 

our opinion should not be misread to broadly immunize police officers from Fourth Amendment liability whenever a 

mentally disturbed person threatens an officer's physical safety. Depending on the severity and immediacy of the 
6

For the court’s opinion: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/15-2346/15-2346-

2016-09-20.pdf?ts=1474390846

*****

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Toussaint, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17357 (5th Cir. La. Sept. 22, 2016)

While monitoring a wiretap, an FBI agent overheard a suspected gang-member issue an order to 

kill Toussaint, who was said to be in a specific neighborhood driving a silver Infiniti. The agent 

immediately contacted a local police officer, who met with several other officers to discuss how 

they should attempt to locate and warn Toussaint. After their meeting, the officers went to the 

neighborhood mentioned in the wiretap and searched for silver Infinitis. As they were leaving the 

neighborhood, the officers saw a silver Infiniti. The officers followed the vehicle, determined it 

was travelling over the speed limit, and pulled it over. When the vehicle pulled over, the driver, 

Toussaint, fled from the officers on foot. After a brief chase, the officers caught Toussaint and 

arrested him. The officers searched Toussaint incident to arrest and recovered a 9mm pistol and 

a bag of crack cocaine. By this time, approximately forty-five minutes had elapsed between the 

initial threat overheard on the wiretap and the stop of Toussaint’s vehicle. 

The government charged Toussaint with drug and firearm violations.

Toussaint filed a motion to suppress the evidence the officers seized as a result of the stop. The 

district court granted the motion, and the government appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court. The emergency-aid exception to the Fourth 

Amendment’s warrant requirement allows officers to conduct warrantless searches or seizures 

when exigent circumstances exist. One recognized exigent circumstance is the need to assist 

persons who are seriously injured or threatened with serious injury. While the vast majority of 

cases have involved warrantless entries into homes, the court found no logical difference with 

extending this exception to vehicle stops. As a result, in a case of first impression, the court held 

that the emergency aid exception can be used to justify a traffic stop under the proper 

circumstances.

The court then held that the emergency-aid exception applied in this case; therefore, the officers 

were justified in stopping Toussaint. Here, the officers received what all parties agreed was a 

credible threat against a specific individual, who was located within a specific area of the city and 

was driving a specific vehicle. The court held that it was reasonable for the officers to believe the 

 

threat and any potential risk to public safety posed by an officer's delayed action, it may be appropriate for an officer 

to retreat or await backup when encountering a mentally disturbed individual. It may also be appropriate for the 

officer to attempt to de-escalate an encounter to eliminate the need for force or to reduce the amount of force necessary 

to control an individual. Nor should it be assumed that mentally disturbed persons are so inherently unpredictable 

that their reactions will always sever the chain of causation between an officer's initial actions and a subsequent use 

of force. If a plaintiff produces competent evidence that persons who have certain illnesses or who are under the 

influence of certain substances are likely to respond to particular police actions in a particular way that may be 

sufficient to create a jury issue on causation. And of course, nothing we say today should discourage police 

departments and municipalities from devising and rigorously enforcing policies to make tragic events like this one 

less likely. The facts of this case, however, are extraordinary. Whatever the Fourth Amendment requires of officers 

encountering emotionally or mentally disturbed individuals, it does not oblige an officer to passively endure a lifethreatening physical assault, regardless of the assailant's mental state.
7

threat on Toussaint’s life had not ended within the forty-five minutes it took to locate him; 

therefore, the emergency still existed that justified the traffic stop. 

For the court’s opinion: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/15-30748/15-30748-

2016-09-22.pdf?ts=1474587032

*****

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Calvetti, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16496 (6th Cir. Mich. Sept. 8, 2016)

During a traffic stop, an officer seized sixteen kilograms of cocaine from the vehicle in which 

Cortez and Calvetti were travelling. The officer arrested the pair and transported them to the U.S. 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) field office for questioning.

At the DEA office, an agent advised Calvetti of her Miranda rights. Calvetti signed a Mirandarights form indicating that she understood her rights, but she did not want to answer questions. 

Nevertheless, agents questioned Calvetti. Among other things, the agents asked Calvetti about 

her residence. A short time later, Calvetti signed a consent-to-search form for her residence. The 

agents searched Calvetti’s residence and found drug-packaging materials similar to those that had 

been used to wrap the cocaine seized from her vehicle. 

The government charged Cortez and Calvetti with two drug offenses.

Calvetti filed a motion to suppress the statements she made to the agents and the evidence seized 

from her residence, arguing that the agents violated her Miranda rights. 

If a defendant invokes the right to remain silent before or during an interrogation, questioning 

must stop. Here, the court held that Calvetti clearly and unambiguously invoked her right to 

remain silent by signing her name on the “No” signature line below the question, “Are you willing 

to answer some questions?” However, after seeing Calvetti’s “No” signature on the Mirandawaiver form, the agents asked her questions anyway. 

Calvetti also argued the evidence seized from her residence should have been suppressed because 

the Miranda violation tainted her consent to search. 

The court noted that Miranda warnings are not independent rights, but stem from the Fifth 

Amendment right against self incrimination. The right against self incrimination protects a person 

from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the government with 

evidence that is testimonial, or communicative in nature. To be testimonial, a person’s 

communication must convey a “factual assertion,” or disclose information. 

The court concluded that giving consent to search is not a testimonial statement because it does 

not convey a factual assertion or disclose information. As a result, the court held that a person’s 

consent to search is not a statement protected by the self incrimination clause of the Fifth 

Amendment. Consequently, the violation of Calvetti’s right to remain silent did not provide a 

basis for suppressing the evidence seized at her residence arising out of her consent to search. 

The court also held that Calvetti’s consent was obtained voluntarily. Although Calvetti told the 

officer during the traffic stop that she had been driving for twenty-four hours, she never 

complained of sleep deprivation, or said that she was tired, confused, or uncomfortable. 
8

Finally, Calvetti argued the evidence seized from her residence should have been suppressed 

because she did not know that she could refuse the agents’ request for consent. 

The court disagreed. The Supreme Court has rejected the argument that consent cannot be valid 

unless the defendant knows that he has the right to refuse the request. Here, the consent-to-search 

form that Calvetti signed indicated that Calvetti “freely consented” to the search and had “not 

been threatened, nor forced in any way.”

Calvetti and Cortez also filed a joint motion to suppress the cocaine seized from their vehicle, 

arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop.

The court disagreed. First, Calvetti and Cortez claimed they were moving to Michigan and they 

had been driving for twenty-four straight hours, but their vehicle contained a small amount of 

luggage. Second, the pair had criminal histories, which included drug-related offenses. Third, 

Calvetti appeared to be extremely nervous and gave inconsistent statements as to whether she 

owned the vehicle. Consequently, the court held these factors gave the officers reasonable 

suspicion to extend the duration of the initial stop to question Calvetti and Cortez further.

For the court’s opinion: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/15-1526/15-1526-

2016-09-08.pdf?ts=1473354197

*****

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Wright, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17429 (7th Cir. Ill. Sept. 23, 2016)

Police officers responded to a domestic dispute between Wright and Leslie Hamilton. In their 

incident report, the officers noted that Hamilton called Wright a “pedophile” during the 

altercation. 

The next day, an officer who specialized in handling crimes against children, reviewed the 

officers’ report. Concerned about Hamilton’s use of the word “pedophile,” the officer contacted 

Hamilton and requested a meeting. 

Hamilton met with the officer and told him that Wright used his cell phone to visit a website that 

the officer knew featured pornographic images of underage girls. Hamilton also told the officer 

that she saw a video with a “disturbing title” on the family’s home computer. Hamilton then gave 

the officer consent to search the couple’s apartment and computers for evidence of child 

pornography.

When the officer arrived at the apartment, Hamilton let him in using her key. Once inside, the 

officer saw a desktop computer on the living-room floor connected to a flat-screen television. 

Hamilton told the officer the computer belonged to Wright; however, it was used as a family 

computer, and anytime she or her children wanted to use it, they did. Hamilton told the officer 

she used the computer to watch movies, play games, check the children’s grades, and store workrelated documents. The officer “previewed” the desktop computer’s hard drive by connecting it 

to his own laptop, a standard forensic procedure that allows investigators to view the drive’s 

contents without altering it. This preview revealed images of child pornography. Hamilton then 

gave the officer consent to seize the computer for further investigation. A subsequent forensic 

analysis of the computer revealed images and videos containing child pornography.
9

The government indicted Wright on child-pornography and child exploitation charges.

Wright filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the computer, arguing that 

Hamilton did not have the authority to grant the officer consent to search his computer. 

The court disagreed. Consent may be obtained from the defendant or from a third party who 

exercises common authority over the property to be searched. Common authority does not require 

the exercise of an ownership interest in the property, but instead it rests upon mutual use of the 

property by persons generally having joint access or control over it. The premise of this rule is 

that a defendant who allows another person to use his property assumes the risk that the person 

will allow others to access the property. 

Here, the court held that Hamilton’s mutual use of, access to, and control over the computer 

established that she enjoyed common authority over it with Wright. First, the forensic analysis 

corroborated Hamilton’s claim that she and her children freely used the computer, as the internet 

history revealed the computer had been used recently to view children’s movies and games, as 

well as the login page at the children’s school. Second, Wright left the computer in a common 

area of the apartment, leaving Hamilton with unrestricted access to it when he was not home.

Consequently the court held that Hamilton had actual authority to grant the officer consent to 

search Wright’s computer.

The court further held that Hamilton also exercised apparent authority over Wright’s computer. 

Apparent authority exists if the facts available to an officer at the time of a search would allow a 

reasonable person to believe that the consenting party had authority over the property to be 

searched. 

Here, the court found that what the officer saw at the apartment was consistent with Hamilton’s 

claim that she and the children could use the computer at any time. Specifically, when the officer 

arrived at the apartment, the officer saw the computer on the living-room floor connected to the 

television. The officer also saw children’s toys and women’s clothes scattered around the room. 

As a result, the court held it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that Hamilton exercised 

common authority over Wright’s computer. 

For the court’s opinion: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/15-3109/15-3109-

2016-09-23.pdf?ts=1474668048

*****

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Williams, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17150 (9th Cir. Nev. Sept. 20, 2016)

A man called a police hotline and reported that another man was sleeping inside a grey Ford, 

which was located in an apartment complex parking lot. The caller stated the man was a known 

drug dealer and did not live in the apartment complex. The caller provided his name, address and 

phone number. Two uniformed officers in a marked police car responded and saw the grey Ford 

in the parking lot. The officers turned on their patrol car’s overhead lights, shining them inside 

the Ford. After the officers turned on their lights, a man, later identified as Williams, sat up in the 

driver’s seat inside the Ford. Williams started the car, placed it in reverse and then quickly shifted 

the car back into park. By this time, both officers were approaching the Ford on foot. The officers 

ordered Williams out of the car and Williams complied. When the officers got within a few feet 
10

of Williams, he ran away from them. The officers chased Williams who fell down and remained 

on the ground. One of the officers conducted a pat down of Williams’ backside, handcuffed him,

and then helped Williams to his feet. The officers brought Williams back to their patrol car and 

conducted a pat down of Williams’ front side. An officer then reached into all of Williams’ 

pockets. The officer found a plastic bag containing individually wrapped pieces of crack cocaine 

in Williams’ right front pocket and over $1,000 in cash in small denominations in Williams’ left 

front pocket. 

The officers brought Williams back to the parking lot where the Ford was still parked. With 

Williams handcuffed in the back of the patrol car, the officer searched the Ford. Inside the car, 

the officers found a purse that contained a handgun. 

The government charged Williams with drug and firearm offenses.

Williams filed a motion to suppress the cocaine seized from his pocket and the handgun found 

during the search of the Ford. 

The district court granted Williams’ motion, and the government appealed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. First, the court held that the officers 

had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop of Williams. A caller reported that Williams, a 

known drug dealer, was sleeping inside a car in the parking lot of an apartment complex in which 

Williams did not live. When the officers arrived, they saw a car matching the description in the 

location provided by the caller. The court found that the caller’s tip was reliable, and that it alleged 

an ongoing crime, criminal trespass, by Williams. In addition, the officers’ suspicion was 

increased when Williams started the car and shifted it into reverse after the officers shined their 

lights on his car. 

Next, the court held that once the officers established reasonable suspicion to detain Williams, 

they had the right under Nevada Revised Statue (N.R.S.) § 171.23 to determine his identity. 

However, instead of speaking with the officers, Williams fled; therefore, violating N.R.S. § 

199.280, Nevada’s obstruction statute. At this point, the court concluded the officers had probable 

cause to arrest Williams. The court reiterated that the officers did not arrest Williams solely 

because he ran from them, but because he ran from the officers after the officers had reasonable 

suspicion to detain him to ascertain his identity. Consequently, the court held the officers 

conducted a valid search incident to arrest when they searched Williams’ pockets and found the 

crack cocaine and cash.

Finally, the court held the warrantless search of Williams’ car was lawful under the automobile 

exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Officers may conduct a warrantless 

search of an automobile, including containers within it, when the officers establish probable cause 

that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity. Based on the information 

the officers had before they arrested Williams and the contraband they found after arresting 

Williams, the court held the officers had probable cause to believe that Williams’ car contained 

further contraband or other evidence of drug dealing. 

For the court’s opinion: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-10008/15-10008-

2016-09-20.pdf?ts=1474391082

*****
11

Fourth Amendment Crossword Puzzle

ACROSS

1. The Fourth Amendment protects the people from this type of action.

5. The burden of proof to justify a Terry Stop, Terry Frisk, or protective sweep. (Abbr.)

6. The name of an investigative detention that begins with “Terry” and ends with ________ [one word].

8. Law enforcement officers cannot use this in routine law enforcement activities except to identify someone 

 suspected of a crime.

10. An exception to the exclusionary rule may do this to the evidence. 

13. Someone attempting to do this to evidence located in a home may justify going inside without a warrant.

14. An expectation of privacy is probably not reasonable if it can be seen on or heard on this household item. 

 (Abbr.) 

15. This signal from a ship may justify an emergency search of the vessel.

17. A search for weapons.

20. Most search warrants are executed at this time.

22. Whether a warrant is required under the Carroll Doctrine?

23. A reasonable expectation of privacy would begin here at check-in, and end at check-out.

24. This person can establish probable cause if he is credible and has a basis of knowledge. (Abbr.)

1 2 3

5

6 7 8 9

10

11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25 26

27

28
12

25. Trustworthy information that members of this group committed a crime in a certain location may allow officers 

 to focus their investigation on white Caucasians. (Abbr.) 

28. A search based on hot pursuit, destruction of the evidence, or an emergency. 

DOWN

2. A government intrusion into this is a search. (Abbr.) 

3. May also be a search when done on a suspect’s person, house, papers, or effects. 

4. This type of action does not trigger the Fourth Amendment.

6. Should follow a custodial arrest. (Abbr.)

7. The proper conjunction between two words that describe when an officer can search: She needs a warrant ___ 

 exception to the warrant requirement. 

9. A question to think about before conducting a consent search: Does the person have actual authority over the 

 place, or does it at least ______ [one word] that he does?

11. This type of pursuit may excuse a search warrant.

12. An inspection is considered to be this if the officer does not have a search warrant. 

13. An arrest warrant will allow an officer to go inside this type of place when it’s reasonable to believe the arrestee 

 is there.

16. Corroborating what an anonymous informant ___ [one word] may establish probable cause. 

18. Race, gender, and transgender may be used to ___ [abbr.] someone suspected of a crime. 

19. A Fourth Amendment requirement before entering a dwelling that ends with “Announce.”

21. Something that could be seized during a frisk. 

26. A warrant or an exception is like a ___ [one word] into a place where someone has a reasonable expectation of 

 privacy. 

27. It’s not capable of precise definition, but is specifically mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. (Abbr.)

Send comments / suggestions to:

Tim Miller, Legal Division, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: Tim.Miller@dhs.gov 
13

1 G O V E 2 R N M E N 3 T

E R 5 R S

6 S T 7 O P 8 R 9 A C E I

I R P 10 S A V E

A 11 H P P

12E 13 R E M O V E A 14 T V

 X E T A S E

 C 15 S O 16 S 17 F R 18 I S 19 K

 E I A D N

 P 20 D A Y 21K 22 N O T

 T E S N C

23 I N N 24C I 25 K K 26K

 O C F 27P E

 N 28 E X I G E N C Y Y