Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
122 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the Exclusionary Rule
|
The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by violating defendant’s constitutional rights may not be introduced by the prosecution at defendant’s trial for purposes of proving the defendant’s guilt.
|
|
|
Scope of Exclusionary Sanctions
|
A defendant seeking to have evidence suppressed must prove (1) illegality sufficient to trigger the exclusionary sanction; (2) the defendant's right to invoke that sanction ("standing"); and (3) that the challenged evidence was obtained as a factual result of the illegality or, as courts often put the matter, that the evidence was "fruit of the poisonous tree."
|
|
|
What is Standing
|
the Defendant may assert the exclusionary rule only to bar evidence obtained through violation of his own constitutional rights. That is, the Defendant may not keep out evidence obtained through police action that was a violation of X’s rights but not a violation of the Defendant’s own rights.
|
|
|
Standing in Search and Seizure cases
|
In search and seizure cases, the standing requirement means that the Defendant may seek to exclude evidence derived from a search and seizure only if his own legitimate expectation of privacy was violated by the search.
|
|
|
What is the case law on Standing
|
must be legitimately on the premise, must have an expectation of privacy under katz, overnight guest is alone enough to show had an expectation of privacy to challenge, short time used for business lacked connections to owner just a place to do business (did not have enough for standing, drug deal in a random apartment)
|
|
|
What is the Independent Source Doc
|
When the police have two paths leading to information, and only one of these paths begins with illegality, the evidence is not deemed fruit of the poisonous tree, and is not barred by the exclusionary rule.
The item that is sought to be excluded did not come from the illegality but came from a source that is separate and apart from the illegality. When the police have an independent source for the evidence, which does not involve illegality, the evidence is not barred by the exclusionary rule. |
|
|
what is the Inevitable Discovery Doc
|
When the evidence in question would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct, there is no nexus between the error and the evidence sufficient to provide a taint and the evidence is admissible.
|
|
|
what is Purged Taint / Attenuation Doctrine
|
The Attenuation Doctrine provides that evidence obtained by illegal means may nonetheless be admissible if the connection between the evidence and the illegal means is sufficiently attenuated or remote.
• Is there a point in time where you can say that the fruit is no longer connected to the poisonous tree? |
|
|
What are the factors looked at for the Attenuation Doctrine
|
1. Temporal proximity of the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence.
2. Presence of intervening events and circumstances. 3. The purpose and flagrancy of the particular official misconduct. |
|
|
Who has the BOP for Independent Source Exception
|
Prosecution → The prosecution would most likely have the burden to establish the applicability of evidence that is proved to be fruit of a poisonous tree.
Defendant → The defendant probably has the burden of establishing that challenged evidence was obtained as a factual result of unreasonable law enforcement conduct. |
|
|
what is the Good Faith Exception
|
The exclusionary rule does not band evidence that was obtained by officers acting is reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued b a proper magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.
|
|
|
Where does the Good Faith Exception Apply
|
Objectively Reasonable
The exception applies only where the police behave in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner. Fourth Amendment Only The exception applies only to evidence obtained on violation of the Fourth Amendment search and seizure and arrest. Warrantless Activity Authorized by Invalid Statute The "good faith" exception was extended to warrantless searches made pursuant to an invalid statute. Mistaken Perception that Valid Warrant Exist The “good faith” exception was extended if no valid warrant actually exists but an officer reasonably believes it does. |
|
|
Where does the Good Faith Exception Not apply
|
Misleading Affidavit: The exception will not apply if the officer who prepared the affidavit on which the warrant is based knows that the information in it is false, or recklessly disregards its truth or falsity.
“Rubber-Stamping” Magistrate: The exception will not apply if the magistrate “wholly abandons his judicial role.” For instance, if the affidavit merely states, in a conclusory fashion, that the police have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a particular crime at a particular place, and does not supply any of the facts on which that belief is based, it will not be reasonable for the officer to rely on the resulting warrant. Inadequate Affidavit: The underlying affidavit may be “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Facially Deficient Warrant: The warrant may be so facially deficient that the officers who execute it cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. For instance, the warrant might so completely fail to specify the items to be seized (a violation of the “particularity” clause of the Fourth Amendment) that reliance will be unreasonable. |
|
|
How does the 4th Amend apply to private parties
|
The Fourth Amendment's application is limited by the Supreme Court's position that it constrains only governmental action and does not apply to the conduct of a person acting purely in a private capacity.
Private action may amount to government action if the court finds enough government involvement. |
|
|
How to tell if something is protected under the 4th
|
Ask
• The determination of whether a search has occurred has come down to whether the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. • This standard comes from Katz v. United States. Whether conduct constituting a search is reasonable is generally determined by whether it is based on probable cause and is either supported by a warrant or within an exception to the general requirement of a warrant. |
|
|
What are Plain View Observations
|
The term sometimes describes a situation in which an officer has merely observed an item "left in plain view." In these situations, characterization of the facts as presenting plain view-what might be best termed a "plain view observation"-means the observation was not a search. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy.
|
|
|
Are Dog Sniffs a Search?
|
No, dogs only can detect certain contraband by not opening containers, you have no expectation of privacy to contraband
|
|
|
Do you have an Expectation of Privacy in trash
|
No, because you leave it out for the public for a chance kinds, snoopers, creatures could get in to it, or you also turn it to a 3rd party a trash collector.
|
|
|
what is Curtilage
|
Curtilage usually refers to the land and ancillary buildings that are associated with a dwelling. In the case of a typical private house, for instance, the front and back yard and garage are all parts of the curtilage.
Expectation of Privacy: A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy within the curtilage but not in the open fields outside of it. |
|
|
What are the four factors for curtilage
|
1. Proximity of the area to the home.
2. Whether the area is included within an enclosure to the house (fence)? 3. Nature of the use to which the area is being put to. 4. What steps were taken by the resident to prevent observation? |
|
|
what is the Good Faith Exception
|
The exclusionary rule does not band evidence that was obtained by officers acting is reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued b a proper magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.
|
|
|
Where does the Good Faith Exception Apply
|
Objectively Reasonable
The exception applies only where the police behave in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner. Fourth Amendment Only The exception applies only to evidence obtained on violation of the Fourth Amendment search and seizure and arrest. Warrantless Activity Authorized by Invalid Statute The "good faith" exception was extended to warrantless searches made pursuant to an invalid statute. Mistaken Perception that Valid Warrant Exist The “good faith” exception was extended if no valid warrant actually exists but an officer reasonably believes it does. |
|
|
Where does the Good Faith Exception Not apply
|
Misleading Affidavit: The exception will not apply if the officer who prepared the affidavit on which the warrant is based knows that the information in it is false, or recklessly disregards its truth or falsity.
“Rubber-Stamping” Magistrate: The exception will not apply if the magistrate “wholly abandons his judicial role.” For instance, if the affidavit merely states, in a conclusory fashion, that the police have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a particular crime at a particular place, and does not supply any of the facts on which that belief is based, it will not be reasonable for the officer to rely on the resulting warrant. Inadequate Affidavit: The underlying affidavit may be “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Facially Deficient Warrant: The warrant may be so facially deficient that the officers who execute it cannot reasonably presume it to be valid. For instance, the warrant might so completely fail to specify the items to be seized (a violation of the “particularity” clause of the Fourth Amendment) that reliance will be unreasonable. |
|
|
How does the 4th Amend apply to private parties
|
The Fourth Amendment's application is limited by the Supreme Court's position that it constrains only governmental action and does not apply to the conduct of a person acting purely in a private capacity.
Private action may amount to government action if the court finds enough government involvement. |
|
|
How to tell if something is protected under the 4th
|
Ask
• The determination of whether a search has occurred has come down to whether the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. • This standard comes from Katz v. United States. Whether conduct constituting a search is reasonable is generally determined by whether it is based on probable cause and is either supported by a warrant or within an exception to the general requirement of a warrant. |
|
|
What are Plain View Observations
|
The term sometimes describes a situation in which an officer has merely observed an item "left in plain view." In these situations, characterization of the facts as presenting plain view-what might be best termed a "plain view observation"-means the observation was not a search. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy.
|
|
|
Are Dog Sniffs a Search?
|
No, dogs only can detect certain contraband by not opening containers, you have no expectation of privacy to contraband
|
|
|
Do you have an Expectation of Privacy in trash
|
No, because you leave it out for the public for a chance kinds, snoopers, creatures could get in to it, or you also turn it to a 3rd party a trash collector.
|
|
|
what is Curtilage
|
Curtilage usually refers to the land and ancillary buildings that are associated with a dwelling. In the case of a typical private house, for instance, the front and back yard and garage are all parts of the curtilage.
Expectation of Privacy: A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy within the curtilage but not in the open fields outside of it. |
|
|
What are the four factors for curtilage
|
1. Proximity of the area to the home.
2. Whether the area is included within an enclosure to the house (fence)? 3. Nature of the use to which the area is being put to. 4. What steps were taken by the resident to prevent observation? |
|
|
Are open fields covered by 4th Amend
|
An individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields except in the area immediately surrounding the home.
|
|
|
Are Aerial Observations a violation under the 4th amend
|
When the police use an aircraft to view the Defendant’s property from the air, anything the police can see with the naked eye fall within the “plain view” doctrines (as long as the aircraft is in public, navigable, airspace).
|
|
|
Can officers use Mechanical Devises Not in General Public Use
|
When the government obtains special high-tech devices, not in general civilian use, to gain views that could not be had by the naked eye, it will be considered a search.
|
|
|
What is a The Seizure of Property
|
Whether police activity concerning places or items constitutes a "seizure" turns upon whether it constitutes a meaningful interference with the suspect's possessory interests.
|
|
|
What are Items Subject to Seizure
|
Seizable items include stolen property and other "fruits" of criminal conduct, instrumentalities used in the commission of crime, or contraband, i.e., items—such as drugs—the possession of which is prohibited by law.
In addition, items whose only interest to the police is that they may be introduced in court to incriminate the defendant are subject to seizure. |
|
|
Is Probable cause required for a Seizure of Items
|
Yes, Probable cause is required for the plain view seizure of an item which officers came upon during a reasonable warrantless search of an apartment.
|
|
|
Can you Searches of Seized Items
|
If a package or container is in plain view, its contents cannot normally be inspected under the plain view doctrine. See U.S. v. Chandwick (the right of police to seize foot locker does not imply right to open and inspect foot locker’s contents).
|
|
|
What about Seizure of Unnamed Items in a search warrant
|
If the police are properly conducting a search, and come across items that are not listed in the warrant (but that appear relevant to a crime), the police may generally seize the unlisted items. This right is an aspect of the “plain view” doctrine.
Incriminating Evidence The evidence must be sufficiently connected with criminal activity that a warrant could have been procured for it. Inadvertence Not Required It is not required, for application of the plain view doctrine, that the police’s discovery of an item in plain view be inadvertent. |
|
|
Possessory Interest in Items Seized With Standing Requirement
|
The mere fact that the defendant had a possessory interest in the items seized is not by itself automatically enough to allow the Defendant to challenge the constitutionality of the seizure. Only if the Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the items seized, may he defendant exclude those items. Rawlings v. Kentucky
|
|
|
What role does a Neutral and Detached Magistrate in issuing warrants
|
A search warrant must be issued by some sort of judicial officer, usually either a judge or a magistrate. The magistrate must be a neutral party, detached from the law enforcement side of the government.
|
|
|
What is Requirement of Particular Description in a Warrant
|
The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant contain a particular description of the premises to be searched, and the things to be seized. The warrant must be specific enough that the police officer executing it, even if she had no initial connection with the case, would know where to search and what items to seize.
|
|
|
The Showing of Probable Cause
|
For there to be probable cause to search particular premises, it must be reasonably likely that:
• The specific items to be searched for are connection with criminal activities; and • These items will be found in the place to be searched. |
|
|
Information from Informants
|
When the information on which probable cause is based comes from informants who are themselves engaged in criminal activity, courts closely scrutinize the information. Whether the informant’s information creates probable cause for a search or arrest is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances.
• In a case involving an informant's information, the probable cause issue will be resolved in essentially the same manner as in cases where the facts come from other sources (e.g., direct observation by police officers). |
|
|
How do magistrates look at Information from Informants
|
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a "substantial basis for concluding" that probable cause existed.
|
|
|
What is Corroboration from informants
|
Corroboration of aspects of the informant’s story may be combined with the story itself, in determining whether there is probable cause. This is especially likely to be the case where (1) the informant’s identity is not known to the police; and (2) the corroboration is of the future actions of third parties that are ordinarily not easily predicted.
|
|
|
How do you Challenging the Factual Statements in Affidavits
|
Two-Step Process
1. Whether the defendant can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that affidavits used to obtain the warrant contact perjury by the affiant, or a ”reckless disregard for the truth” by him, and the rest of the affidavit does not contact materials sufficient to constitute probable cause, the warrant will be invalidated. 2. Once the defendant makes a “substantial preliminary showing” that the affidavit contains perjured or reckless testimony by the affiant, he is entitled to a hearing on the issue, at which he may cross-examine the police officer who applied for the warrant, and any other witnesses, in his attempt to suppress the warrant. |
|
|
Announcement Requirements / “Knock and Announce Rule”
|
As a general rule, the officer executing the warrant must announce that he is a law enforcement officer, that he possesses a warrant, and that he is there to execute it.
The principle that the officers must identify themselves, absent exigent circumstances, applies even where force is not used for the entry. However an absence of this is not enough for the exclusionary rule |
|
|
Exclusion of Evidence with the Knock and Announce Rule
|
A violation of the "knock-and-announce" rule by police does not require the suppression of the evidence found during a search.
• The failure to “knock-and-announce” will seldom result in exclusion of evidence. Preventing the Destruction of Evidence → The Supreme Court has recognized at least one exception: officers may constitutionally enter without first identifying themselves if the circumstances pose a threat of immediate destruction of evidence. Physical Danger to Police → Lower courts have held tat the possibility of physical danger to the police sometimes justifies unannounced entry. Where No Response or Entry Refused → If the officer identifies himself, and is then refused entry (or gets no response), he may use force to break into the premises. |
|
|
Destruction of Property in Entering
|
The Supreme Court rejected the holding that an unannounced entry involving destruction of property requires a higher degree of exigency than other such entries and that this heightened standard had not been met.
|
|
|
Delay in Execution of a Warrant
|
Statutory provisions and court rules often direct that search warrants be executed within specified times of their issuance, and permit the magistrate issuing a warrant to further limit the time for execution.
• Execution of the warrant after its expiration requires suppression of the evidence obtained. |
|
|
Search of Persons on Premises
|
Assuming that the police have only a search warrant, and not an arrest warrant (or probable case to arrest anyone), the police may not automatically search everyone found on the premises.
|
|
|
Who can the the police search on the premises absence an arrest warrant
|
Named Items on Person
If the police have probable cause to believe that an individual has on his person items which are named in the search warrant, they may search him. Person Attempting to Leave If a person attempts to leave during a premises search, and the items being sough are of a type which might be easily carried away, the police may probably temporarily detain the person to make sure he is not carrying the items away. Persons Unrelated to Search Where a person simply happens to be on the premises to be searched, and appears not to have any connection with the criminal activity giving rise to the search warrant or with items mentioned in the warrant, that person may not be searched or detained. Ybarra v. Illinois |
|
|
What is the reasonable person test for a Seizure of a person
|
The police can be said to have seized an individual only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.
|
|
|
What is no reasonable suspicion to seize a person
|
If a seizure is not supported by a reasonable suspicion then it is unreasonable
|
|
|
What is an Arrest Warrant
|
An arrest warrant allows you to enter the premises of the person you are seeking to arrest. You are allowed to enter only to arrest the person
|
|
|
how does Entry of Dwelling work with an Arrest Warrant
|
Where the police wish to enter private premises to arrest a suspect, an arrest warrant may be constitutionally required.
Premises are Not Those of the Suspect The police need to have a search warrant along with the arrest warrant in order to enter the house of another and arrest the suspect. • The only exception is under exigent circumstances. |
|
|
What are Exigent Circumstances with Arrest Warrants
|
If there are exigent circumstances, so that it is impractical for the police to delay the entry and arrest until they obtain a warrant, no warrant is necessary.
• However, application of the exigent-circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned where there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense has been committed. |
|
|
What is a Hot Pursuit
|
If the police are pursuing a felony suspect, and he runs into his own or another’s dwelling, a warrantless entry and arrest may be permitted under the “hot pursuit” doctrine.
|
|
|
4th Amend and Deadly Force
|
The Fourth Amendment also places limits on how an arrest may be made. The main rule is that the police may not use deadly force to make an arrest, if the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others.
|
|
|
What is a Search Incident to Arrest
|
when the police are making a lawful arrest, they may search the area within the arrestee’s control. Search-incident-to-arrest is the most important exception to the general rule that a search warrant is required before a search takes place.
|
|
|
What is the Limited Area Around Defendant for Search I/A
|
The police have a right to search the area within the defendant’s immediate control, but the portion of the premises outside that control could not be warrantlessly searched incident to arrest. Chimel v. California
|
|
|
What is Interpretation of Control for a I/A
|
Most post-Chimel cases have assumed that the defendant, even after his arrest, maintains control over a substantial area, even if he is handcuffed or if numerous officers are around him.
|
|
|
What is an Protective Sweep
|
Where the arrest takes place in the suspect’s home, the officers may conduct a protective sweep of all or part of the premises, if they have a reasonable belief based on specific articulable facts that another person might be dangerous to the officer may be present in the areas to be swept.
Adjoining Spaces But “specific and articulable facts” are not needed for the officers to search in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of an arrest, to make sure that no possible attacker lurks there. |
|
|
what about a Contemporaneity of Search for a I/A
|
For the search to be incident to arrest, it need not be exactly contemporaneous with the arrest- a search that takes place some time before, or some time after, will still be held “incident” to that arrest as long as it is closely connected to it logically speaking.
|
|
|
What is the arrest is not legal
|
The search-incident-to-arrest exception to the search warrant requirement applies only where the arrest is legal. Thus if the arrest turns out to have been made without probable cause, the search incident to it cannot be justified on the search-incident-to-arrest rationale, and the arrest must be suppressed unless some other exception to the warrant requirement justifies it.
|
|
|
Search-Incident-to-Arrest & Automobile Exception
|
Where the police have made a lawful “custodial arrest” of the occupants of an automobile, they may, incident to that arrest, search the car’s entire passenger compartment, and the contents of any containers found in that compartment.
|
|
|
Container Found in Compartment I/A
|
The right to search the contents of any containers found in the compartment means that the police may search closed or open glove compartments, as well as any luggage, boxes, bags, etc. found in the car.
• In New York v. Belton, the police were permitted to search through the defendant’s (the passenger) zipped-up pocket of his jacket found in the car. |
|
|
How does a search of a car work after Arizonia v. Gant
|
If the arrestee could not reach into the area in which enofrcement agents seek to search, both justification for searching incident to an arrest are gone. Only if in reach of passenger compartment, Reason to believe evidence is in the car
|
|
|
Arrest for a Minor Criminal Offense
|
if an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence he may without violating the 4th Amend arrest the offender
|
|
|
What is a Terry Stop
|
In general, the stop and frisk doctrine lets the police briefly detain a person.
1. Right to Stop: Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity is afoot, he may briefly detain the suspect in order to make inquiries. Probable cause is not required- reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity, will suffice. 2. Protective Frisks: Once the officer conducts a stop as described above, then assuming nothing in the initial encounter dispels his reasonable fear for his or others’ safety, the officer may conduct a careful limited search of the outer clothing of the suspect in an attempt to discover weapons. |
|
|
What are the limits of a Terry Stop
|
Terry Stops are limited to propriety of a weapon search.
|
|
|
Terry Stop + Informants Tip
|
A Terry stop may be justified not only based on the officer’s own observations, but also based on an informant’s tip. In the case of an informant’s tip, reasonable suspicion is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances.
Prediction of Future Events: A key factor is whether the informant has predicted future events that someone without inside information would have been unlikely to know. |
|
|
Terry Stop + Anonymous Tips
|
Where the informant is anonymous, the police must have reason to believe the informant’s knowledge about the suspect’s criminal conduct is reliable. It is not enough that the informant merely known something non-criminal about the suspect that anyone could know (e.g., the suspect’s appearance and present location).
|
|
|
Investigation of Completed Crime
|
If police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.
|
|
|
Terry Stop Movement of the Suspect
|
Movement to the stationhouse is prohibited when officers lack probable cause.
|
|
|
Length of the Detention Terry Stop
|
In United States v. Place (1983), the Supreme Court declined to adopt any outside time limitation for a permissible Terry stop.
Generally you look to see if the police are diligent in verifying their investigation. They must do there investigation diligently. If it’s not diligent the search will go beyond a Terry stop supported by reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
What is the Plain Touch Doctrine
|
If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context.
|
|
|
When can an officer Conduct a PAt Down
|
when an officer is justified in believe that an individual is armed and dangerus to the officer or others you may conduct a patdown
|
|
|
What is the Violation of a Traffic Law Requirement
|
Suspicionless Stops → The Fourth Amendment prohibits random or "suspicionless" stops of motorists to determine whether they lack valid driver's licenses or registration documents for the vehicles.
Traffic Violation → An automobile stop is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. |
|
|
Traffic Stops Followed By Ticket
|
Where the police make a routine stop to issue a traffic ticket, and don't make an "arrest," they don't thereby get the right to search the car.
If the police don't arrest the driver (even though they could have done so), they can't rely on the mere fact that the stop was valid as a justification for a search of either the driver's person or of the passenger compartment. |
|
|
Frisks of Automobile
|
Under certain circumstances officers’ right to conduct a protective weapons search extends beyond the person of a motorist and includes some parts of the automobile. Such searches are sometimes permissible during traffic stops.
The search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. • Police officers must have the “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. As such, he can frisk the car. |
|
|
Removal of Driver and Passengers from Stopped Vehicles
|
The Court has aid that the balance of interests between the officer’s safety and slight inconvenience to driver, dictated it is reasonable for officers to routinely order drivers out of their vehicles.
• Maryland v. Wilson extended this rule to passengers. |
|
|
how does Pretext Motivation play a rule in police work
|
Pretext Irrelevant → The fact that the police’s real reason for a stop is something other than the traffic violation is irrelevant- once the police have probable cause to believe that even a minor traffic violation has occurred, they may stop the vehicle. Then, if the stop in turn gives them probable cause to believe that contraband is inside, they may perform a warrantless search.
|
|
|
Entry to Arrest Non-Resident
|
One commonly-occurring situation does not constitute an exigent circumstance: where the police are not in hot pursuit, and there are no exigent circumstances, the police may not enter one person’s private dwelling to arrest another, even if they are acting pursuant to an arrest warrant.
But this rule does not apply where the suspect is to be arrested at this own premises. That is, a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, even without a search warrant, will be enough to allow the police to enter the Defendant’s house to make the arrest; while there, they may make a search incident to an arrest, and also seize any evidence they find in plain view. |
|
|
Commercial Inspections No Probable Cause
|
However, in order to obtain the warrant, the inspector does not have to demonstrate probable cause to believe that a violation will be discovered in the premises to be searched.
|
|
|
Licensed Businesses
|
Where a business is subject to special stringent licensing rules, a warrantless inspection search may be allowed.
|
|
|
How Comerical Searches are reasonable
|
A warrantless inspection of a pervasively regulated business will be deemed to be reasonable, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as long as;
1. There is a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made, 2. The warrantless inspection is necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and 3. The statute's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant--it must a. Advise the owner of the commercial premises that the property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes, and b. Limit the discretion of the inspecting officers by carefully limiting the inspection in time, place, and scope. |
|
|
Consent Search
|
Consent must be voluntary viewed from, totality of circumstances, that state has the BOP to show consent was given voluntarily, you don't need to inform of a right to refuse.
|
|
|
Third Party Consent
|
Joint Authority → If the third person and the defendant have joint authority over the premises, then the third party’s consent to search will be binding on the defendant.
|
|
|
Searches & Seizures of Vehicles
|
There are some special exceptions to the warrant requirement in the context of automobile searches. However, the general exceptions will frequently apply in the case of cars:
• Exigent Circumstances: Exigent circumstances will often cause the warrant requirement to be suspended where a car search is involved. Carroll v. U.S. • Incident to Arrest: Similarly, a car’s passenger compartment may be searched incident to the arrest of the driver or passenger. |
|
|
Vehicle Exception to the Search Requirements
|
In two early cases, the Supreme Court recognized a right on the part of law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles independent of any right the officers may have to arrest occupants.
1. Exigent Circumstances 2. Searches at Station-House After Arrest |
|
|
Searches of Containers Found in Vehicles
|
The Court has extended its liberal rules for automobile searches to closed containers (including luggage) carried by car or other form of transport. Such items, if found in an automobile, may normally be searched without a warrant, if the car itself is being subjected to a valid warrantless search bases on probable cause. U.S. v. Ross
|
|
|
Container Belonging to Passenger
|
Whether the police have probable cause to do a search of a car and its containers incident to the arrest of the driver, they may also search any container that they know belongs to a passenger rather than to the driver, even if the police have no grounds whatsoever to suspect the passenger of any wrongdoing.
• Personal Effects: If instead of a person, the item is a wallet, knapsack, or some other item which was attached to the passenger’s person, the officer probably would not have been able to search it absent specific probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence were contained in it. |
|
|
Probable Cause for Container Only
|
If the police have probable cause to believe that a container contains contraband, they may wait until the container is in the car, stop the car, and seize and open the container, all without a warrant. California v. Acevedo
|
|
|
Interrogation and Confession
|
In both state and federal courts, a confession may be introduced against the person who made it only if the confession satisfies each of the following two requirements:
1. Voluntary: The confession must have been voluntary, i.e., not the product of coercion by the police; and 2. Miranda Warnings: The confession must have been obtained in conformity with the Miranda decision — in brief, if the confession was given by the suspect while he was in custody and under interrogation by the authorities, the suspect must have been warned that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him, and that he had the right to have an attorney present. |
|
|
Reliability of Confessions
|
Defendants are entitled—as a matter of federal constitutional law—to the opportunity to persuade judges and juries that confessions should not be believed because of the manner in which they were elicited.
|
|
|
The Requirement of Voluntariness for Confessions
|
Regardless of whether Miranda warnings are given to the suspect, his confession will only be admissible against him if it was given voluntarily → Look at the totality of the circumstances.
|
|
|
Miranda Rights
|
Three Requirements for Application
Before Miranda will be found to apply, three requirements must be satisfied: 1. Custody: First, Miranda warnings are necessary only where the suspect is taken into custody. (Thus if the police ask a question to someone they meet on the street, without formally detaining him, Miranda is not triggered.) 2. Questioning: Second, the Miranda rule applies only where the confession comes as a result of questioning. (Thus statements that are truly “volunteered” by the suspect are not covered.) 3. Authorities: Finally, Miranda applies only where both the questioning and the custody are by the police or other law enforcement authorities. (Thus if a private citizen, acting independently of law-enforcement officials, detains a suspect and questions him, any resulting confession is not covered.) |
|
|
Warnings Required for 5th/6th Amend
|
1. He has the right to remain silent;
2. Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; 3. He has the right to the presence of an attorney; and 4. If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he desires. |
|
|
Inadmissibility under Miranda
|
Any statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rules will be inadmissible as prosecution evidence, even if the statement is in a sense “voluntary.”
• Impeachment Use: But a confession given in violation of Miranda, although not admissible as part of the prosecution’s case in chief, may generally be introduced for purpose of impeaching testimony which the defendant has given. o Coercion: Although a statement obtained in violation of Miranda may be admissible for impeachment purposes, it may not be used even for this limited purpose if it was the product of coercion, or was involuntary for some other reason. |
|
|
When can Miranda Rights be Exercised
|
The suspect may exercise his right to remain silent, or to have a lawyer present, at any time during the questioning. Thus even if the suspect at first indicates that he waives his right to silence and to a lawyer, if he changes his mind the interrogation must cease.
|
|
|
Waiver of Miranda Rights
|
The suspect may waive his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. However, this waiver is effective only if it is knowingly and intelligently made. The suspect’s silence may not be taken as a waiver.
• In the 4th Amendment search cases, consent does not have to be made knowingly nor intelligently. |
|
|
Use of Defendant’s Silence
|
Generally Not Allowed: The prosecution may not introduce in court the fact that the Defendant remained silent while under police questioning. In other words, the fact that the Defendant has asserted his Miranda rights may not be used to weaken the defendant’s case before the jury.
• Pre-Arrest Silence: But this rule applies only to the Defendant’s silence after arrest and Miranda warnings- it does not apply to pre-arrest silence by the suspect. |
|
|
Exceptions to Miranda
|
Public Safety Exception → Miranda warnings are unnecessary where the questioning is “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.”
• Objective Standard: The existence of a threat to the public safety is to be determined by an objective, not subjective, standard. That is, the questioning officer’s subjective belief that there is or is not a significant threat to the public safety is irrelevant, and the test is whether a reasonable officer in that position would conclude that there was such a threat. • Compulsion: Despite the “public safety” exception to Miranda, the defendant is always allowed to show that his answers were actually coerced. If he can make this showing, he will still be entitled to have those answers excluded- this exclusion will be based on lack of voluntariness, not on the police failure to give Miranda warnings. Routine Booking Questions Exception → Routine questions asked to a suspect for identification only do not require Miranda warnings. |
|
|
Two Requirements before Miranda applies
|
1. must be in custody
2. Must be an integration |
|
|
Volunteered Statements under Miranda
|
A volunteered statement is not covered by Miranda. That is, if a suspect, without being questioned, spontaneously makes an incriminating statement, that statement may be introduced against him, despite the absence of Miranda warnings. This is true even if the statement comes from a suspect who is in custody.
|
|
|
The Requirement of Interrogation Indirect Questioning
|
Interrogation will be deemed to occur whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning, or to words or action on the part of the police that the police “should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis
|
|
|
Police Allow Situation to Develop a Interrogation
|
Even if police allow a situation to develop that is likely to induce the suspect to volunteer an incriminating remark, no Miranda warnings will be given if the police do not directly interact with the suspect.
• For instance, where the police allow a meeting between the defendant and his spouse in which the defendant is likely to incriminate himself while under covert observation, probably no interrogation occurs. |
|
|
The Requirement of Custody
|
Miranda warnings must be given only when police questioning occurs while the suspect is in custody.
Not Offense Specific → The custody need not be for the offense that is the subject of the questioning. |
|
|
Objective Test for Interrogation
|
something through suspect that would a reaosnably likly to invoke a response/words or actions to get an incriminating response
|
|
|
Objective Reasonable Test for Custody
|
Whether a suspect is or is not in “custody” as of a particular moment is to be determined by an objective “reasonable person” test. In other words, the issue is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe that he was (or was not) in custody at that moment.
|
|
|
Traffic Stop/Custody
|
In Berkemer v. McCarty, the U.S. Supreme Court held that stops of motorists for minor traffic violations will normally not be custodial. The test is whether one in the motorist’s position would believe that he was or was not free to leave. Usually a driver in this position would reasonably believe that he was free to leave after a ticket has been issued to him.
• Arrest: Of course, if the police notify the motorist that he is under arrest, he is immediately deemed to be in custody. |
|
|
The Right to Prevent Questioning
|
Where Lawyer Requested During First Session
In Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court set forth a “bright line” rule that an accused having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges or conversations with the police. Edwards Rule Not “Offense Specific” Edwards’ prohibition against further interrogation applies even if officers re-approach the suspect concerning an offense unrelated to that under discussion when the suspect invoked his right to counsel. |
|
|
Suspect Initiated Discussions
|
Under Edwards, the police may not interrogate a suspect who had demanded a lawyer unless the suspect “initiates” further communications, exchanges, or conversations with the police. In Oregon v. Bradshaw, the Supreme Court stretched to find that the suspect had initiated a dialogue entitling authorities to resume questioning him.
• What is required is a statement by the accused that represents a desire on the suspect’s part to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation. |
|
|
Two Step Processes Under Edwards Case
|
Two-Step Process → When the suspect initially requests a lawyer, any further incriminating statements by him will be judged according to a two-step test: (1) Did the suspect initiate discussion with the police, indicating that he wanted to talk about the investigation; and (2) if so, was there a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, judged by the totality of the circumstances?
|
|
|
Request Must be Unambiguous for Console
|
Edwards only applies where the suspect clearly asserts his right to have counsel present during a custodial interrogation. If the suspect makes an ambiguous request- which a reasonable observer would think might or might not be a request for counsel- the questioning does not have to stop. In fact, the police do not even have to (though they may) ask clarifying questions to determine whether the suspect really does want a lawyer. Davis v. U.S.
|
|
|
Burden of Proof for Wavier of Rights under 5th and 6th Amend
|
The prosecution bears the burden of proof. However, the burden of proof is by only a preponderance of the evidence
|
|
|
Effectiveness of Waivers under Marianda
|
Under Miranda, the voluntariness of a consent or admission, on the one hand, and the existence of a knowing and intelligent waiver, on the other, are discrete inquiries.
• Voluntariness → The prosecution must prove a suspect’s Miranda waivers were “voluntary”. • Intelligence → Edwards made clear that the requirement of an intelligent or knowing waiver is separate from, and requires different proof than, the need for voluntariness. |
|
|
Fruits of an Inadmissible Confession
|
The fruit of a poisonous tree is not necessarily applicable is some situations in which the poisonous tree is a violation of the Supreme Court’s case law dealing with interrogation limitations.
|
|
|
Second Confession as Fruit of the First
|
As a general rule, where a pre-warning statement is followed by a post-warning statement, there will be a presumption that the giving of the warning has dissipated any taint from the earlier statement, making the post warning statement admissible; but
A possible exception: where the post-warning statement is a virtual continuation of the pre-warning one, and a reasonable person in the suspect’s position might not have understood that the pre-warning statement was inadmissible, the Court may conclude that the warnings were not effective, in which case the post-warning statement will be excluded. Seibert |
|
|
Inadvertent Mistake with Miranada
|
The second confession is less likely to be deemed tainted if the failure to warn prior to the first confession was the result of an inadvertent mistake by the police. Elstad
|
|
|
Relevant factors that bear on whether Miranda warnings delivered midstream could be effective enough to accomplish their object:
|
• Completeness and detail of questions and answers in first round of interrogation
• Overlapping content of two statements • Timing and setting of the first and second statement • Continuity of police personnel • Degree to which interrogator’s questions treated second round as being continuous with first. |
