Criminal Procedure

Front 1

Introduction:

State Action Doctrine
Does the 4th amendment apply (katz test)
Was the seach reasonable: (probable cause/warrant)
Exception to the Warrant requirement

Back 1

Order of Arguments

Front 2

introduction:

Very first question that must be asked is who committed the alleged violations. U.S. Constitution protects only against the actions of government officials, whether they be federal officials, state officials, or local officials. There must be some government action in order for an individual to invoke his constitutional rights.

Back 2

state action doctrine

Front 3

remedies for constitutional violations:

If a search or seizure is illegal or violates the 4th amendment the evidence is excluded.

Back 3

exclusionary rule

Front 4

remedies for constitutional violations:

The issue before the court, does the basic right against unreasonable searches and seizures by a state mean that the remedy “exclusionary rule” also applies to the states. Holding: the 4th amendment which bars unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment, but the remedy which applies in federal courts, exclusion of the evidence, does not have to be applied in state court.

Back 4

exclusionary rule

Wolf Case

Front 5

remedies for constitutional violations:

Overrules Wolf!!!! - Facts: police officers get a tip that a person was hiding out in a home in connection with a recent bombing, but there was a lot of stuff hidden in the home. 3 police officers arrive at Mapp’s home and found and charged with obscenities. This was an illegal search because there was no warrant. Holding: Pg. 325. All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is inadmissible in state court. If it is an illegal search the remedy of exclusion also applies in state court.

Back 5

exclusionary rule:

Mapp Case

Front 6

Search and Seizure: The 4th amendment:

Text of the 4th amendment protects unreasonable searches and seizures

Back 6

4th amendment

Front 7

search and seizure: 4th amendment:

Facts: Evidence in the records discloses a conspiracy of amazing magnitude to import, posses and sell liquor unlawfully. There was wiretapping in this case. Test: Applies to tangible things, there needs to be a physical invasion of the property, and the person has to have a property interest in the thing searched or seized.

Back 7

developing the privacry doctrine

Olmstead case

Front 8

search and seizure: the 4th amdnemtn:

Facts: Jones was arrested for drugs when he was staying at his friend’s apartment. Jones files a motion to suppress because even though they had a warrant he claims there was no probable cause. Court Says: constitutional rights should not depend on subtle distinctions on property law. Anyone who is legitimately on the premises have standing. If you break in you have no standing.

Back 8

developing the privacy doctrine:

Jones case

Front 9

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:
(OVERRULES OLMSTEAD!) - Facts: police gathered incriminating information from a tapped telephone from a telephone booth. CS: the 4th amendment protects people and not places and those things that you seek to maintain private ought to be protected. The issue is not whether the police physically intruded, but whether the police violated the privacy upon which the defendant justifiable relied, and then there was a search or a seizure under the 4th amendment.

Back 9

developing the privacy doctrine:

Katz case

Front 10

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

I. Did the person/defendant exhibit an actual or subjective expectation of privacy in the thing that was searched or seized?
II. Is the expectation one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable?

Back 10

developing the privacy doctrine:

katz test

Front 11

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

a. If you exhibit a reasonable expectation of privacy the police cannot search or seize of your property regardless of whether there is a warrant or not.

Back 11

katz test

Front 12

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:
ii. If the police commit any type of intrusion on or of privacy upon which the defendant actually or subjectively relied and justifiable or legitimately relied there has been a search and the 4th applies.

Back 12

katz test

Front 13

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: There were agents hiding in the friends house and those conversations were transmitted somewhere in the home so that the hiding agent can hear them. For whatever reason the informant does not show up at trial. Court applies the Katz test and maybe he wanted privacy but there was no legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy because whenever you talk to someone you take the risk that that person may repeat it to someone else or the police. Reasonable people do not expect that all of there secrets will be kept.

Back 13

developing hte privacy doctrine:

White case

Front 14

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: Laguna police officer got a trash collector to hand over the trash from someone’s property to the officer. There was no warrant. Court Holds: police do not need a warrant to search garbage that is outside the cartilage of the home. Animals could have gone through the trash; anyone could have access to this information in the area. Counter argument is that the mere possibility of exposure does not negate the expectation of privacy.

Back 14

elaborating the privacy doctrine

greenwood case law

Front 15

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: acting on reports that weed was being raised on the farm of petitioner Oliver, two agents went to the farm to investigate. Arriving on the farm they drove past a no trespassing sign and they found a field of weed. Court Says: society does not expect a lot of privacy in the outdoors in fields that are not immediately adjacent to the home. The court does reaffirm that the curtilage is important and that isn’t the cartilage. The court says that in terms of testing the reasonableness of the expectation of privacy, it is not whether the individual tried to conceal the activity, the correct inquire is whether governments intrusions infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the 4th amendment. As we have explained, we find no basis for concluding that a police inspection of open fields accomplishes such an infringement.

Back 15

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

Oliver case

Front 16

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: police received a tip that defendant was growing marijuana and the police flew over the house and found that marijuana was growing in the backyard. Court Says: Katz Test – (1) he exhibited an expectation of privacy. (2) No, anyone could have seen what was going in the backyard, anyone who is flying over your home. If the cartilage is visible to the public, even when the police uses extraordinary methods, then they can search without a warrant.

Back 16

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

ciraolo case

Front 17

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: Police pulled over a car after a radio call notified them of a robbery, they searched the car and found a shotgun and two shells. The two women who were passengers were trying to suppress, and try to say that there 4th amendment rights were violated even though it wasn’t there car. Court Says: That if you don’t own or temporarily control the property that is subject to the search then you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it.

Back 17

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

rakas case

Front 18

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: He was a guest at a home and he was arrested without a warrant. This is a seizure case, because they are invading the zone of privacy of this man. Court Says: apply the Katz test. Court says that both parts of the Katz test were met, and the arrest was unreasonable because he had an expectation of privacy and the arrest was with the absence of a warrant.

Back 18

elaboriting the privacy doctrine:

Olson case

Front 19

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: People were sitting in their apartment bagging cocaine when an officer witnessed them through one of the windows. Two men left the building and the police stopped them. Two men were arrested and police found drugs. They then searched the apartment and found cocaine residue on the kitchen table, and the two men were only in the apartment to bag the cocaine. Court Says: Distinction from Olsen, is that this is a business transaction. The purely commercial nature of the transaction, short period of time that they stayed, and the lack of any previous connection between the respondents and the householder, all lead us to conclude that the expectation of privacy is not reasonable. Olsen and Carter can be used for opposing arguments, because they are so close factually but they come out differently.

Back 19

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

Carter case

Front 20

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: officer used a thermal imaging scanner to determine whether these people were growing marijuana inside the house. Officer concluded that they were growing weed, which it was and the judge issued a warrant. Court Says: The court holds that using the thermal device was an intrusion of privacy on the home. We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search-at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in the general public use.

Back 20

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

Kyllo case

Front 21

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

h. In using Katz, the more bizarre or the more uncommon the technology the more likely it will be a search, the more common the technology the less likely it will be a search.

Back 21

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

Katz test view

Front 22

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: defendant was stopped for a regular traffic violation. Another officer came with a dog and the dog barked at the trunk, where the officers found marijuana. The incident lasted 10 minutes. Court goes through the Katz analysis, and the real battle is on the second prong. There is no legitimate interest in possessing contraband. If the government engages in conduct that reveals only the existence of contraband, this does not compromise any legitimate expectation of privacy.

Back 22

elaborating the privacy doctrine:

Caballes case

Front 23

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

a. If there was a search or seizure (Katz test satisfied) in which the constitution applies what does the constitution require. If there is a search it has to be reasonable.

Back 23

Probable cause and warrant

Front 24

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

If there is a probable cause and a warrant the search is presumptively reasonable.

Back 24

probable cause and warrant:

requirement for search to be reasonable: probable cause and warrant

Front 25

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Before the search there must exist some basis for believing evidence of a crime will be found. There must be more then a mere guess or assertion. You need a reason to support the belief that evidence of a crime will be found. You need a certain probability that evidence of a crime will be found, enough probability that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would act. You need more than a mere hunch. There must be an articulable basis.

Back 25

probable cause

Front 26

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

have to particularly describe what is going to be searched or seized. The warrant creates a paper trail with respect to probable cause. To get the warrant have to demonstrate probable cause. Officer has to demonstrate probable cause and swear under oath under the judge. Upon request have to show the warrant upon the individual.

Back 26

probable cuase and warrant:

warrants

Front 27

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

- Facts: Agent receiving information from a paid informant. Informant told the date that defendant would arrive, described the defendant, and that he was carrying a tan zipper bag which was carrying the drugs. Agent then arrested the defendant and found drugs in the bag. There was no warrant for the arrest.

Back 27

probable cause and warrant:

draper case

Front 28

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

(1) The informant was reliable in the past. (2) Detailed information, (3) and police corroboration.

Back 28

probable cause and warrant:

three part test for probable cause for informant

Front 29

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

They had a warrant, petitioner was operating a sports book. FBI was informed by an informant that he was operating a book and running it through telephone. He was convicted. Challenging the probable cause to get the warrant. Court Says: we don’t want general vague tips, the court says that what really helped with probable cause is some demonstration that the tip is precise and reliable. What renders it this is if it also gives us detail with respect to the manner in which the information is gathered. They want indication of reliability (give us information about the source, precision (general insertions are not enough, detail), or how many cases this source has been proven reliable), information on how the tip was gathered (information personally witnessed, how gathered).

Back 29

probable cause and warrant:

spinelli case

Front 30

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

i. Rule: when probable cause is based on a tip, police should assess first, what reason is there to believe this informant is reliable, second what reason is there to believe that the current tip is reliable. Then analyze the factors above.

Back 30

probable cuase and warrant:

rule for probable cuase

Front 31

search and seizures: the 4th amendment:

Facts: the police department received an anonymous letter, which described specifically that a couple was selling drugs. They gave detailed information about the travels that they do in order to drug traffic. The police then observed the couple and found that the couple’s actions were the same as the letter. Officer got a warrant and they found drugs in the trunk of the car and home. Court Says: Used draper three part test. That this was an anonymous letter so we don’t know anything about the informant. The letter was detailed and suggests some degree of reliability. The police did not run off and get a warrant, but investigated first. They look at these factors under the totality of the circumstances approach, even though there is a deficiency in one area that could make up for another.

Back 31

probable cause and a warrant:

Gates case

Front 32

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: Routine traffic stop. Officer asked for registration and license, when driver reached in glove compartment officer noticed a roll of money. Officer searched the car and found cocaine and $763. Officer questioned all three men, and non-admitted ownership. Pringle then later gave an oral and written confession that the cocaine was his and not his friends. He moves to suppress the confession to the fruit of an illegal arrest. Holding: officer had probable cause to believe that pringle (any of them or all three together) had dominion or control of the controlled substance.

Back 32

proable cause and a warrant:

Maryland case

Front 33

search and seizures: the 4th amendment:

a. Do not need probable cause to look at things that are exposed to plain view. If the police do not intrude into an area where the individual has not had an expectation of privacy and (apply Katz test). If the answer to one or both is no, then there is no search under the 4th amendment. Neither a warrant or probable cause is required.

Back 33

exceptions to the warrant requirement

Front 34

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

i. Emergency/Exigent Circumstances
ii. Certain Kinds of Arrest
iii. Plain View
iv. Search Incident to Arrest
v. Automobile Exception
vi. Inventory Searches
vii. Consent

Back 34

seven categories of exceptions

Front 35

search and seizures; the 4th amendment:

Emergency Circumstances. Look at pg. 513 for Katz. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the fourth amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Incident to arrest, Hot Pursuit, and Consent

Back 35

exceptions to the warrant requirment:

exigent circumstances

Front 36

search and seizures:

Facts: Petitioner was convicted for a DUI. Police officer ordered that a blood sample be withdrawn from the petitioner’s body. Blood sample revealed that he was intoxicated and admitted into trial. He did not consent. Police officer smelled liquor on the petitioner’s breath. So probable cause, but no warrant. Court Says: Given these special facts, we conclude that the attempt to secure evidence of blood alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioners arrest. Exigent circumstances because alcohol will dissipate after an amount of time.

Back 36

exception to the warrant requirement:

exigent circumstances Schmerber case

Front 37

search and seizures:

Facts: Hayden robbed a cab company, and a driver notified company dispatcher about the description of the man. Police arrived at the house and the mother agreed that the police could search the house. Police found Hayden asleep, and found a shotgun, gun, and clothes, while they were searching for the money. No warrant and all evidence were introduced into evidence. Search is ok even without the warrant because of the exigent circumstances. They are concerned about the danger to her and the police. All of this operates to excuse the search even though there was no warrant. The scope, the extent is as broad as necessary to prevent the danger or the emergency (exigency).

Back 37

exceptions to the warrant requirment:

exigent circumstancs case law: warden case

Front 38

search and seizures: the 4th amendment:

a. Time functions as a limit.
b. Scope, they can only search where weapons or evidence might be.

Back 38

exception to the warrant requirment:

Limits to the exigent circumstances exception

Front 39

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: victim died by strangulation. Word was sent to respondent, and during his arrival at the station the police noticed a dark spot on his fingers. The police then asked if they could take a sample from the fingers, and he refused. Without a warrant, the police proceeded to take the samples, which turned out to contain traces of skin and blood cells, and fabric from the victim’s nightgown, and evidence was admitted into trial. Court Says: The basis for the this exception is that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for a police officer to expect the arrestee to use any weapons he may have and to attempt to destroy any incriminating evidence then in his possession.

Back 39

exception to the warrant requiement:

exigent circumstances Cupp case

Front 40

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: Mrs. McArthur asked two police officers to accompany her to get her belongings, she then came out and told the police officers that her husband had dope in the trailer. Officer asked if they could go in, he said no, then an officer went to go get a warrant and the other officer told the man he couldn’t go in the trailer. Man went in but the officer watched his actions in the trailer. The warrant came back and they found drugs in the trailer. Court Says: Police reasonably believed that the home’s resident, if left free of any restraint, would destroy that evidence. And they imposed a restraint that was both limited and tailored reasonably to secure law enforcement needs while protecting privacy interests. In our view the restraint met the 4th amendments. This case allows police to temporarily detain property or a person to get a warrant. Still have to have probable cause that there is evidence and that it will be tampered with.

Back 40

exceptions to the warrant requirement:

exigent circumstances; McArthur case

Front 41

search and seizures: the 4th amendment:

I. Seizures are generally unreasonable without a warrant, but there is an exception to exigent circumstances (destruction of evidence, specially pressing or urgent law enforcement need).

Back 41

exigent circumstances

Front 42

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Can arrest without a warrant or felony committed in the officers presence or a felony not committed in the officers presence if there is probable cause. Breakdown below:
I. Officers presence can arrest for only a misdemeanor or felony, need probable cause.
II. Not in officers presence it must be a felony, and needs probable cause.

Back 42

certain kinds of arrest:

when is warrantless arrest allowed

Front 43

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

- Facts: Informant told police that Watson had stolen credit cards. They met and the informant gave the signal that he had the credit cards. Police searched him and found no credit cards. Police then asked to search the car and he agreed, then they found two credit cards. No Warrant. Court Says: Did not violate the 4th amendment, and used the common law rule above.

Back 43

certain kinds of arrest:

Watson case

Front 44

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

I. Facts: Broke down the door in order to arrest Payton. Which was a suspect for murder. Court Says: There is no emergency and they therefore needed an arrest warrant to make this arrest. They had no warrant and they have time to get a warrant. Still need probable cause. Rule: Need a warrant for a routine felony arrest at home. Routine we mean a non-emergency. The home is highly protected under the 4th amendment.

Back 44

certain kinds of arrest:

payton case

Front 45

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: 14yr. old was called to baby-sit and a few days later she was found dead. Coolidge was a suspect and was willing to cooperate. When police went to the house to investigate the Coolidge wife showed the police that they had 3 guns in the house. There was then a warrant for the arrest and the key evidence that is at issue is the vacuum scrapings of the car and they have a warrant for the car. The issue is that the warrant was issued by the attorney general and not a detached magistrate or judge. The attorney general was leading the investigation, therefore not neutral. This is not a valid warrant. Court Says: the discovery of the car was not inadvertent and they had plenty of time to get a warrant.

Back 45

plain view case law:

Coolidge case

Front 46

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

a. Police are legitimately on the premises.
i. Hot Pursuit, Exigent Circumstances/Emergency, Valid Warrant.
b. The item has to be in plain view.
i. Cannot be hidden away.
c. Inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
i. Situations where police discover something inadvertently, if they know it is there or suspect that it is there then they should get a warrant.

Back 46

plain view exception

Front 47

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: Bullet was fired through an apartment, police entered respondents apartment and found three weapons, but also noticed an expensive stereo. Suspecting the stereo was stolen, he wrote down the serial numbers and had to move the turntable. Respondent was indicted for robbery. Turning something over is a search. Court Says: the police officer has reasonable suspicion (less then probable cause). The officer needed probable cause to believe that the item is connected to a crime, therefore motion to suppress was affirmed.

Back 47

plain view exception:

Hicks case

Front 48

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

I. Rule: to manipulate or search the item the police need probable cause to believe the item is connected to the crime.

Back 48

plain view excpetion

Front 49

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

(UPDATES PLAIN VIEW TEST)!! - Facts: Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. Had suspicion to believe that they would find rings and weapons in the house. The warrant only specified rings, but they were looking for both. They find no rings, but find weapons.

Back 49

plain view exception:

Horton Case

Front 50

search and seizure; the 4th amendment;

a. Police are legitimately on the premise.
b. Item in Plain View
c. To conduct a further search or seizure of the item, the police have to have probable cause that the item is connected to a crime or the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent. (probable cause and immediately apparent are the same thing).
II. No more Inadvertent Test, now probable cause.

Back 50

Plain View Test Now

Front 51

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

i. If arrest itself is not valid then any search incident to the arrest will not be valid either. Incident must be in the same time of the arrest (contemporaneous in time).

Back 51

search incident to a valid arrest

Front 52

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule.

Back 52

search incident to arrest

Front 53

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

I. Court says, that you can search the arrestee’s person or the areas in his immediate control where he might be able to grab a weapon or where he can destroy evidence.
a. Immediate Control: Depends on the facts, this is a radius of usually 10-15 feet if there was visible weapons around. If it is a passive defendant who is not resisting then maybe narrow the scope in which you can search.

Back 53

search incident to arrest:

Chimel Case

Front 54

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: Petitioner charged with possession of heroin. Vale was arrested in front of his home and then the police entered the home without a warrant and did an inspection/search of the house and found drugs. Court Says: Conviction has to be reversed and the case retried because if they wanted to search the home without a warrant the arrest had to have been in the home. This extended beyond the scope of search incident to the arrest. Court says that the police had time to get a warrant also.

Back 54

search incident to arrest:

Vale case

Front 55

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

I. Rule: (1) without probable cause or reasonable suspicion the police can look in closets and other spaces immediately joining the place of arrest from where an attack could be launched. (2) Beyond the area immediately adjoining the place of the arrest the police need reasonable suspicion that the area has someone hiding. (3) Cursory visual inspection, no longer then necessary to prove or disprove the suspicion that there is someone there posing a danger. (4) Search incident to the arrest, have to be at the same time he was arrested (contemporaneous in time). Do not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Back 55

search incident to arrest:

Maryland case/ Rule

Front 56

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: Petitioner was convicted of possession of heroin. Petitioner was arrested for driving without a license, and the police then searched the car and found drugs in his cigarette package. Court says, in a lawful arrest they can search the whole person, they don’t want cops to be placed in a position that the suspect is not going to escape, can search the entire person. (4) Search Incident to Arrest (use this one instead of the one on top, but those are rules above): Search incidental to arrest, has to be a valid arrest and can search for a weapon or evidence.

Back 56

search incident to arrest:

Robinson case

Front 57

search and seizure:

There is no probable cause element. Do not need it. Also don’t need reasonable suspicion.

Back 57

search incident to arrest

Front 58

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: He was under arrest and because of the nature of the crime, breaking into a window, they had probable cause to believe that he would have paint chips on his clothes. They don’t’ search the clothing right then and there when he was arrested, instead they wait 10 hours buy him new clothes and then search his clothes. They find out that the paints chips match. Court Says: This was a long time but we had to wait to purchase the clothes the next day. Search Incident to Arrest: Because the police here had extra suspicion the court is more tolerant to a search 10 hours later.

Back 58

search incident to valid arrest:

Edwards Case

Front 59

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: Pulled over the people for speeding. Upon the stop he smelled marijuana, they see an envelope that has marijuana, he arrest them and isolates them. Searches each person, then he goes back to the car, sees a jacket in the car and finds cocaine in the jacket. Rule: Incident to the arrest - When you make a lawful arrest of an occupant of the car you can search the entire compartment in the car and any containers excluding the trunk without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Back 59

search incident to valid arrest:

Belton Case

Front 60

search and seizure: 4th amendment:

Facts: Officer ran a check on a car and revealed that the tags have been issued to another car. Officer walks up to driver and asked if he can pat him down and the driver consents and they discovered drugs. They put him in the back of the police car and goes back to the car and finds a gun in the car. Court Says: that it is valid for him to do that search. As long as the arrestee was a recent occupant of the car we can still do a Belton search of the car. Belton is extended to when an arrestee was a recent occupant of the car, even when the arrest was outside of the car the police can go back to search the entire car.

Back 60

search incident to valid arrest:

Thornton Case

Front 61

search and seizure: 4th amendment:

Facts: Knowles stopped for going over the speed limit. Under Iowa law he could have been arrested. Officer then conducted a full search and found marijuana and he was arrested for dealing with controlled substance. Can search the car if he arrests him. Court Says: Must be a search incident to a valid lawful arrest, and the fact that he could of arrested him does not matter, have to arrest him. Therefore not search incident to the arrest.

Back 61

search incident to valid arrest:

Knowles Case

Front 62

Search and Seizure: 4th amendment:

Facts: There is a description broadcast of a car and they stop a car in that description and they arrest the occupants. The car is then taken to the station and searched. They had no warrant. Not search incident to arrest cause it was not contemporaneous to the arrest. There was probable cause, because the car itself matched the description where a reasonable person would conclude that it is more probable then not that evidence in this car would be found. Court makes a difference from cars and homes (Exception): Can see into a car and more visible to a home. It is movable and the occupants can empty the contents to the car.

Back 62

automobile exception

Front 63

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

automobile exception allows police who have legitimately stopped a car and have probable cause that items subject to seizure are being carried in it to search the automobile without a search warrant.
a. Have the police legitimately stopped a car
b. Probable Cause that items subject to a seizure are being carried in the automobile.

Back 63

the automobile exception

Front 64

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: Putting a footlocker into the trunk of a car and that is when police moved in to arrest then. They have taken the footlocker into custody and the footlocker has been searched an hour later without a warrant. Court Says: this is really not a car case and this is a luggage case, because the luggage was searched without a warrant, and you do have a big expectation of privacy in luggage and you put all sorts of private stuff in luggage. So here the court reverses the greater includes the lesser argument, the court here regards the search as the greater and the seizure as the lesser.

Back 64

automobile exception:

Chadwick

Front 65

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: Acevedo goes into an apartment that they suspect that drugs are being dealt in this apartment. He left in a car and with a brown bag he got from the apartment. They stopped the car and searched it and found marijuana in the brown bag. Hold: that no warrant is required for closed containers as long as police have probable cause with respect to where they are searching. If your probable cause extends just to a container it does not justify the search to an entire car, and you still need probable cause to go after the entire car. If limited to one container then can’t search the entire car. If right then arrest and can do search incident to arrest to search the rest of the car and if wrong then no search incident to arrest.

Back 65

automobile exception:

Acevedo

Front 66

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

Facts: Car left on the street that had a lot of tickets and eventually towed to the police impounds lot and they did an inventory on the car and found pot. Reasons why cars are more searchable then homes: (1) mobility, (2) less expectation of privacy, (3) public nature of car travel. Reasons to Inventory: To protect the owner of the cars property, to protect the police from claims and dispute, to protect the police officers themselves from any dangerous items. Do not need a warrant to conduct this inventory.

Back 66

inventory searches

Front 67

search and seizure; the 4th amendment:

A routine, non-criminal inventory of possessions in a seized car is ok without a warrant. Do not need probable cause.

Back 67

inventory

Front 68

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: This guy was arrested and when he came in for booking he was asked to empty his bag and the officers found pills in a cigarette pack. He was arrested for an altercation in a movie theatre. Court Says: This is ok, because it was a routine administrative procedure incident to booking and jailing.

Back 68

inventory searches:

Lafayette case

Front 69

stops and beyond:

Terry was hovering around a store for a couple of hours. A police officer seized Terry and patted him down for weapons, where a concealed weapon was found. Terry was arrested and convicted. The court to get away with no probable cause and no warrant say that this was not a full blown search or seizure but instead an minimal intrusion designed to protect the officers and the public. So this does not required probable cause or a warrant.

Back 69

focused stops:

Terry Case

Front 70

stops and beyond:

Rule: Pursuant to Terry an officer can frisk a suspect if he has reasonable suspicion based on specific and particularly facts that he is armed and presently dangerous.

Back 70

focused stops:

terry stops

Front 71

stops and beyond:

need specific and particularly facts that (reasonable suspicion) of criminal activity (involved in or are about to engage in criminal activity).

Back 71

focused stops:

stopping someone

Front 72

stops and beyond:

Duration (how long they can detain a person. Intensity (degree of intensity, there is no set standard for how intense they can be). Location (if it is done in open area or in public then you can still being the category of a terry stop, once you put him out of public then we have a full scale arrest which implicates other 4th amendment rules that we have been studying).

Back 72

focused stops:

stcope is evaluated in three criteria

Front 73

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

specific and particularly facts that lead you to conclude that a person is armed and presently dangerous. Reasonable suspicion that they are armed and presently dangerous, what the officer needs to conduct a pat down. You need reasonable suspicion during a pat down that the item felt is a weapon in order to reach in. (use this one I think)

Back 73

focused stops:

reasonable suspicion standard

Front 74

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

reasonable suspicion means specific and particularly facts which taken together with rationale inferences from those facts reasonable warrants the intrusion. Were the facts reasonable to the officers upon search or seizure. Probable cause is not required, and no warrant is required.

Back 74

focused stops:

reasonable suspicion

Front 75

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: An informant approached the officers cruiser and said that there is an individual in a near by vehicle that had a gun on its waist and there was narcotics in the car. Officer did a pat down and found the gun. The court says that this reasonable suspicion of criminal activity could be based on a tip and does not need to be entirely from the officer’s own observations. All of the factors led to reasonable suspicion, high crime area; late at night in 2 in the morning; a known informant that provides detail; and we have police verification of finding the guy in the car where the informant mentioned he would be. Court holds that a stop and frisk can be based on a tip as long as we have the specific and particularly facts.

Back 75

focused stops:

Adams case

Front 76

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: J.L. was searched and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon on the basis of an anonymous tip that he would be standing in a particular location carrying the weapon. Court says that for tips like this you need some indication that the tip is reliable in the assertion of legality, not just in the tendency to identify a particular person.

Back 76

focused stops:

J.L. Case

Front 77

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: two officers in Texas were driving a police car and found two men in a alley walking in opposite direction and believed that they were about to meet, this is in a high crime area. The cop believed that they looked suspicious and has never seen these people before. The officer did not suspect any misconduct. He walks up to brown and frisks him and he found nothing, then the officer arrested him for not identifying himself. Court Holds: restraining someone’s freedom to walk away is a seizure and once he frisks this person he seized this person momentarily, and to stop or seize a person like this we need specific facts based on a subjective criteria, reasonable suspicion is needed. This standard is not met here because he could not identify anything specific.

Back 77

focused stops:

Brown case

Front 78

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: Hiibel was traveling in a car and a person called and told the police that they saw a man assault a woman in a truck. The police went up to Hiibel’s car and asked for id, and Hiibel refused so the officer placed him under arrest. In this case based on this tip, we do have some additional suspicion of criminal activity. So there was reasonable suspicion to approach Hiibel. The court upholds the statute and when the police asks for your identify you can’t withhold your identity as long as the request is reasonably related to the circumstances that justify your stop in the first place.

Back 78

focused stops:

Hiibel case

Front 79

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: There was 4 police cars going into a high narcotic location. When they were driving the 2nd to last one noticed Wardlow with a bag, locking eyes with the cops and took off running after he saw the cops. The cops found him and found a gun. 2 factors that are pointed to: high crime neighborhood (this is not reasonable suspicion to stop someone); unprovoked flight upon noticing the police (high crime area plus unprovoked flight is sufficient for reasonable suspicion).

Back 79

focused stops:

Wardlow case

Front 80

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Court Says: Just because a particular behavior may have an innocent explanation doesn’t mean we throw it out. WE have to look at the totality of the factors and in evaluating the factors together it looked suspicious. It gets to a point where you have enough suspicion where a reasonable person would say that they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court points out Terry, where Terry itself had innocent explanations, reasonable suspicion does not need to be correct, just needs to pass the threshold of specific and particularly facts that criminal activity is afoot.

Back 80

focused stops:

Arvizu case

Front 81

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

(Drugs case) - Facts: Two officers were patrolling the city when they saw Dickerson leave a crack house and he saw the police and walked in another direction. They found cocaine and he was arrested. This was a bad neighborhood. He manipulated the item from outside the pocket and believed it was crack cocaine, and he did not suspect at any time it was a weapon. CASE RULE: The purpose of terry is to protect officers from armed suspect. If an officer conducts a frisk or pat down and he or she doesn’t feel anything that resembles a weapon, the frisk should end because once the officer has satisfied himself that the suspect is not armed the entire justification for the frisk ceases to exist and no further frisking or manipulation of the suspects clothing is permitted. If he thinks he feels a weapon the officer can naturally pull that item out. The officer does not need a high degree of confidence but have to have reasonable suspicion that it is a weapon. If the officer had reasonable suspicion that it is a weapon, it can be used for evidence against the person even though it was not a weapon.

Back 81

focused stops:

Dickerson case

Front 82

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

If during that quick pat down, the officer feels something the identity of which is immediately apparent is contraband (immediately apparent = probable cause) he can reach in and grab it. Probable cause comes from quick frisk and not manipulating the item.

Back 82

focused stops:

plain view

Front 83

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: they pulled over a car and detained a car while they detained a truck. Here two cars traveling together and one looks weighted down, and this is down a freeway that is known for drug activity. When we move to pull over the car the truck speeds off. Now they hold the car for 20 minutes while they get the truck. This is under scope of a terry stop, cause terry stops are quick. This is a seizure and almost an arrest. Court Says: the duration of the stop should not be any longer then necessary for police to properly investigate and 20 minute was long but it was ok because they were trying to get back up and trace down the other car and they did not hold this car any longer then they had to.

Back 83

focused stops:

Sharpe case

Front 84

search and seizure: the 4th amendment:

Facts: police investigating a series of burglaries and rapes, and Hayes is a suspect. They go to his house and he consents to go the police station to run his finger prints and it is a match to what they have on the scene, so they arrest him and he is convicted of a crime. Was not a voluntary consent. They don’t have probable cause to arrest him. Court Holds: as a practical matter even though they did not arrest him this was really an arrest. Therefore, need probable cause and a warrant to seize or arrest a person.

Back 84

focused stops:

Hayes case

Front 85

self incrimination:

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Back 85

5th amendment

Front 86

self incrimination:

In all criminal prosecutions the accused enjoys the right to have assistance of council for his defense.

Back 86

6th amendment

Front 87

self incrimination:

Facts: Spano was drinking at a bar, when he got in a fight with someone. Spano then got a gun and shot him to death. Spano accompanied by counsel, turned himself in. Spano then was questioned for 8 hours without his attorney present. Spano was worn down physically and mentally until he finally confessed by answering leading questions in a question and answer confession. Supreme court concludes that this was an involuntary confession. If a confession is obtained by overbearing the will of the accused, it is involuntary and inadmissible. (This is a decision that shows growing distrust of the police for the first time. This distrust of police begins to heighten.)

Back 87

interrogation: tightening constraints:

spano case

Front 88

self incrimination:

Escobedo was arrested for murder and made incriminating statements during an interrogation. He made repeated requests to see his lawyer, but these requests were denied. If a suspect makes incriminating statements during an interrogation, his requests for consultation with counsel have been denied, and the interrogating police failed to inform the defendant of his right to remains silent, the failure to allow consultation with counsel is a violation of the Sixth amendment, and the statements made during interrogation are inadmissible at trial.

Back 88

interrogation: tightening constraints:

Escobedo case

Front 89

self incrimination:

Facts: Miranda was arrested, and was took to a special room where they secured a confession. Court Says: prosecution cannot use statements, exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privileges against self incrimination. (this has to do with interrogation, so prior to custodial interrogation then they have to read the Miranda rights, so can arrest someone and throw them in a cell without reading there Miranda rights.) Court says that interrogation is inherently compelling.

Back 89

interrogation: tightening constraints:

miranda

Front 90

self incrimination:

questioning initiated by police after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived from his freedom of action in any significant way.

Back 90

interrogation: tightening constraints:

custodial interrogation

Front 91

self incrimination:

Have the right to remain silent, right to an attorney, any statement can be used against him, and that if he cannot afford an attorney the state will appoint one to him.

Back 91

interrogation: tightening constraints:

Miranda Rights

Front 92

self incrimination:

Facts: there was a fight and he shot a man and killed him. At 4am officers arrived at petitioners house and started to question him. They asked him if he had been at the restaurant and the petitioner answered truthfully. They never provided his Miranda rights. The court says: it is not where you are interrogated that matters but are you subject to custodial interrogation. Miranda applies any time you are subject to custodial interrogation. Here he was under arrest, therefore Miranda should apply. Court extends beyond the confines of the police station to anywhere.

Back 92

interrogation; tightening constraints:

Orozco case

Front 93

self incrimination:

Facts: victim was raped. The dog was covered with blood and the dog leads the police to the defendant. They forget to inform him of the warning that he is entitled to a free lawyer if he can’t afford one. He provides an alibi witness and the witness told them that he was raping someone. He is seeking to suppress that statement. He was asked if he wanted a lawyer and he said no, so he waived this right. The court says: the officers did make a mistake here but we will excuse it since it was not intentional, and there was no compulsion here. Forgetting one of the 4 warnings was not cruelty, it was not analogous to the Star Chamber interrogations. Forgetting one of the 4 warnings does not matter when it is not intentional and it is not the kind of interrogation that the framers were concerned about when they adopted the 5th amendment.

Back 93

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Tucker case

Front 94

self incrimination:

Facts: Mathiason confessed to a burglary while being questioned at a police station without Miranda warnings. Miranda warning was provided after he provided the confession. Court Says: When police tell you that you are not under arrest even though they question you at the police station, he was not in custody cause his freedom to leave was not restricted, therefore this was not a custodial interrogation. He came in voluntarily and was free to go after it was completed, therefore freedom not restricted.

Back 94

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Mathiason case

Front 95

self incrimination:

Facts: At a traffic stop, the officer noticed the defendant was having problems standing. Officers then asked respondent whether he had been using intoxicants. The trooper then arrested him and took him to jail where he was given a alcohol test. The officer kept on asking questions, the defendant said he had been drinking. He was never read his Miranda rights. Initial stop is not custody for the purposes of Miranda.

Back 95

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Berkemer case

Front 96

self incrimination:

whether a reasonable personal in the suspect’s position would understand themselves to be in custody, a similar position, or free to leave.

Back 96

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Berkemer adds to miranda

Front 97

self incrimination:

Facts: whether he was in custody for purposes of Miranda. He was being asked questions at a police station for a murder, and he was not mirandized. He was 17yrs old. No custody Arg: was brought by the parents, parents in the lobby, was not arrested, friendly interrogation, offered a break, and was allowed to go home after the interview. Custody Arg: length of the interview was 2 hours, the officer never gave warnings telling him that he was free to leave and was not under arrest, didn’t allow the parents into the interview. Court Says: age is not a factor cause it is a reasonable person standard. The court concludes that he was no in custody because the balancing factors weigh in the favor of no custody.

Back 97

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Yarborough case

Front 98

self incrimination:

Facts: A conversation between the policemen who were transporting Innis to jail after he had been arrested led Innis to consider what would happen if any of the children in a nearby school for the handicapped found the missing shotgun used in a murder, so he told the police where to find it. He was read his Miranda rights and said he wanted to speak to an attorney. Court says no this is not interrogation.

Back 98

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Innes case

Front 99

self incrimination:

Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its equivalent, i.e., (interrogation definition à) when there are words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. This should be judged from the defendant’s perspective and not from the intent of the police.

Back 99

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Innes rule

Front 100

self incrimination:

Facts: Victim was murdered and police suspected Perkins. Perkins was in jail and police placed an undercover government agent in Perkins cell. Perkins confessed to the agent, and Perkins tried to suppress the evidence because he was not given his Miranda rights. Court Says: Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement. They don’t think that this police tactic counted as interrogation for the purposes of Miranda because Miranda forbids coercion, not mere strategic deception by taking advantage of suspect’s misplaced trust in one he suppose to be a fellow prisoner. Not an interrogation for Miranda.

Back 100

interrogation; loosening constraints:

Perkins case

Front 101

self incrimination:

vii. Exception Pg. 737 bottom of page: once you have been charged for a crime, you cannot do this technique if they have been charged and are represented by council.

Back 101

interrogation; loosening constraints:

exception

Front 102

self incrimination:

Facts: they surround him and ask him where the gun is, he says where it is then the officers Miranda rights him. He was in custody cause he was surrounded. He is being interrogated cause they surround and question him. Court carves out a public safety exception to Miranda warnings, there is a distinction between questions that are designed for safety and questions for purposes of evidence. (pg. 659 of the supreme court numbering). They allow in the evidence.

Back 102

interrogation: loosening constraints:

Quarles

Front 103

self incrimination:

a. Schmerber; police can take a blood sample against shmerber against his will and without a warrant because of the exigency.

Back 103

special self incrimination principles

Front 104

self incrimination:

Only testimonial evidence Is protected by Miranda and the 5th amendment.

Back 104

special self incrimination principle:

1st principle

Front 105

self incrimination:

Facts: Muniz was convicted of drunk driving after failing to answer police questions regarding his address and age. He was advised his Miranda rights after the interrogation. Video tape was used against him in court. Testimonial Evidence Definition: An accused communication must, itself, explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Routine Booking Exception: name, address, height, and weight are exempt from Miranda.

Back 105

special self incriminaiont principle: 1st principle

Muniz case

Front 106

self incrimination:

The 5th amendment applies only if the compulsion to give testimony coincides with the original production of evidence then the 5th amendment does not apply.

Back 106

special self incrimination princle:

2nd principle

Front 107

self incrimination:

Facts: Documents seized from Adresen’s law office were used in his prosecution for false pretenses and misappropriation by a fiduciary. Business records are testimonial. Because they provided statements by him it discloses information. Court Says: he was not compelled to do anything because he voluntarily kept these records and put them in writing. Court Holds: The search of a person’s office for business records, their seizure, and later introduction into evidence does not violate the person’s Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

Back 107

special self incrimination principle: 2nd princniple

Andressen

Front 108

self incrimination:

Court order to produce documents or can subpoena a person. A Subpoena says that you must produce these documents for the court, so you have to get them and bring them to court. Fail to bring these documents then you can be held in contempt of violating the terms of a court order, and therefore you will be authenticating these documents. So there is more compulsion from the state.

Back 108

special self incrimination principles:

2nd principle: subpoena

Front 109

self incrimination:

the 5th amendment only applies if the evidence is actually used to incriminate the defendant. If the evidence is not used to incriminate the defendant then there is no 5th amendment violation.

Back 109

special self incrimination principles:

3rd principle

Front 110

self incrimination:

Court Says: the 5th amendment requires only use and derivative immunity, they don’t have to make a promise not to prosecute you. In a subsequent prosecution, government has to show that they are using evidence in the prosecution that is independent other then what as provided under the grant of immunity. Pg. 813 (look up important)

Back 110

special self incrimination principles:

3rd principle; kastigar case

Front 111

self incrimination:

is a device to compel testimony when someone does not want to speak. This is an agreement to not use some or all of your testimony against you. If you say no to immunity you will be held in contempt, so you are compelled to talk.

Back 111

special self incrimination principles: 3rd principle:

immunity

Front 112

self incrimination:

Nothing you testify to will be used against you. Actual statement cannot be used and they can’t use the actual money because it was derived from your information in your testimony.

Back 112

special self incrimination principles: 3rd principle:

use immunity

Front 113

self incrimination:

Any evidence developed as a result of testimony given under a grant of immunity is also excluded. Derivative and use go together.

Back 113

special self incrimination principles: 3rd principle

derivative use immunity

Front 114

self incrimination:

immunity from prosecution for any offenses for which the compelled testimony relates.

Back 114

special self incrimination principles: 3rd principle:

transaction immunity

Front 115

self incrimination:

Facts: Martinez was shot 5 times and an officer was questioning him while he was getting treatment from the doctors. He was not Mirandized. Questioning him and asking him if he thinks he’s going to die because of the dying declaration rule and also want to get evidence. Was not charged with the crime so whatever statements he makes will not be used against him. Court Says: there is no 5th amendment claim here because he was never charged with a crime and his testimony was not used against him in a criminal matter. Not compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.

Back 115

special self incrimination principles: 3rd principle:

chavez case

Front 116

self incrimination:

compulsory testimonial evidence can be used if the compulsion is part of a broad neutral regulatory program.

Back 116

special self incrimination principles:

4th principle

Front 117

self incrimination:

The supreme court says; they reject his 5th amendment claim because there are all types of laws that oblige us to disclose information and simply because you are forced to disclose information to the government or another party does not violate your fifth amendment rights. In a neutral non criminal regulatory scheme there is no significant risk in self incrimination therefore they reject the 5th amendment claim.

Back 117

special self incrimination principles: 4th principle:

Byers case

Front 118

Identification:

In all criminal prosecutions that accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of council for his defense. This has been made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

Back 118

6th amendment

Front 119

identification:

Facts: The police arranged a lineup where two witnesses recognized Wade (d) as the robber. Wade’s appointed counsel was not present at the lineup. Rule: once the accused is formally charged in an indictment, information, preliminary hearing, or arraignment, the accused is entitled to have counsel present at a lineup where witnesses seek to identify the perpetrator of a crime.

Back 119

6th amendment and due process:

wade case

Front 120

identification:

applies at all critical stages of the proceedings.

Back 120

6th amdendment

Front 121

identification:

If a presence of a lawyer will help assure a fair trail at that juncture you should have one or if the absence of a lawyer would hurt your ability to have a fair trial then will need a lawyer at that juncture.

Back 121

6th amendment and due process:

critical stage

Front 122

Identification:

If a tainted line up has taken place you don’t want any in court identification to be tainted, if the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the in court lineup is separate from the original identification.

Back 122

tainted lineup

Front 123

identification:

Facts: Shard was robbed and went to police headquarters. Later, two men were brought into headquarters and Shard identified them as the robbers prior to the robbers’ being charged or having the right to counsel. Rule: there is no right to counsel at police lineups held before the accused is arrested or charged with a crime.

Back 123

kirby case

Front 124

identification:

After five bank employees identified photographs of Simmons and Garret as the robbers, they were arrested and convicted of armed robbery. Rule: (1) Convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside only if the photographic procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. (2) A defendant’s testimony in support of a motion to suppress may not be admitted against him at trial on the issue of guilt unless he makes no objection.

Back 124

simmons case

Front 125

identification:

Fact: a woman gave the police a thorough description o the man who raped her, she was shown 30-40 photographs but did not identify any of them as the rapist. The police attempted to construct a lineup with Neil but were unable to find people fitting his description. A show up was staged at which two detectives walked neil past the woman, and she identitied him as the rapist. Rule: were an identifiaiton is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity, the likelihood of misdieintifation violates a defendant’s right to due process and is the basis for the exclusvion of the evidence

Back 125

neil case

Front 126

identification:

: when a gun or a weapon is pointed at you, you tend to focus on the weapon rather then the face and this is related to a lousy memory.

Back 126

problems with eye witness testimony:

weapons focus effect

Front 127

identification:

We have certain expectations about the way that things look or ought to look. This is illustrated with the playing cards example, where they ask people how many aes of spades do you see and people will say 3 becuaase they are only looking at the black aces of spades, rather then adding in the 2 red ones that are there. The expectancy is that the ace of spades is black

Back 127

problems with eye witness testimony:

expectancy effect

Front 128

identification:

subtetly in the another race may not be observable outside the race. Like people looking at Asians and not being able to tell the difference between the different races

Back 128

problems with eye witness testimony:

cross racial identificatoin

Front 129

identification:

police can act in ways where they can corrupt the identification, like making the witness give a bias decision or convince them that it is someone else.

Back 129

problems with eye witness testimony:

police suggestion

Front 130

General Limitations on Constitutional Constraints:

Facts: Statements and evidence seized in a series of unlawful searches led to other statements and evidence used to convict Wong Sun and Toy of federal narcotics violations.
i. Problem with the arrest is that there was no probable cause of the arrest. Does the fruits doctrine apply to statements or just physical evidence. The court says that it does apply to statements. Rule: Whether the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discover of the challenged evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.

Back 130

fruits doctrine: search and seizure: Wong sun case

Front 131

general limits on constittional constraints:

Facts: while officer was taking a break he found an envelope in the flower shop he was at, and the envelope had money and policy slips in it. There was no warrant, but he asked the employee who the envelope belonged to and he said the respondent. A year and a half later the employer testified at the grand jury. The primary fruit is the policy and betting slips. Should henysis testimony be excluded against ceccoliini because the search of the envelope was illegal. Rule: (came from case above) Whether the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discover of the challenged evidence has become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. Court Says: appears that this witness is testifying from her own free will and that there was a long period of time between the illegal police action and the actual testimony. Hold that the testimony was so attenuated that the evidence indicates overwhelming that the testimony given by the witness was an act of her own free will in no way coerced or even induced by official authority as a result of Biro’s discovery of the betting slips. Court says: live witness testimony will usually be admissible because the free will of the witness usually dissapaits the taint.

Back 131

fruits doctrine: search and seizure: Ceccolini case

Front 132

general limits on constitutional constraints:

Facts: After police entered Bernard Harris’ home without an arrest warrant, arrested him, and took him to the police station, Harris confessed to Thelma Stanton’s Murder. If it is a routine felony arrest in a home then need a warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances. High Court Rule: if there is probable cause to make an arrest, the exclusionary rule does not bar the use of a statement made by a defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an illegal arrest made in the home.

Back 132

fruits doctrine: search and seizure: Harris case

Front 133

stops and beyond:

Facts: Bostik was a bus passenger. Pole randomly searched buses, and without any reasonable suspsicion or probable cause the polie searched Bostik. Police found drugs and bostik looked to suppress the evidence. RULE -there is no seizure when police question, ask for ID, and ask for permission to search- AS LONG as they don’t convey the message that compliance with their request is required.

Back 133

random stops: Bostick case

Front 134

stops and beyond:

Whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers request, terminate the encounter, or leave. (court looked at the location of the questioning, how many officers were present the more officers the less likely feel free to leave, appearance of the officers, behavior of the officers, and physical contact by police officers). If a reasonable person would not have felt free then it is a seizure, and the officer would need (1) reasonable suspicion, (2) probable cause), or (3) a warrant.

Back 134

random stops:

reasonableness test

Front 135

stops and beyond:

Facts: Police were questioning passengers on a bus, and did not inform them on there right to cooperate. Police searched defendants luggage and found nothing, but found drugs on the defendant. Court held that a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. Rule – if a reasonable person “innocent” feels free to leave then No probable cause is required to search someone.

Back 135

random stops; Drayton case

Front 136

stops and beyond:

Facts: two officers on patrol in a high crime area witnessed youths around a parked red car. When the youths saw the police they ran. Defendant tries to suppress cocaine evidence. Rule: a defendants right against unlawful arrest will not operate to suppress evidence found prior to physical restraint. Test: the word seizure bears the meaning of laying on the hands or application of physical force to restrain movement – even when ultimately unsuccessful. An arrest requires: (1) physical force or (2) submission to the assertion of authority and the test that is applies is whether a reasonable person would feel that he wa being forced to restrict his movement. This is an objective test and not subjective on the individual defendant’s perception.

Back 136

random stops; Hodari case

Front 137

stops and beyond:

Facts: a polie officer stopped defendants car to make sure the car had good registration and license, this is a random stop with no reasonable suspicion. When the officer stopped the car he smelled weed. Court Says: police must have articulable reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that a car is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is subject to a seizure for violation of law – in order to stop a vehicle without violting the 4th amendment.

Back 137

random stops:

Prouse case

Front 138

stops and beyond:

(car checkpoint): day before a checkpoint defendant filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injuctive relief from potential checkpoints. Holding: sobriety checkpoint does not violate the 4th and 14th amendments.

Back 138

random stops:

sitz case

Front 139

stops and beyond:

1. Balance of the states interest in preventing drunk driving.
2. Extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance this interest.
3. Degree of intrustion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped

Back 139

random stops:

balancing test

Front 140

stops and beyond:

police set up a narcotics checkpoint, where they questioned motorists and had dogs sniff around there car. Defendant claims that this violationed there 4th amendment and the search and seizure. Holding: the primary purpose of the checkpoint is for interdicting illegal narcotics and the court has never approvieed a program to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. A search or seizure is unconstitutional in the absence of individualized suspcition of wrongdoing.

Back 140

random stops:

edmund case

Front 141

stops and beyond:

Police set up a checkpoint to stop motorists to ask them about a recent hit and run accident that killed a 70 yr. old bicyclist. The checkpoint was set up a week later at the same time and same place. Defendant drove up and almost hit the officer and the officer smelled alcohol on the defnednats breath, so he was arrested for a DUI. Court Says: this stop by police is entirely different form the stop in Edmon where police stopped cars to detect narcotics. The checkpoint here was not to determine if anyone was committing a crime, but to ask occupants, as members of the publice for their help in providing information about a crime. The police intended to use the information to apprehened other individuals, not the vehicle occupants they sought the information from. They used the balancing test here from above as well, checkpoint ok.

Back 141

random stops:

Lidster case

Front 142

stops and beyond:

Facts: Owens was caught smoking weed at school by the vice principle. The principle questioned owens and demeanded to see her purse. In the purse the principle found drugs, money, and a list of students that owed her money. Owens then confessed. Owens contends that the search of her purse, her confession, were tainted by an unlawful search, and she moved for suppression of evidence. Court Says: the search of a student will be justified when there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.

Back 142

in school on the job under hte knife:

Owens case

Front 143

stops and beyond:

1. (1) whether the action was justified (reasonable) at its inception
a. Search will turn up evidence of a violation of law or school rules. Need reasonable grounds that search will turn up violation of law or school rules.
2. (2) whether the search as actually conducted as reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.

Back 143

in school, on the job, under the knife:

to determine reasonableness of a search

Front 144

stops and beyond:

School enacted a drug testing policy for students who want to participate in extracurricular activities. Court Says: testing the students who participate in extra curricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the School Districts legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring, and detecting drug use – thereby protecting the safety and helath of the school students. In the context of safety and administrative regulations, a search unsupported by probable cause may be reasonable when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable

Back 144

in school, on the job, under the knife:

Earls case

Front 145

stops and beyond:

Facts: Railway administration has promulgated regulations that mandate blood and urine tests of employees who are involvced in certain train accidents – because they found that alcohol and drug abuse by railroad employees poses a serious threat to safety. Court says: the government may mandate toxicological tests on railroad workers without requiring individualized suspicion. Here the government interest in preventing intoxication among railway employees is great and outweighs the private interests of individuals. The intrusiveness of the procedure is minor and only applies to individuals who by taking the employment status have already consented to significant restrictions of their liberty.

Back 145

in school, on the job, under hte knife:

Railway case

Front 146

stops and beyond:

Facts: State wanted to remove a bullet from Lee’s chest for use as evidence showing that Lee attempted to rob a store. Rule: a compelling surgical intrusion into an individuals body for evidence implicates expecatations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion may be unreasonable under the 4th amendment evne if it is likely to produce evidence of a crime. This is on a case by case basis, look at whether it is dangerous to the defendant and whether there is other evidencec to convict the person.

Back 146

in school, on the job, under the knife:

Winston case

Front 147

stops and beyond:

Held that where the defendant makes a substantially preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentinonally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the 4th amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendants request. What should be in the affidavit to establish probable cause for a search warrant:
i. Reliability of information obtained from the informant
ii. Police confirmation of the information (have they investigated the tip)
iii. Sufficient Detail

Back 147

mistakes and good faith:

Franks case

Front 148

stops and beyond:

the Burbank police department obtained a valid search warrant to search defendants premises for narcotics. Information contained in the supporting affidavit were obtained from an informant whose credibility and realiability were not substantiated. Holding: the 4th amendment does not bar the use of evidence obtained by police acting in good faith in reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant.

Back 148

mistakes and good faith:

Leon case

Front 149

stops and beyond:

If the officer acts in good faith realiance on a warrant that appears valid on its face the evidence will still be admissible even if the warrant was later found to be defective for technical reasons (like wrong address) or for a lack of probable cause.

Back 149

mistakes and good faith:

good faith exception

Front 150

stops and beyond:

1. if the officer knows the affidavit is false or exhibits reckless disregard for the truth then it doesn’t apply.
2. If the judge has totally abandoned his judicial role then it does not apply
3. if the warrant is based on an affidavit that is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable the good faith exception does not apply.
4. if the warrant is so facially defeicient that no officer would believe it was valid.

Back 150

mistakes and good faith:

good faith exception, why it may not apply.