Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

260 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
JOhnson v Zerbst
Federal case holding that counsel must be appointed in all federal cases.
Definition of waiver from Johnson v Zerbst
In order for a waiver to be effective it must be knowing/intelligent and voluntary
Gideon v Wayneright
SCOTUS holds that BEtts v Brady is overruled, and that in all criminal prosecutions, the state must provide counsel
When must the state provide counsel?
Whenver there is a real possibility of incarceration or probation, and for the first appeal as of right
Argersinger v Hamlin
Scotus held that in any case where actual confinement is the sentence the judge must appoint counsel
Scott v Illinois
If the state never seeks confinement for the charge( but it is possible) the judge does not need to appoint counsel
Alabama v Shelton
Probabtion is enough of a deprivation of liberty to count as actual confinement, thus making it necessary to appoint counsel for probation only offenses
When can an indigent defendant get an appointed attorney for an appeal?
THey can get an attorney for the first appeal as of right, BUT not for any subsequent discretionary appeals ( becuase the first appeal would have structured the argument for the next court)
Douglas v CAlifornia-
California policy of letting the court review appeals as of right for validity violates DP, because it gives rich people an advantage ( they get attorney's to argue and brief the cases)
Ross v MOffitt-
Denial of appointed counsel for a discretionary appeal is not a denial of DP, because the SC will have a structured argument from the appeal as of right, which makes the disparity between rich and poor much less
What are the two things that must be shown in order to overturn a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel?
Deficient behavior by ounsel that fails an objective reasonableness test, and the deficiency must undermine confidence in the outcome
Strickland v Washington
Introduced the 2 part test and held that in this case, the failure not to intorduce mitigating evidence could be a discretionary trial strategy
Wiggins v Smith
Strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professions judgments support the limitation on the investigation
Rompilla case-
Lawyer who failed to read a file given to them that would have led to more mitigating evidence was reversible error
BUrdine v Johnsons
Sleeping counsel = no counsel or unconscious counsel
Brown v Mississippi
SCOTUS holds that any confession that results from torture is inadmissible as a violtion of due process
Duncan v LA
Court holds that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right by looking to the history of the practice, but by not incorporating the 6th amendment, they leave the door open as to variations in the specifics for state trials
Norris v Alabama
Exclusion of blacks from a jury constituted a voiolation of due process, if it could be shown that Blacks had not served on juries for years when they were eligible
Wolf v COlorado
Held that the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches/seizures etc.. are incorporated by the 14th amendment, but the exclusionary rule is not mandatory
Weeks v US
Federal courts must follow the exclusionary rule
MApp v Ohio
States must apply the exclusionary rule b/c it:
furthers deterrence, allows for judicial integrity, and gives teeth to the 4th amendment,
Black's concurrence in Mapp
THe 4th amendment does not require the exclusionary rule until it is combined with the 5th amendment ban on self incrimination
What was the original definition of a search?
It was tied to the theory of trespass. The state did not perform a search unless they trespassed on a constitutionally protected area (BOYD V US)
How does the COurt now decide if a search has occurred?
1. Was there a subjective expectation of privacy? and if so
2. Is the expectation one that society is prepared to accept as reasonable
Katz v US-
Court holds that the 4th amendment protects people and not places, and that it protects any communications that a person does not knowingly expose to the public
Harlan's COncurrence i Katz-
Gives the 2 pronged test
1. Subjective expectation of privacy?
2. Was this reasonable?
US v White
Criminal's can never have a reasonable expectation of privacy that voluntary communications that they have with a third party will not be relayed to the police either immediately or later
Smith v Maryland
Pen register is okay, becuase the person voluntarily transmitted the information to a third party, and thus could not have an expectation of privacy
Bond v US-
Placin luggage on a bus does not voluntarily expose it to a third party. Passengers might reasonably expect that other passengers might move their bags, but not to the point where they can make out what is inside
US v PLace
Dog sniffs are not a search becuase of the minimal intrusion, and the small lenght of detention
Illinois v Caballes
Dog sniffs around a car are not search so long as the detention has not lasted too long
Indinapolis v Edmond
POlice are not allowed to set up checkpoints where they walk a drug dog around the car becuase it is not rationally related to the activity enough
What is the modern test for electronic surveillance?
a. The use of a device not used by the general public to obtain evidence from the interior of a residence that cannot otherwise be obtained without physical intrusion constitutes a search
Kyllo v US
Cops use a thermal imager to see the growth of MJ plants, Scalia says this is a search because the device is not in general public use, and the knowledge could not have been gained at the time of ratification without physically entering the residence
What is a seizure?
Placing a radio transmitter on a drum of chemicals in order to track it is not a seizure, b/c if the suspect had not gotten away, it could have been followed or found, BUT if the transmitter gives a location that is inside the house, then a search has occurred
US v KNotts
Beeper attached to the drum of chloroform did not constitute a search because the drum was always in plain view outside of the house, and if the D had not eluded the cops they would have been able to follow it with their eyes
US v KAro
Cops track a drum with a transmitter, and the court says it was a search becuase it revealed the location of the drum when it was inside of the house
Definition of an open field
i. Open Fields are any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage
Open fields doctrine
- Entry into and exploration of an open field is not a search
Oliver v US
POlice walk by two no trespassing signs in order to get to a field of MJ, not a search becuase the MJ was in an open field
- At common law it was defined as the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life”
Four factors to find curtilage
1. Proximity to the home
2. Is the area within an enclosure
3. Nature of the uses to which the area is put
4. Steps taken to protect the area from passers by
POlice cross several fences in order to look around on a farm. ONce near the barn they smell chemicals and look inside seeing a meth lab. COurt holds that this was open fields
When is overflight surveillance of the curtilage okay?
WHenever the pilot is complying with flight laws
California v Ciraolo
Prevalence of overflights and likelihood of MJ plants being spotted from a flight ( or a double decker bus) makes it unreasonable to expect privacy in the curtilage
FLorida v RIley
Court syas it is okay to use a helicopter to look into someones greenhouse as long as the pilot is abiding by flight rules
Ca v Greenwood
- Court held that search of garbage at the curb which turned up pictures of the D standing next to his pot plants was okay without a warrant because there was not a reasonable expectation of privacy at the curb
Dow Chemical v US
COurt upheld the use of a sophisticated camera to take pictures of the facility becuase it was not in the curilage, and it was not particularly revealing
What are the elements of a lawful plain view seizure
1. Lawful vantage point( warranted search, valid arrest, justified warrantless search, during a non-search( open fields, etc)
2. Lawful access to the object ( can't break into a house to seize something they see through a window
3. Probable cause to seize the item ( it must be immediately apparent that the object in question is criminal evidence)
Coolidge v NH
Cops seize two cars withoiut a warrant and vacuum the rugs to find gp residue. COurt says that this was no good because it was not immediately apparent that the cars were criminal evidence. Also the finding of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent
Horton v Ca-
Overruled the inadvertent requirement from Coolidge to say that even though police suspect they might fiund something, it does not mean that they are not allowed to seize it if it was not in the warrant, Cops have a warrant for rings and they find the gun used in the robbery.
Arizona v Hicks
POlice can not manipulate items in order to determine if they are contraband ( cop moves stereo to read the serial numbers with only a vague suspicion that they might be stolen
Plain touch doctrine
Corollary to the plain view doctrine that states that police may seize contraband detected solely through the officer’s sense of touch if the officer has the right to touch and the illegality or probative nature is immediately apparent
Minnesota v Dickerson
In a terry stop a police officer is not allowed to squeeze an object in the D's pocket to determine if it is illegal ONCE the danger of a weapon is dispelled
How does the court decide if consent to search was consensual?
Looks to the totality of the search. Knowledge that a refusal was ok, is one factor to consider
Schneckcloth v Bustamante
Even though the D did not know that they could refuse the search, the consent given was valid under the circumstances. police pull over a car and get consent to search, finding stolen checks.
Bumper v NC
Cops can not lie that they have a warrant in order to get a person to consent to a search. Cops get a person to consent ot search by waiving a piece of paper that they sat is a warrant.
Third party consent
i. When more than one person has a privacy interest in real or personal property a warrantless search is valid if it is based on the consent of one person who possesses common authority over the property searched
US v MAtlock
People who share space with others assume the risk that the co-tenants will consent to a search. Roomate consents to search while the suspect is in handcuffs in the front yard.
GA v Randolph
If one of the tenants objects to the search, then the police may not enter if another gives consent
Improper third party consent
ii. It is not necessary that the third party who consents to the search actually have the authority to consent, as long as it was reasonable for the police to think that they had the authority
Illinois v Rodriguez
Court should analyze whether or not it was reasonable for police to assume that a woman had authority to consent to a search of her ex-boyfriends apartment
Test for reasonableness for 3rd party consent
Defintion of probable cause
Exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested OR that a search will turn up evidence of a crime
When does the question of whether probable cause was present arise?
1. When after an arrest or search has occurred with a warrant the aggrieved party wants to challenge the basis of the warrant
2. When a party was arrested or searched without a warrant, the person may challenge the PC of the cops to commit the warrantless search ( assuming they have failed in their attempt to challenge the lack of the warrant)
Admissibility of hearsay to establish PC under the Aguilar/SPinelli test
1. How did the informant get the information?
2. Why should the magistrate believe the information?( how reliable is the source)
Draper v US
Even though the informant may not have been objectively reliable, his ability to predict future behavior to the most minute detail is enough to establish probable cause to get a warrant/perform an arrest
Spinelli v US
Warrant that gave no basis for the informant's knowledge that was coupled with a bare accusation was insufficient to establish probable cause
NEw test for the admissibility of hearsay to establish probable cause
Totality of the circumstances. The factors in Aguilar are still extremely relevant, but deficiencies in one can be made up for by the strength of the other.
Illnois v Gates
Anonymous tip was enough to establish PC to search when it accurately predicted future behavior
Franks v Delaware
If a defendant can show that a knwongly false statement was included in an affidavit for a warrant, then they can demand a hearin for the determination of probable cause. If the false fact is estbalished by a preponderance and the remaining factors are not enough to establish PC then the fruits are out
Standard fo PC for administrative searches
In the case of non-criminal investigatory searched, PC is established if i is reasonable under the circumstances
Special needs doctrine
Where the public interest is best served by a 4th amendment standard that falls short of probable cause the court may apply the lower reasonableness standard
Camara v Municipal COurt
D is not entitled to challenge evidence that is turned up in a routine housing search as long as the state can juustify why inspections are needed in the area
New Jersey v TLO
i. Teachers can search students if
1. There are reasonable grounds to suggest that the search will turn up evidence of a violation of a rule and
2. the search of the student is not excessively intrusive based on the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction
What is necessary for an arrest?
probable cause
When can police enter a building to arrest a person?
Absent exigency or consent, an officer may not enter the home of a suspect in order to arrest unless they
i.Have a warrant AND
ii.Believe the suspect is within the building
Payton v NY
Police need a warrant to enter a building to arrest a person. Cops go to arrest a suspect in a murder, he is not home, and hey bust in ( after hearing music) and find a shell casing on the ground)
What is necesary in the case of an arrest without a warrant?
THe state must hold a probable cuase hearing within a reasonable amount of time in order to justify the continued detention of the suspect
Gerstein v Pugh
1. Court states that the exigencies that justify a warrantless arrest are not in existence once the suspect is within custody, and the detached judgment of the magistrate is necessary in order to justify detention
County of Riverside v McLaughlin
Probable cause determination mut occur within 48 hours
What are the elements of a valid search warrant?
1. Neutral detached magistrate, 2. oath of affirmation if probable cause, 3. Particularity
COnnely v Ga
Court throws out a practice whereby the judge was only paid if the warrant issued, creates a financial incentive to the judges that would make them biased
Lo-Ji Sales v NJ
COurt throws out a warrant to search a porn shack that only included the names of two titles, and left it entrely to the discretion of the police to decide what to seize
KNock and announce rule
- Officers are not allowed, absent special circumstances, to enter a home forcibly unless she has first knocked at the door, identified himself as an officer, explained his purpose for entering, requested admission and been refused
Wilson v Ar
Recognized the K & A rule, but listed the exceptions,
1. Requirement does not apply in situations
a.Posing a threat of physical violence
b.In cases where a prisoner escapes and retreats to his home
c.Where officers have reason to believe that evidence would be destroyed
Richards v Wi
Court throws out a per se rule that got rid of the knock and announce rule for all felony cases, but still justified the violation under one of the excpetions
Hudson v Michigan
Violation of the knock and announce rule does not warrant use of the exclusionary rule
When can cops seize the premises or person without a warrant?
- A temporary seizure of premises supported by PC and designed to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtain a warrant in a reasonable time is permissible
Illinois v McArthur
When the police restrained themselves from entering a home without a warrant while at the same time not allowing the suspect to enter the home unsupervised, and while the police diligently pursued a warrant was not unreasonable
What can police do once they are on the property with a valid search warrant?
i. Search containers large enough to hold the evidence;Seize any objects not described in the warrant provided that they have probable cause to believe that it is seizable BUT
Information obtained during a search may require them to cease or narrow their search
Maryland v Garrison
COps did not know that there were two apts on the floor they were searching and entered the wrong one. THye found drugs, but once they figured out that they were in the wrong apartment they stopped searching
Can cops search people at the house?
Not unless they have an independent reason for the search
Ybarra v Illinois
Court throws out a search of a bar patron who just happened to be there when they executed the search warrant because there was not independent reason for the search
Can police detain someone during a search?
Yes, most people would wnat to stay, and it does not add to the stigma of the search
MIchigan v Summers
Police can detain people during a search
When can police conduct a search without a warrant
THere must be exigent circumstances, i.e. hot pursuit, fear of the destruction of evidence, physuical characteristics of the evidence
Warren v Hayden
COps in hot pursuit of a suspect can enter his home and look around as long as it is reasonable to do so
Welsh v Wi-
COurts must weigh the intrusive nature of the search against the importance of the evidence that will be lost. Cops can not enter a person's home without a warrant when the underlying offense is minor and would not justify an arrest
Valey v LA
COps are not allowed to search inside a person's house when they are busted on the front porch and there is little chance that a person will destroy the evidence
Mincey v AZ
THere is no murder scene excpetion to the necessity of a warrant. COps can search the scen to make sure that no-one is injured ( and seize anything in plain view during the search) but they must limit their inspection of the house to this function
Schmerber v Ca-
Cops can draw blood from a suspect, when it is conducted in a reasonable manner and the need for the blood is importatn
US v Montoya de Hernandez-
When the police give the suspect many options as to what they can do to alleviate their fears that she is a drug mule ( go home, take an x-ray, hang out until you poop), the search was not unreasonable without a warrant
What can police search pursuant to a valid arrest?
- Pursuant to a valid arrest the police may search the person and any area within grabbing distance in order to prevent the possibility of escape or destruction of evidence
California v Chimel
Court throws out a search of the whole house pursuant to an arrest, becuase it exceeded the grab zone
Maryland v BUIE
COurt expanded the area of the search of a house pursuant to a valid arrest to include any area where a person might be hiding to threaten the police during the arrest or while departing
US v Robinson
COurt upholds the inclusion of heroin found pursuant to a driving on a suspended license arreat. Court says that in the case of a lawful arrest the police are allowed to perform a full search of the person for weapons or evidence regardless of the circumstances
Illinois v LaFayette
ONCe a person is arrested, and taken to the station, the police may search them again in order to inventory their possessions. In order to protect against theft of arrestee’s stuff, To protect the police from false claims of theft, To ensure that contraband missed in the initial search will not be smuggled into the jail
What part of the car can police search when they arrest the driver ( or recent driver)?
- Police may search the entire passenger compartment of an automobile , including all containers found within as an incident to the lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of the car
Ny v BElton
Safety concerns and concerns over the destruction of evidence make it okay for police to search the enitre passenger compartment of the car pursuant to a lawful arrest
Thornton v US
THe same fears that allow police to search the car of a person arrested while driving are present in the case of a person who was very recently driving the car
KNowles v Iowa
POlice cna not perform a search of the car after comleting a traffic stop by issuing the citation. Safety fears and fears over loss of evidence are no longer present once the reason for being pulled over has fully concluded
Atwater v City of LAgo Vista
Police can arrest drivers fro very minor traffic offenses as long as it is justified by statute
when can police pull you over?
as long as they have RAS that a violation has occurred, the police can stop you, no matter what they intend to do
US v Whren
Court holds that a pretextual stop for failing to use a turn signal in order to search for drugs is okay as long as the cops have probable cause for anything. Court does not want to get involved in the subjective intent of police officers
When can police search a car without an arrest or a warrant?
If they have probable cause to believe that the search will turn up evidence of a crime then the police can search a car without an arrest or a warrant
US v Carroll
Becuase of the highly mobile nature of the car, police are allowed to search a car without an arrest or a warrant as long as there is PC. Cops stop a car that they reasonably suspect is carrying booze,and search it turning up contraband.
California v CArney
The same rationale that applied in US v CArroll applies to mobile homes, as long as the MH is not found in an area where they are usually kept stationary. Cops get a report that a guy in a mobile home is trading sex for pot and search the mh.
Can the copos tow the car away from the scene of the arrest and search it?
Yes as long as there is not too long of a gap in time between the seizure and the search
Chambers v MAroney
Court allows a warrantless search of a car that is searched back at the station after its occupants are arrested for matching the descriptions of the robbers. Smae mobility rationale is used to justify this search
South Dakota v Opperman
Once a person's car is seized it can be inventoried as long as the police follow standard procedures and the search passes a general reasonableness test
General rule about the search of a container ( not in a car)
Except when a container is found within in an automobile, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a closed container. IF the police have probable cause to search the container they may seize it, but they must first obtain a warrant to search the item.
US v CHadwick
Court throws out the warrantless search of a footlocker containing pot that the cops seized based on PC ( drug sniff) but which they had not obtained a warrant for. Here there is no more exigency, so the cops should have to get a warrant
When can police search a container within a car?
Police can search an entire car and all of the containers contained within as long as they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband.
US v Ross
COurt ruled that as long as the cops had probable cuase to search a car, they could look into any containers within
California v Acevedo
If coops have probable cause to search a container, they may open it, even if it is in a car. If there is PC, then it is a short step to get a warrant, so the Chadwick rule should not be extended to containers within cars
Does ownership of the container matter?
NO.As long as the cops have PC to search the inside of a car, and any containers that might contain what they are looking for, they can search any containers regardless of who owns them
Wyoming v HOughton
Passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy when riding in a car, so itis okay to search the passenger's stuff once there is probable cause to search the car
Florida v Wells
Court hled that the police could not search a locked suitcase in a car during an inventory search, becuase it was not their policy to open locked containers within cars
What is a terry stop?
a. If the police have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime, they may stop the person, detain him briefly, and then frisk the suspect if they reasonably believe the suspect is carrying a dangerous weapon
Terry v Ohio
Becuase the desire to increase officer safety and to deter crime police sare allowed to check a person for weapons if they have a reasonable articulabel suspicion that the person is armed
How do you tell if a person has been merely detained ro if they have been arrested?
Court looks to the totality of the circumstances to decide IF A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE FREE TO LEAVE
Dunaway v NY
If the police take a person to the station in order for questioning, then they are under arrest and the police must have PC in order to do so.
US v MEndenhall
COurt holds that a woman was not arrested when there was NO threatening presence of several officers, no display of a weapon, and no physical touching. Did note that sometimes mere tone could be enough
Florida v ROyer
When a passenger's ticket is taken and he is placed in a room with his luggage, then they have been arrested and the cops need more than RAS in order to detain them
Florida v BOstick
When police come onto a bus and perform random searches for drugs, a person is not detained and their consent is valid. Helps that people were not free to leave ( or they would miss their bus)
Florida v Drayton
Even when there are three officers present blocking all of the exits a person may still give voluntary consent to search
INS v Delgado
When the INS came to a factory and blocked all of the exits the people were not detained, and therefore, OC was not necessary
When is a person seized for 4th amendment purposes?
ONce they are physically stopped
Ca v Hodari
Suspect was not seized until the cops caught up with him when he ran off once he saw them
What is the test to determine if the length of detention was reasonable?
a. Did the police diligently pursue a course of investigation that would dispel or confirm the suspicion
US v Sharpe
When the cops end up detaining a car for over 20 mintues while waiting for backup, the length of detention was not too long when the police were diligently trying to dispel the suspicion that aroused the stop
Can the police order you out of the car?
Yes, once the car is already pulled over the additional intrusion of getting out of the car is deminimis
Pa v MImms-
POlice cna order drivers out of the car. Concern for police safety weighed against the minimal intrusion
Maryland v Wilson
Same rationale as PA v MImms, but it applies to passengers as well
What are cops required to have to justify a TErry stop?
- Cops must have some objective justification for the stop. Must be more than some inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch
When can an anonymous tip be used to generate RAS?
When a significant portion of the tip can be verified
Alabama v White
Once many factors fo the anonymous tip had been verified, the police had RAS to pull someone over
Florida v JL
Description of present behavior is not enough to generate RAS
Is flight indicative of wrongdoing?
No, but it does generate suspicion enough to stop
Court rules that stopping someone who runs away is okay, but that the running by itself is not indicative of wrong doing
Can a cop search a car based on RAS?
Yes, once they have a RAS for the driver police can search the grab area
Michigan v Long
Court rules that once the cops have a fear that the driver poses a danger, they can search any area accessible to the driver
When can cops stop cars absent reasonable articulable suspicion?
Yes, Police may stop cars at fixed checkpoints to check for illegal immigrants ( if it is near the border) and drunks ( anywhere)
Us v Martinez Fuerte
Court ruled that checkpoints for illegals near the borders was ok because there is no discretion for the police, less surprise for the traveler, and the transport of illegals near the border is rationally related to driving on the roads
Mi Dept of State police v sitz
Court okays DUI checkpoints because the value ot the state is high, the degree of intrusion is minimal. and the court should not second guess politicaly accountable groups
INdianapolis v Edmond
poLICE can not set up drug check points becuase the transport of illegal drugs is not rationally related enough to driving on the highway
What is the general remedy for a 4th amendment violation?
Exclusionary rule
IN order to bring a 4th amendment claim what must a person have?
Standing to sue
How have the modern courts defined standing?
A legitimate expectation of privacy
unDER THE old Payner test what was necessary in order to establish standing?
The thing searched must have been theirs
Rakas v Illinois
COUrt held that becuase the passengers in a car did not have complete dominion over the car ( no keys, no exclusivity) they did not have a legitimate expectation of privact
Jones v US
COurt held that a invited guest who is staying somewhere for several days does have a legitimate expectation of privacy
Minnesota v Olsen
Overnight guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy
Minnesota v Carter
COurt held that coke dealers who only used an apartment for 2 hours to package drugs did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy because they were only there for a short time, they were engaged in a commercial enterprise, and they had no real connection with the homeowner
Is there a good faith exceptin to the exclusionary rule
The rule does not bar use by the prosecution of evidence seized in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate subsequently found to be unsupported by probable cause
When is suppression still available in the case of good faith reliance on a search warrant?
1. Magistrate was misled by information that the affiant knew or should have known was false
2. Magistrate abandons his role such that no reasonable police officer should rely on the warrant
3. Affidavit is so lacking in reliability that the person can not reasonably rely on it
4. Warrant is so technically lacking that a police officer can not reasonably rely on it
Ma v Sheppard
Court Court rules that a search pursuant to a warrant that violated the particularity of what was to be seized requirement was valid becuase the police in good faith tried to correct the mistakes
Az v Evans
Cop who relied on an assertion by a clerk that a man had a warrant out for his arrest acted in good faith so evidence seized in the incident search should not be suppressed
Fruit of the poisonous tree
- In general the court will exclude not only the direct evidence but any secondary evidence that is found based on the search
Silverthorne Lumber CO v US
Court holds that illegally seized papers must be returned and that the state can not use anything it learned from the papers
INdependent source doctrine
- IF the state finds the information out from another source, then they can use the information learned from the illegal search
Murray v US
Court holds that even though the cops entered a warehouse illegally, they did not use anything that thye learned int he application for a warrant and therefore had an independent source for th eevidence that they seized
INevitable discovery
- IF the police were going to find the evidence inevitably then, the fruit of the search does not have to be suppressed
Nix v Williams
COurt held that even though the cops violated the suspects 6th amendment right to counsel, they were close to the body, it would be in plain view once the snow melted so they would have discovered it eventually
Evidence obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable from the original illegality is purged of the primary taint and therefore is admissible
Factors to consider indeciding if something is too attenuated to consider as fruit
a. Temporal- How close to the violation was the evidence obtained
b. Causal links- How long of a chain is there between the violation and the evidence
c. Free Will- Is one of the intervening acts one of free will- Very important
d. Bad Faith- IF the violation was excpetionally flagrant, then it may take longer for the taint to dissipate
e. Nature of the secondary evidence- More likely to allow witness testimony than physical items
US v Ceccolini
Court held that becuase a witness might have come forward anyway, they should notbe barred from testifying even though the police learned about them by violating the suspect's rights
Wong Sun v US
COurt holds that the initial statement and the man arrested because of the statement are out but the other suspect who came to the station voluntarily several days after the violation is too attenuated
Brown v Illinois
Court holds that a confession subsequent to a invalid arrest is not admissible
NY v HArris
After police arrest a man in his home without a warrant, he confesses, he is then taken to the station and then confesses again. COut throws out the first confession, but allows the second one into evidecne
Can police use a coerced confession?
Nope, use of a coerced confession is a violation of due process
Brown v MI
Court throws out confession based on torture becuase it is offensive to the notion of due process
ROchin v CA
Court throws out heroin that is pumped out of a man's stomach after he swallows it when the police bust into his bedroom without a warrant.
What is the ROchin test for due process violation?
Does the behavior go beyond the pale of acceptable behavior
Can the cops use a voluntary confession?
Lisenba v Ca
Court rules that the cops came very close to forcing the confession, but that under the totality it was voluntary and therefore is acceptable
What are factors to consider to determine if the psychological pressure has gone too far in obtaining a confession?
the length of the interrogation, physical conditions, denial of necessaries, the characteristic of the suspect
Spano v NY
COurt holds that a man who is guilted into confessing by a close friend did not voluntarily give the confession
What if it is not the cops who are compelling the testimony?
THen the evidence is admissible
Colorado v COnnelly
court holds that a confession compelled by mental illness is not state action, and that it is not necesary to make an inquiry into every D's state of mind at the time of confession.
Townsend v Sain
COurt held that even an unintentional violation will cuase the evidence to be excluded. Cops give an addict a drug to quell withdrawal which also acts as a truth serum
Bram v US
Man questioned naked in a foregin country and isolated from other people did not make a voluntary confession
MIranda v AZ
Court ruled for the D becuase the 1. Coercive environment¬ – This was very important to the decision
2. Confessions are not a vital tool
3. Noble Principle of the fifth amendment
4. Suspect must know rights in order to preserve the adversarial nature of the court
Miranda's rule on waiver
1. A valid waiver of the rights will not be assumed by the silence of the D
Miranda's definition of custody
- Miranda applies when a person is first subjected to questioning while in custody at the station, OR otherwise deprived of their freedom in any significant way
Is miranda a constitutional rule
Based on Dickerson yes, but see (MI v Tucker and Or v Elstad)
Does Miranda apply to all cases?
Yes. Even misdemeanors
Berkemer v McCArty
Court rejects the argument that Miranda should not apply to midemeanors because police can not always tell whether or not the stop will lead to a felony. MAn is pulled over and questioned after the police arrest him
What must be present in order for MIranda to be implicated
Custody and interrogation
Oregon v Mathiason
COurt holds that man who goes to the police station voluntarily and confesses after 5 minutes was not in custody for the purposes of MIranda
What is the key element that is necessary in order for someone to be in custody
They must have a reasonable belief that they are not free to leave
Do routine traffic stops rise to the level of custody?
No, the public nature of the stop and presumptively temprary nature make a traffice stop different from interrogation at the station ( Berkemer v McCArty)
What is the modern defintion of interrogation?
1. Interrogation includes any 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
RI v INNis
Court holds that off hand conversation between two cops did not rise to the level of interrogation
What is the third requirement for MIrnada to apply ( not in GA)
evidence must be testimonial
What is the georgia test for whether or not evidence should be excluded as being self incriminatory
If the suspect is passive in the giving up then it is okay, but they can not be compelled to produce evidence against themselves
What are some exceptions to MIranda
Public safety, Booking wuestions, and covert interrogation, statments used to impeach testimony, witnesses found as a result of a miranda violation, physical evidence found as the result of a miranda violation
Public safety exception
- Police are not required to give Miranda warnings if they are questioning a person about matters relating to an imminent threat to public safety, even if they are also motivated to ask in order to get incriminating evidence against the D
NY v Quarles
COurt allows in statement of where a suspect hid the gun because it related to public safety
Penn v Muniz
COurt holda that the routine booking questions are okay but the ones crafted to generate evidence against the D are not okay
Illinois v Perkins
Court holds that the use of a jail informant does not violate Miranda becuase there is no threat or coercion that drove the decision in MIranda
Harris v NY
COUrt ruled that a D can not use a miranda violation to suborn perjury, so the state can use Miranda to impeach witness testimony
Michigan v Tucker
COurt held that MIrand ais merely a prophylactic rule and violation will not force witness testimony to be excluded
UNited State v PAtane
COUrt holds that physical evidence found as a result of a miranda violation are admissible because they are not testimonial, they do not implicate the right against self incrimination
What are the two features of a valid waiver
1. Voulntary
2. KNowing/intelligent
Does waiver have to be explicitly stated?
NO, it can be presumed from word and actions
NC v BUtler
COurt holds that man who refused to sign a form waiving rights, but talked to the cops anyway had waived his rights
Does a waiver of rights for Miranda apply to all interrogations?
Yes, waiver is for interrogation in general. It is not offense specifci
Co v Spring
COurt holds that a man who waives his rights for a burglary also waived his rights for questioning about murder
Do police have to tell a suspect that he has a lawyer?
MOran v Burbine
COurt holds that man who waived his rights without being told by the police that he had a lawyer did so competently. Events outside the knowledge of the D can not have any effect on the legitimacy of the waiver
Can cops get a valid waiver after they have already violated MIranda?
Yes, as long as there is no coercion
Oregon v Elstad
Court rejects the cats out of the bag theory and allows a second confession in even though the first admission was a violation
MIssouri v Seibert
Court does not allow a confession in, becuase the cops deliberately tried to get around Miranda by using the question first and mirandize second technique
What happens when a suspect invokes his rights under MIranda?
INterrogation must cease, but if it is the right to remain silent, the cops can come and question him about different crimes
Michigan v Moseley
Cops who did not know that the D invoked for one crime did not violate MIranda when they came to question about another crime. Cops scrupulously honored the requirement by waiting some time, re-reading Miranda, asking about a different crime, no coercion.
What happens if a person has invoked his right to counsel?
Then questioning about all cases must cease, the knowledge of the waiver is imputed to all law enforcement and the suspect can not be questioned without their attorney present
Edwards v Az
POlice can not come back and question a suspect once they have invoked their right to counsel, UNLESS, the suspect initiates the second set of questioning
What consittutes initiation
2. Initiation occurs when an inquiry from the suspect can fairly be said to represent a desire on the part of the accused to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation
Oregon v Bradshaw
the court will not interpret general inquiries as being request for a re-inititaiton of questioning. IN O V B the suspect asked "what is going to happen to me now?" and then started talkning to the cops. COurt called this initiation.
Minnick v Ms-
Court held that cops can not question a suspect without his attorney present once he has invoked, even if he has spoken with his attorney several times
Arizona v Robertson
COurt holds that invocation is imputed to all law enforecement personnel
What must the invocation be in order to be valid?
IT must be unambiguous
Davis v US
COurt holds that saying that maybe I should get a lwyer is not enough to count as an invocation
Ga rule on invocation
i. Suspect must articulate sufficiently clearly that a reasonable officer would interpret it to be a request for counsel
Lucas v State
Ga Sup Ct holds that the statement, my attorney told me not to say anything, was an invocation of counsel
When does the 6th amendment right to counsel attach?
i. Once the state has begun adversarial judicial proceedings against the D
1. Indictment, preliminary hearing, formal charge, arraingment
Is custody necessary to find a violation of the 6th amendment right?
no, just the beginning of formal adversarial preoceedings
Massiah v US
Court holds that using an informant against a person who has already been indicted and invoked his right to counsel violated the 6th amendment
Is knowledge of the 6th amendment invocation imputed to all law enforcement?
Michigan v Jackson
COurt holds that knowedge of man's invocation of a right to counsel at an arraignment is imputed to all law enforcement personneL (6th amendmnent)
When do police violate the 6th amendment?
When they deliberately elicit information from the D after invocation and the beginning of formal adversarial proceedings agains the D.
What constitutes deliberate elicitation?
interrogation, intentionally trying to get the defendant to talk, and in some situations, creating conditions for disclosure
Brewer v WIlliams
Court holds that police violated D's 6th amendment right with the Christian Burial Speech when he ahd already invoked and the police promised not to interrogate him
Maine v MOulton
POlice record conversations with the D in order to see if he is plotting to kill witnesses. Court holds that any information gained by about the initial case is not admissible
Us v Henry
State violated the 6th amendment when it planted a CI in the cell with the D in order to get information about the crime
Kuhlmann v Wilson
POlice did not violate the D's 6th amendment right when it planted a CI in the cell in order to find out the D's co-conspirators, and ended up getting a confession. Here there was not any action that went beyond listening to what the D had to say
Is the 6th amendment right automaitc?
NO, the D must request counsel
Patterson v Illinois
Court held that a D had competently waived his right to counsel, after he failed to invoke in court. In this instance, waiver of the 5th amendment rights waived the 6th amendment as well
Is invocation for purposes of the 6th amendment case specific?
Yes, police can question people about different crimes as long as they have not invoked in those cases
McNeil v Wi
Court holds that an invocation on a burglary charge did not = an invocation on an unrelated murder. 6th amendment right had not attached in this instance
What is the blockburger test?
a. Test is not tied to the incident, but to the elements of the crime
i. As long as all of the elements do not overlap, the police can still question you about the new charge
Texas v Cobb
Court rules that as long as the charges do not overlap enough to violate the Blockburger test, the police can question you about a different charge, even if it came out of the same transaction
Can a police conduct a lineup without the presence of an attorney?
ONly if the person's 6th amendment right has not attached and been invoked
Can an attorney challenge an in court identification based on an inappropriate lineup?
i. Must show that the in court identification is not the fruit of the tainted idnetification
1. Look to
a. Any discrepancies between the pre-lineup description and the line up
b. Any ID of another person
c. IF the ID was by picture
d. Lapse of time between the incident and the identificaiton
e. Any previous failure to ID the D
US v Wade
Court remands the case for a determination of whether or not the lineup that occurred out of the presence of counsel sufficiently tainted the in court identification
Gilbert v California
Court ruled that a state can never use any evidence from a lineup if the 6th amendment right has attached and the lawyer is not present
Can police put a person into a lineup before formal proceedings have begun against them?
Kirby v Illinois
Court holds that a lineup that occurred before formal charges does not require the presence of an attorney, but it can still be challenged from a due process standpoint if it was unduly suggestive.