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;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Katz Search Test
|
1. Did the person have a subjective expectation of privacy?
2. Is society prepared to recognize that? |
|
|
Curtilage Test
|
Proximity
Purpose Enclosures Exclusions |
|
|
Physical Manipulation Search Test
|
Type of Contact
Proximity of Item to Owner Intent = observation vs. exploration |
|
|
Exclusionary Rule
|
The 4th Amendment requires that any evidence obtained as the result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed.
|
|
|
Probable Cause to Search
|
There's a fair probability baed on facts/circs within the officer's knowledge that an item subject to seizure will be found int he place to be searched when the search is to take place
|
|
|
Probable Cause to Arrest
|
Fair probability based on facts/circumstances in the officer's knowledge that an offense has been or is being comitted by the person to be arrested
|
|
|
Whren
|
An officer's subjective intent is irrelevant to the determination of PC. Pretextual stops are valid.
|
|
|
Devenpeck
|
Whteher police identify the right crime does not matter as long as the facts they identified support PC for some crime
|
|
|
Gates Test for Informants as PC
|
Basis of Knowledge: how the informant knows info, detail
Veracity: past tips, have the cops corroborated, self-incrim, anon informant vs. known |
|
|
Standard of Review for a Warrant
|
Did the issuing magistrate have a substantial basis for finding PC?
|
|
|
Public Arrests
Watson & Atwater |
Police can arrest someone in public if he has PC to believe that an offense has occurred because the suspect will have a hearing within 48 hrs to determine PC
|
|
|
In-Home Arrest Rule
|
Payton -- To enter a suspect's home and make an arrest, police need a warrant + PC to believe that D is home at time of execution
|
|
|
Warrant Requirement
|
Any search or seizure conducted without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable. Need a detached, neutral magistrate.
|
|
|
Particularity Requirement
|
The warrant must state the places to be searched, things to be seized
|
|
|
Anticipatory Warrants
|
PC to believe that triggering condition will occur
PC to believe that when the trigger occurs evidence will be found in the place to be searched |
|
|
Challenging a Warrant
Franks |
Officer intentionally or recklessly gave false info, D makes showing that it was KRD, if false statement was necessary to finding of PC, a hearing is held
|
|
|
Warrant Mistakes
|
Mistake has to be objectively rsnbl
Officers must stop when they realize mistake |
|
|
Knock + Announce
|
Rsnblness of waiting period depends on size of house
Can dispense if there is rsnbl suspicion to believe it would be dangerous or D would escape |
|
|
Scope of Warrants
|
Can only look in places large enough to contain the evidence sought after
|
|
|
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
|
Test = Lawful Arrest
Scope = D's person + area within D's control Rationale = safety + evidence |
|
|
Vehicle Arrests & SILA
[Gant] |
Test = PC to Arrest + rsn to believe interor of car harbors evidence of the crime
Scope = limited to crime of arrest, places harboring evidence or weapons within Ds reach Rationale = safety + evidence |
|
|
Exigent Circumstances
|
Test = PC to enter + Exigency
Scope = As broad as rsnbly necessary to prevent danger that D will resist, escape, destroy evidence Rationale = safety + evidence |
|
|
Vehicle Container Searches
[Acevedo] |
Test = Police may search an automobile and containers in it where they have PC to believe that there is contraband or evidence in the automobile
Scope = Defined by object of search and places in which there is PC to believe it can be found Rationale = cars move CARROL = if there is PC to search a specific container cannot search entire car |
|
|
Inventory Searches
[Bertine] |
Where police are acting in GF according to established police procedures, inspection is rsnbl
Scope = Limited to procedures Rationale = protect owner property, fraud claims, safety |
|
|
Consent Searches
[Shneckloth] |
Test = State must show consent was voluntary
Scope = Limited to what rsnbl officer would've believed |
|
|
Third Party Consent Searches
[Matlock] |
Rule = Common authority, joint access or control
Scope = Level of common authority controls this Rationale = shared space diminishes expectation of privacy Phsysically present inhabitant can object + stop search |
|
|
Mistake Consent Searches
[Rodriguez] |
As long as the police are objectively reasonable in thinking the person has common authority, joint access or control, it is valid
|
|
|
Plain View Doctrine
|
1. Police must be present lawfully
2. Incriminating nature of item must be immediately apparent 3. Police must have lawful access Rationale = taking time to get a warrant is needless inconvenience |
|
|
Terry Stops
|
Rule = An officer can conduct a search for weapons if he has rsnbl suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous
Must ID himself Search must be related to stop |
|
|
Consensual Encounters
[Bostick] |
Rule = Whether a rsnbl person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business, decline the request, or otherwise terminate the encounter
Test = Physical contact or show of authority + submission to it |
|
|
Protective Sweep
[Buie] |
Rule = Incident to a lawful arrest, officers can conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area from which an attack could be launched + adjoining rooms
Rsnbl suspicion for rooms beyond that Rationale = safety Scope = sweep ends when someone is found |
|
|
Confessions & Due Process
[Connelly] |
Rule = As long as there was no coercive state action involved in obtaining the confession, it is admissible
Test = totality of the circumstances Deception, coercion, promises of protection, violence/threats |
|
|
Confessions [5A]
[Miranda] |
Before interrogation, suspect must be told they have the right to remain silent, anything they say will be used against them in court, they have the right to an attorney, and one will be provided if they cannot afford it
|
|
|
Custody [5A]
|
What a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would understand, would they think they are under arrest
Personal characteristics of D are relevant in this analysis |
|
|
Waiver [5A]
|
Must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
|
|
|
Interrogation [5A]
[Innis] |
Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subject to either express questioning or its functional equivalent, i.e. words or actions on the part of the police that are rsnbly likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect
Knowledge of individual susceptibilities is relevant |
|
|
Invocation of Right to Remain Silent
[Mosley] |
Rule – Admissibility of statement made after suspect invokes right to remain silent under Miranda depends on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored
Can be interrogated about new subject as long as rsnbl time has passed |
|
|
Invocation of Request for Counsel
[Edwards/5A] |
Rule – Once the suspect requests counsel, questioning must cease unless suspect initiates questioning or counsel arrives
|
|
|
Terry Stops
|
Rule = An officer can conduct a search for weapons if he has rsnbl suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous
Must ID himself Search must be related to stop |
|
|
Consensual Encounters
[Bostick] |
Rule = Whether a rsnbl person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business, decline the request, or otherwise terminate the encounter
Test = Physical contact or show of authority + submission to it |
|
|
Protective Sweep
[Buie] |
Rule = Incident to a lawful arrest, officers can conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area from which an attack could be launched + adjoining rooms
Rsnbl suspicion for rooms beyond that Rationale = safety Scope = sweep ends when someone is found |
|
|
Confessions & Due Process
[Connelly] |
Rule = As long as there was no coercive state action involved in obtaining the confession, it is admissible
Test = totality of the circumstances Deception, coercion, promises of protection, violence/threats |
|
|
Confessions [5A]
[Miranda] |
Before interrogation, suspect must be told they have the right to remain silent, anything they say will be used against them in court, they have the right to an attorney, and one will be provided if they cannot afford it
|
|
|
Custody [5A]
|
What a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would understand, would they think they are under arrest
Personal characteristics of D are relevant in this analysis |
|
|
Waiver [5A]
|
Must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
|
|
|
Interrogation [5A]
[Innis] |
Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subject to either express questioning or its functional equivalent, i.e. words or actions on the part of the police that are rsnbly likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect
Knowledge of individual susceptibilities is relevant |
|
|
Invocation of Right to Remain Silent
[Mosley] |
Rule – Admissibility of statement made after suspect invokes right to remain silent under Miranda depends on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored
Can be interrogated about new subject as long as rsnbl time has passed |
|
|
Invocation of Request for Counsel
[Edwards/5A] |
Rule – Once the suspect requests counsel, questioning must cease unless suspect initiates questioning or counsel arrives
|
|
|
Ambiguous Requests for Counsel
[Davis] |
Rule – A statement that can rsnbly be construed to be an expression of a desire for counsel, but is ambiguous in that a rsnbl officer in the same circumstances would have only understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, does not require the police to cease questioning
|
|
|
Effect of Release from Custody on 5A Interrogations
[Shatzer] |
All invocations are dissipated 14 days after being released from custodial interrogation
Shatzer involved questioning of a diff crime, analysis might be diff it involved same crime |
|
|
6A RTC Trigger
|
Beginning of formal proceedings
|
|
|
Specific Offense Test 6A
|
Two offenses are the same when all of the statutory elements of one offense are included within the statutory elements of another offense
|
|
|
6A RTC Waiver
|
A waiver of Miranda rights is sufficient for both 5A + 6A purposes, traditional knowing/intelligent/vol
|
|
|
Effective Assistance of Counsel Challenge
|
D must show = (1) attny’s performance was deficient when measured against an obj standard of rsnblness + (2) D was prejudiced in a sense that there was a rsnbl probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different
|
|
|
Police Interrogations & 6A
[Massiah] |
Once 6A attaches, D is denied that right when police deliberately elicit incriminating statements w/o presence of counsel
Rationale = Don’t want police to surreptitiously circumvent 6A RTC Police can listen passively |
|
|
Montejo
|
a. Where D has NOT asserted 5A RTC + formal charge, but relies on 6A RTC, police can reinitiate interrogation after Miranda rights have been read + waiver
b. BUT, if D HAS asserted 5A RTC + formal charge, police cannot reinitiate questioning w/o counsel present + waiver under Edwards OR D initiates c. Problem is with Ds who invoke 6A RTC in noncustodial settings, as police can continue to approach D and seek waiver |
|
|
General Rule Statement for Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
|
Despite the existence of a 4th Amendment violation, there may be a basis for denying D's motion to suppress.
|
|
|
Standing
[Carter] |
Ds who have a fleeting & insubstantial connection, lacks a possesory interest in or close connection to the place to be searched
|
|
|
Good Faith
[Leon + Herring] |
Rule – Exclusionary rule does not apply where officers executed search warrant in GF
|
|
|
Miranda Violations & Physical Evidence
[Patane] |
Physical evidence obtained as a result of a Miranda violation is admissible b/c 5A protects against self-incriminating statements being introduced at trial, whereas physical evidence speaks for itself
|
|
|
Independent Source
[Murray] |
Rule – As long as the police rely on independent evidence in obtaining a valid warrant after a warrantless search, the taint has dissipated
Showing – Ct must consider whether the magistrate knew about the illegal entry, whether evidence obtained during illegal entry was used to obtain the warrant, would the police have still sought a warrant w/o knowledge of the tainted evidence |
|
|
Inevitable Discovery
[Nix] |
Rule – Gov must show by POE that they would have discovered the evidence without the constitutional violation
|
|
|
Attenuation (Factual)
[Wong Sun] |
Test – Did the evidence that D wants to suppress come about by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint?
Threshold question = but for Length of time/closeness in time Independent act of free will/coercion Consent to a search Flagrancy of violation – delib vs. inadvertent |
|
|
Attenuation (Interests)
[Hudson] |
-- Would suppressing the evidence deter police misconduct? KAA example, police would find the evidence anyone, KAA is about dignity/safety
-- Attenuation is only applied where deterrence benefits outweigh substantial social costs -- D can file a civil suit against police |
|
|
Question First Practices
[Elstad + Seibert] |
To determine whether Miranda advisements delivered midstream can attenuate previous un-Mirandized statement, consider whether suspect would see it as a separate interrogation:
a. Overlapping content of statements b. Timing and setting of 1st vs. 2nd c. Diff in location/police personnel d. Degree to which 1st round was continuous with 2nd round e. Completeness/detail of questions asked and answered in 1st round If it was deliberate = need additional cure explaining likely inadmissibility of pre-warning statement |
