Criminal Justice 101 Exam 3

Front 1

Search and Seizure

Back 1

4th amendment protects criminal suspects against reasonable searches→requires that evidence cannot be seized without a lawful search warrant issued by a judge.

Front 2

Search Warrant

Back 2

order from a court authorizing search of a property

Front 3

Search Warrant Requirements

Back 3

1) Reasonableness: officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a person has violated the law, and the scope of the search must be reasonably related to its objectives and not excessively intrusive.
2) Particularity: the requirement that a search warrant state precisely where the search is to take place and that items are to be seized.
3) Probable Cause: needed to sustain an arrest f the issuance of an arrest or search warrant: a set of facts, information, circumstances or conditions that would be lead a reasonable person to believe that an offense was committed and that the accused committed that offense.

Front 4

Obtaining a Warrant:

Back 4

: if the investigation turns up sufficient evidence to prove that the person likely committed the crime.

Front 5

Hearsay evidence

Back 5

testimony that is not firsthand but relates information told by a second party

Front 6

Aguilar v Texas

Back 6

two-part protest for issuing a warrant on the word of an informant→police had to show 1) why they believed the informant and 2) how the informant acquired personal knowledge of the crime. This restricted informant testimony to people who were in contact with police and whose info couldn’t be verified.

Front 7

Illinois v Gates

Back 7

Court eased the process of obtaining search warrants→developed totality of circumstances test: determines probable cause for issuing search warrants, relevant and factual knowledge, fair probability exists that evidence of a crime will be found.

Front 8

Florida vs. JL:

Back 8

narrowed rights of police to search someone after an anonymous tip. Case: police got anonymous tip about black male, bus stop, armed with gun, police searched and found gun, but did not have reasonable suspicion to search him.

Front 9

Terry Stops:

Back 9

Terry v. Ohio shaped the contours of the stop and frisk. Made it so that an officer can make a search and seizure based on on the spot observations if his/her/others safety is endangered.

Front 10

Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest

Back 10

: police must follow two rules: 1) the search must be conducted at the time of/immediately following the arrest and 2) the police may search only the suspect ant the area w/in the suspects immediate control. The search may not go beyond the area where the person can reach for a weapon/ destroy evidence

Front 11

Chimel v California

Back 11

police can search a suspect w/o a warrant after a lawful arrest to protect themselves from danger/secure evidence.

Front 12

Automobile Searches:

Back 12

if probable cause exists to believe that an automobile contains criminal evidence, a warrantless search is permissible.

Front 13

Delaware v Prouse:

Back 13

SC forbade the practice of random stops and roadblocks in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that some traffic or motor vehicle law has been violated.

Front 14

Pennsylvania v Mimms

Back 14

SC ruled that officers could order drivers out of their cars and frisk them during routine traffic stops, officers safety outweighed the intrusion on individual rights.

Front 15

Consent Searches:

Back 15

warrantless searches are ok when the person has given consent→they are giving up their 4th amendment rights, in some places consent is only valid after he suspect is informed of the option to refuse consent

Front 16

Plain View Doctrine:

Back 16

: police can search for and seize evidence without benefit of a warrant if it is in plain view.
New York v. Class: illustrates PVD, officer stopped car for traffic violation, reached into car to clear dashboard for VIN, and saw a gun under the seat—in plain view.

Front 17

Curtilage:

Back 17

police can search open fields that are fenced, but otherwise open to view→can use airplanes to fly over fields.

Front 18

Katz v US:

Back 18

ruled that when federal agents used listening devices to penetrate walls of a phone booth they had conducted an illegal search→government must obtain a court order if it wishes to listen in on conversations in which the parties have reasonable expectation of privacy like in their own homes/on the phone.

Front 19

Arrest:

Back 19

when a police officer takes a person into custody or deprives a person of freedom for having allegedly committed a criminal offense

Front 20

a legal arrest occurs when the following conditions exist:

Back 20

 The officer believes that sufficient legal evidence (probable cause) exists that a crime is being/has been committed and intends to restrain suspect
 Police officer deprives the individual of freedom
 Suspect believes that he is in custody of the police officer and cannot voluntarily leave, has lost their liberty.

Front 21

Interrogation:

Back 21

sometimes suspects/arrestees can become disoriented and give up harmful information about them/co-conspirators, and officers may use forceful actions/extreme pressure to get them to talk.

Front 22

Miranda v Arizona:

Back 22

Miranda rights must be read to a suspect before interrogation can begin:
 Right to remain silent
 Statement can and will be used against them in a court of law
 Right to have an attorney present at time of interrogation/opportunity to consult with attorney.
 If they cant afford one, they will have an attorney provided to them by the state

Front 23

Exclusionary Rule

Back 23

: restrain police conduct→prohibits using illegally obtained evidence in a trial, also excludes use of illegal confessions under the 5th amendment prohibitions.

Front 24

Pretextual traffic stops

Back 24

: often used by law enforcement as a method to initiate a stop and search of automobiles suspected to involve criminal activity. A pretextual traffic stop involves a police officer stopping a driver for a traffic violation, minor or otherwise, to allow the officer to then investigate a separate and unrelated, suspected criminal offense.

Front 25

Good Faith Exception

Back 25

the principle that evidence may be used in a criminal trial even though the search warrant used to obtain it was technically faulty, as long as the police acted in good faith when they sought the warrant from the judge.

Front 26

Plea Bargaining

Back 26

discussions between defense counsel and prosecution in which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain considerations, like reduced charges or a lenient sentence.

Front 27

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction:

Back 27

court that has jurisdiction over misdemeanors and conducts preliminary investigations of felony charges—municipal, county, district, and metropolitan courts. Restricted in the types of cases that they may hear

Front 28

Drug Court:

Back 28

court that has primary jurisdiction over cases involving substance abuse and drug trafficking

Front 29

Court of General Jurisdiction:

Back 29

state or federal court that had jurisdiction over felony offenses, serious crimes that carry a penalty of incarceration in a state or federal prison for one year or more.

Front 30

Appellate Court

Back 30

court to which appeals are made on points of law resulting from the judgment of a lower court, the appellate court may be asked to evaluate the impact of new evidence but more typically decides whether the state or federal constitution was improperly interpreted during a case.

Front 31

District Courts

Back 31

: trial courts of the FC system. Jurisdiction over cases involving violations of fed. Laws, civil rights, interstate transportation of stolen vehicles, kidnappings, citizenship, and rights of aliens.

Front 32

Federal Appeals Courts:

Back 32

also known as Circuit courts, review federal and state appellate court cases on substantive and procedural issues involving rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Neither retry cases nor determine whether the facts brought out during trial support conviction or dismissal. Analyze judicial interpretations of the law, like the charge to the jury and reflect on the constitutional issues involved in each case they hear.

Front 33

Supreme Court

Back 33

has discretion over most of the cases it will consider and may choose to hear only those it deems to be important, appropriate, and worthy of its attention. Grants a writ of certiorari, requesting a transcript of the proceedings of the case for review. When the SC rules on a case, it is usually by majority decision.

Front 34

Restorative Justice:

Back 34

the use of mediation is one of the key components of RJ, by removing cases from the court setting, mediation is designed to be both a money-saving device and a forum in which conflicts can be solved in a non-adversarial manner.

Front 35

Judicial Selection:

Back 35

 Appointment: Governor selects candidate, confirmed by the state senate or other official body
 Election: potential judge runs as partisan politician during regular election
 Missouri Plan: Bar committee searches for qualified candidates, governor chooses among them, judge runs for reappointment in non-partisan election.

Front 36

Court Congestion:

Back 36

100 million new cases annually, 20 million civil and domestic cases, 15 million criminal cases, 2 million juv. Cases, 57 million traffic and ordinance violations.
Criminal cases have increased 55% since ‘94
Circuit courts have increased 25% in a decade
Federal and State courts have increased 50% since ‘84
The increase of mandatory prison sentences for some crimes may reduce the use of plea bargaining and increase the number of jury trials because defendants fear that a conviction will lead to incarceration and thus must be avoided at all costs.

Front 37

Judicial Functions

Back 37

Senior officer in a court of criminal law.
 Rules on the appropriateness of conduct
 Settles questions of evidence and procedure
 Guides the questioning of witnesses
 Instructs jurors on which evidence is proper to examine/which should be ignored
 Control and influence over other agencies of the court

Front 38

• Wergild

Back 38

Paid compensation for a wrong
• If you couldn’t afford a wergild- corporal punishments or blood feuds would develop

Front 39

early Greece and Rome punishment

Back 39

the most common punishment was banishment and exile, slavery and physical brutality

Front 40

Middle ages punishment

Back 40

little government control and crimes were dealt with informally in the feudal system
• Forfeit land or property

Front 41

English common law led to:

Back 41

standardized practices

Front 42

“Poor laws”

Back 42

forced individuals who could not pay fines to work as indentured servants
(Galley slavery and House of Corrections)

Front 43

Transportation:

Back 43

England and other countries would send convicted criminals to the colonies

Front 44

Corporal Punishment and Death:

Back 44

Corporal Punishment→punishment inflicted on the offender’s body with devices that cause pain
Public executions and mutilations were seen as deterrent
At one point, over 350 crimes in England were punishable by death

Front 45

Cesare Beccaria and John Howard

Back 45

led correctional reform
• Idea of proportionate punishment
• Organizing severity of punishment on a scale determined by crime type
• Howard sought methods to reform offenders through hard work and discipline

Front 46

Goals of Modern Sentencing:

Back 46

General Deterrence
Specific Deterrence
Incapacitation
Retribution/Just Deserts
Rehabilitation

Front 47

Consecutive Sentences-

Back 47

incarceration for more than one offense where each sentence begins after the previous one had been completed

Front 48

Concurrent Sentencing:

Back 48

sentences of multi-offenses are served simultaneously and time is done when longest sentence is complete.

Front 49

Indeterminate Sentencing:

Back 49

a term of incarceration with a stated minimum and maximum length, the prisoner is eligible for parole after serving minimum (5-10 years), has come under attack for leading to disparity

Front 50

Determinate Sentencing:

Back 50

a fixed term of incarceration (15 years

Front 51

Truth in Sentencing

Back 51

• All people who plead or are found guilty of a felony must serve 85% of their sentence

Front 52

PRO:(Death Penalty)

Back 52

The ultimate incapacitation
No pardon, parole or escape
Produces a deterrent effect on murderers
Morally and biblically based

Front 53

CON:(Death Penalty)

Back 53

No place in a mature democratic society
Possible to execute an innocent person
Unfair use of discretion
Rules out any chance of rehabilitation

Front 54

Death Qualified Jurors

Back 54

a jury in a criminal law case in the United States in which the death penalty is a prospective sentence. Such a jury will be comprised of jurors who:
1. Are not categorically opposed to the imposition of capital punishment;
2. Are not of the belief that the death penalty must be imposed in all instances of capital murder—that is, they would consider life imprisonment as a possible penalty.