Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
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
|
|
|
Curtilage
|
- 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 |
|
|
US v DUNN
|
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
|
a. WOULD THE FACTS AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT OF THE ENTRY WARRANT A MAN OF REASONABLE CAUTION IN THE BELIEF THAT THE CONSENTING PARTY HAD AUTHORITY OVER THE PREMISES
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ILLINOIS V WARDLAW
|
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
|
|
|
Attenuation
|
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?
|
YEs
|
|
|
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?
|
no
|
|
|
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?
|
YEs
|
|
|
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?
|
YEs.
|
|
|
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.
|
