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;
83 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
The Big Picture: Amendments
|
4th: Illegal Detention or Arrest
Illegal Search and Seizure Effect of Illegally Obtained Evidence 5th: Voluntary Statement Escobedo Violation Miranda Violation 6th: Illegal Lineup Rt. to Counsel Violation OTHER ISSUES |
|
|
Illegal Detention
|
Rule: Police may detail and question individual on reasonable belief that there is criminal activity afoot.
Determine: 1) Was D detained? 2) Did the officer have objective basis to believe that person was engaged in or about to engage in criminal activity? 3) Was the stop temporary and no longer than necessary? 4) If D was frisked, did the cop have reasonable belief that suspect was armed? |
|
|
Illegal Arrest
|
For an arrest to be legal, the cop must have probable cause to believe that suspect committed crime. Arrest occurs where D is subject to physical restraint. Warrant not required, except when police enter private premises to arrest suspect.
TEST: 1) was defendant under arrest? 2) At the moment of arrest, did police have probable cause to believe that D committed the crime? |
|
|
Illegal Search and Seizure
|
Test:
1) Does D have standing to assert 4th Am. violation? 2) Did the police activity constitute search or seizure? 3) Was a valid search warrant obtained? 4) Did the circumstances justify a warrantless search? 5) What scope of search was permissible and did the search exceed it? |
|
|
Does D have standing to assert 4th Am. violation?
|
1) D must have a substantial ownership interest in the property seized or the place searched, OR must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched.
|
|
|
Was the act a search or seizure?
|
1) must involve "state" activity--police or gov't agents. Does not apply to private persons acting privately.
2) Was there a search or seizure? NOT A SEARCH: -prison cells, open fields, items in plain view, pen registers, dog sniff, physical characteristics, bank records, conversations overheard by police, use of technological aids to see/hear items in public view. |
|
|
Validity of Search Warrant
|
1) W from a disinterested magistrate
2) Based in PC 3) Sufficiently precise as to the things sought and the location to be searched. 4) VALIDLY SERVED 5) Search not to exceed scope 6) Good faith exception. (Exclusionary rule does not bar admission of evidence obtained by an invalid search W if the W issued in good faith by neutral & detached magistrate and cop had objectively reasonable belief that the warrant was valid. |
|
|
5 Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
|
1) Consent: D consents to search (voluntary under totality of circs, consent from one with apparent authority)
2) Search incident to lawful arrest (arrest must be lawful--e.g. supported by PC, and limited to D's wingspan. 3) Auto Search: Cars and motor homes may be searched if PC to believe that the car contains contraband, or that the car IS contraband. Impounded cars subject to inventory search. 4) Plain View: Warrantless seizure of contraband items is justified if the cop is in a place she is entitled to be. 5) Exigent Circumstances: Search justified where police reasonably believe that delay would endanger police/public, allow destruction or removal of evanescent evidence or if police are in "hot-pursuit." 5) Exigent Circumstances. |
|
|
Illegal Electronic Surveillance
|
Federal Warrant Requirements:
PC that crime is being or is about to be committed, persons to be recorded named, conversations described with particularity, limited time period, terminates when desired information obtained. "False-friends doctrine: if either party to the conversation consents, then no warrant is required. |
|
|
Effect of Illegally Obtained Evidence
|
Evidence and its fruits are excluded unless Prosecutor can show:
1) independent source 2) inevitable discovery D makes a motion to suppress evidence outside the hearing of the jury; |
|
|
5th Amendment Statements:
|
Voluntariness, Miranda and Escobedo
|
|
|
Voluntary Statement
|
Statement must be a product of rational intellect and free-will.
Test: Totality of the circumstances (D's age, background, education, circumstances surrounding police interrogation.) Prosecution must prove by preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntary. An involuntary statement is inadmissible at trial--even for impeachment. |
|
|
Escobedo Violation
|
Confession is obtained while D is denied 6th Am right to counsel after formal charges. Confession in these circumstances must be excluded.
Placing an informant in D's cell is a violation of Escobedo ONLY IF informant deliberately elicits incriminating statements. |
|
|
Miranda Violation
|
1) Was D in custody (must be deprived of freedom in some significant way)
2) Was D "interrogated" (police words or actions that police knew or should have known would be reasonably likely to evince an incriminating response from D. 3) Was D given full and adequate Miranda warnings? 4) Did D knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waive his Miranda rights? (Burden is on prosecution to show that he did.) |
|
|
General Miranda Considerations
|
Statements offered in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment (as long as they were VOLUNTARY)
If D invokes right to counsel, further interrogation can happen only if D initiates. If D invokes his right to remain silent, police cannot continue or renew interrogation. Public safety exception allows use of un-Mirandized statements where interrogation was based on public safety concerns. |
|
|
Rules of Line-Ups
|
D is entitled to counsel at police line-ups (but not photo lineups) ONLY after she is formally charged. If counsel is not present, subsequent in-court identifications inadmissible unless prosecution can show that in-court ID was based on something other than line-ups and W cannot testify to ID of D at a tainted line-up.
Due process attack: ID procedure must not be so impermissibly suggestive that ig gives rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. In these acses, W's in-court ID is excluded unless prosecution can show an independent source for the W's identification,. |
|
|
When does RIght to Counsel Attach
|
Criminal: Upon actual detention of suspect, and in all felony cases.
Juvenile: When juvie's freedom is curtailed Probation Revocation: Case-by-case depending on complexity of allegations. NO RT TO COUNSEL: Grand jury proceedings, investigations proceedings, prison hearings, summary courts martial. |
|
|
Rt. to Counsel applies to these proceedings:
|
1) Custodial interrogation before and after formal charging
2) Arraignment where a plea is required 3) Post indictment line-up 4) Preliminary hearings 5) Trial 6) Sentencing and probation proceedings 7) Where appeal is of-right. 8) Psych exam after formal charges. 9) Occasionally at collateral hearings (although prisoner has a right to law library and a free trial transcript. |
|
|
Rt. to EFFECTIVE Assistance of Counsel
|
Failure of counsel to provide competent assistance is a denial of D's 6th Am. rights.
TEST: 1) Did performance of counsel fall measurably below the performance expected ordinarily of lawyers? 2) Did the lawyer's performance affect the outcome of the trial? |
|
|
D's Waiver of Right to Counsel
|
Any waiver of right to counsel must be KNOWINGLY and INTELLIGENTLY. Heavy burden then on the state to show that the right was waived.
D has the right to conduct his own defense, but the right to standby counsel is discretionary. |
|
|
Right to Counsel Impaired by Conflict of Interest?
|
Accused is denied effective assistance of counsel if his attorney has a conflict of interest--often occurs when atty is appointed to represent a co-D, or has a former client with a conflicting interest
|
|
|
8th Amendment Right to Pretrial Release
|
Excessive bail shall not be required.
TEST: Nature and circumstances of D's offense Weight of evidence D's character D's financial ability to make bail Whether D will appear In non-capital case, consideration of bail is required. In capital case bail is discretionary. |
|
|
Right to a Speedy Trial
|
6th Am: Provides that once D is formally charged or arrested, he must be given a speedy trial.
BALANCING TEST: Length of delay; reason for delay; whether D demanded early trial or caused delay, whether delay was prejudicial to fair trial |
|
|
Right to Discovery
|
Due process requires prosecutor to disclose evidence favorable to the accused after a specific request where such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Prosecutor must disclose regardless of request, any evidence that creates reasonable doubt to D's guilt. Prosecutor may request pre-trial notice of alibi, statements of D and a witness list if D has the same reciprocal rights.
|
|
|
Right to Indictment
|
5th Am provides for right to grand jury indictment in federal cases. Grand jury: NO right to counsel, to present evidence, to cross-examine or confront witnesses, no Miranda protection and the exclusionary rule does not apply. Grand jury may consider ANY evidence, although a witness CAN assert the 5th Am right against self-incrimination.
|
|
|
Right to Public Trial
|
6th Am: Public trial. Public/press may be excluded if no other reasonable alternatives exist to protect D's right to a fair trial.
|
|
|
Right to Jury Trial
|
6th Am: Right to impartial jury in all trials where imprisonment of 6 mo. or more is possible, where the offense is serious OR where the actual sentence exceeds 6 mo.
12 person jury is not constitutionally required, but a jury of 6 is minimum. Unanimous verdict required in fed. trials, but not in state with a 12 person jury. 6 person jury IS required to return unanimous verdict. Jury must decide all facts, except fact of D's prior conviction used by a judge to enhance D's sentence. |
|
|
Right to Confrontation
|
6th Am requires that accused shall be confronted with W's against him in all criminal and accusatory proceedings, to use compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his defense, and present a defense.
Statement of non-testifying co-D must be excluded, unless it can be sanitized to exclude references which incriminate D. D is entitled to face-to-face confrontation with accusers and to see the demeanor of witnesses. Testimonial hearsay is not admissible UNLESS declarant is unavailable and D had oppt'y to cross-X when statement was made. |
|
|
Right to be Free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
|
Applies only to those already convicted.
Test: Does the punishment fit the crime? Grossly disproportionate to severity of crime? Purposeless imposition? Is the punishment BARBARIC regardless of the crime? Death penalty is allowable if it is imposed under a statute that gives the factfinder discretion to impose and requires full consideration of mitigating circumstances, including D's background. |
|
|
Sentencing Rules
|
D is entitled to counsel, but not to an adversarial proceeding and has no right to cross-X. Judge MAY rely on hearsay.
In a death penalty case, D has a greater right to confront evidence presented against him. |
|
|
Guilty Plea
|
1) Does record affirmatively show that D was aware of charge and all elements?
2) Plea voluntary (D waived Q rights, aware of nature and consequences of the plea) 3) Involuntary plea can be withdrawn a any time, while a voluntary withdrawal of plea is permissible only before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended. |
|
|
Parole Revocation Hearing
|
Mini-prompt-hearing required.
Discovery, notice, opportunity to present evidence are all requirements (although evidence rules do not have to apply). Qualified right to counsel adn the trier of fact must make findings of fact. |
|
|
Double Jeopardy
|
State and fed. gov't are separate sovereigns--if the same act is both a fed and a state crime, EACH may punish separately.
|
|
|
What is Double Jeopardy?
|
Being acquitted by judge or jury on same offense or successful appeal, where D's conviction was reversed for insufficient evidence.
SAME OFFENSE: If the two offenses are the same in both law and fact (where the same act constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory crimes, test as to whether there are one or two offenses, E.g. whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact. Attaches when the jury is sworn, in non-jury trials when the first witness is sworn. Collateral Estoppel: If ultimate fact is already determined by final judgment, then it cannot be relitigated by the same parties in any FUTURE lawsuit. |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure: Exclusionary Rule |
Court created doctrine to suppress evidence that was obtained in violation of D's rights under Amendments 4, 5, or 6, applicable to the states through the 14th Am.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure: Standing |
Person must have standing to assert the Q claim which generally requires the person seeking exclusion to have had a personal right violated, and not be seeking exclusion vicariously through another's violated right, and to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing searched or in the item seized.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure: 4th Amendment |
Protects people from unreasonable search and seizure by government actors (not private persons, unless acting as agents of the gov't)
Search requires a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy based on the totality of the circumstances. A seizure requires a meaningful interference with or deprivation of a person's possessory interest. 4th Am requires that searches be conducted pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, unless a recognized exception exists. |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy |
To have a 4th Am right, a person must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place to be searched or the thing to be seized based on the totality of the circumstances.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure: Elements of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy |
1) Person owns or has a right of possession in the place or thing served.
2) The place searched was in fact his home, or 3) He was an overnight guest of the owner of the place searched |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure: No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy |
No reasonable expectation of privacy in objects held out to the public.
Interstate travelers on common carriers; Reasonable to be subjected to metal detector or "bomb sniffer" Checked luggage: No reasonable expectation of privacy as to emanating odors. (Plain "Sniff") |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Proper Warrant |
Warrant based on probable cause, valid on its face and issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
Warrant must be reasonably precise as to the place searched and the things to be seized. |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Good Faith Reliance on Improper Warrant |
Even if warrant was defective, D must still overcome state's good-faith reliance on the warrant.
--> Affidavit so lacking in PC that it could not reasonably be relied upon --> W defective on it's face. --> Magistrate wholly abandoned his neutral, judicial role. --> Officer lied or misled the magistrate |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Good Faith Reliance and Exclusionary Rule |
Exclusionary rule does not apply when police acted in good faith based on case law, a facially valid statute or ordinance (that later turns up un-Q) or a computer report containing clerical errors not made by police.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Proper Warrant: False Affidavit |
Based on informer's tip, must meet totality of circumstances test:
Reliability, Credibility Identity of informant and basis of his knowledge. To discredit the warrant by invalidating the affidavit, D must establish that officer: 1) intentionally or recklessly included 2) a false statement in the affidavit 3) that was material to the finding of PC. |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Warrant Exceptions: Search incident to lawful arrest |
Following valid arrest, police may search the area within the suspects "wingspan." This would include the passenger compartment of autos, but NOT the trunk. Search must be contemporaneous with arrest.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Warrant Exceptions: Vehicle Search |
If police have PC to believe that an auto contains contraband, or evidence of a crime, they may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. If the police only have PC to search a container placed in a vehicle, the scope of the permissible search is limited to the container.
Search must be contemporaneous with arrest of person or stop of auto. |
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Warrant Exceptions: Plain View |
If police are legitimately on the premises, they may seize evidence in plain view if they have PC to believe the item is contraband, fruit or instrumentality of a crime.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Warrant Exceptions: Consent |
Police may search with an intelligent and voluntary consent. Any person with apparent authority can consent to a search of premises, and any evidence found can be used against the owner. Police are not required to warn a person of their right to withhold consent in order for the consent to be valid.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Warrant Exceptions: Stop and Frisk |
Terry: Police may stop person on reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime (lower standard than PC for arrest) "Reasonable police officer under the circumstances" standard. Articulable means that the officer must be able to offer something more than "gut" that something was "wrong" If police have reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed and dangerous, they may do a weapons frisk--a pat-down. The detention must be no longer than necessary, and limited to a search outside the clothes for weapons. If at any time during the stop PC arises, the detention turns into an arrest.
|
|
|
AZ
Search and Seizure Warrant Exceptions: Exigent Circumstances |
An otherwise illegal warrantless search is saved if emergent circumstances make it impracticable or unreasonable for an officer to obtain a warrant--e.g. teh evidence would be lost, destroyed or otherwise removed. Emergency that justifies the warrantless search defines the permissible scope of the search and there must still be PC. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, and must be justified by one of the exceptions.
|
|
|
AZ
Seizure Defined: |
Gov't seizures of the person, including arrests, are seizures within the scope of the 4th Am, and so must be reasonable.
A seizure occurs when a reasonble person would believe that she is not free to leave or terminate an encounter with the government. |
|
|
AZ:
Arrest: Defined |
Arrest occurs when police take a person into custody against her will for prosecution or interrogation, or when there has been deprivation of a person's freedom of action of the degree associated with formal arrest.
|
|
|
AZ:
Arrest: Requirements for validity |
Warrant; OR
Warrantless: 1) Probable cause: Police possess sufficient facts in light of the circumstances that justify a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and the person to be arrested committed it. The information must be reasonably trustworthy. |
|
|
AZ: Factors to Consider in Determining
Voluntariness of Statements |
1) time elapsing between arrest and arraignment (if statement was made before arraignment)
2) Whether D knew of the offense of which he was suspected or charged 3) Whether D knew or was advised that he was not required to make any statement and that any statement he made could be used against him. 4) Whether D had been advised prior to questioning that he had a right to have counsel present to assist. 5) Whether D was without assistance of counsel when he was questioned and confessed. |
|
|
AZ: Admissibility of Eyewitness testimony
|
"Testimony of witness that he saw the accused commit or participate in the commission of a crime for which the accused is being tried shall be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution. This appears to overrule the Wade Gilbert rule excluding such testimony under some circumstances when there has been a denial of the right to counsel, and the rule requiring exclusion as a matter of due process when pretrial identification measures have been extremely suggestive.
|
|
|
AZ: Good Faith Exclusionary Rule Exception: AZ Statute Questionable Constitutionality
|
AZ has created a broad good faith exception to the Fed Q rules requiring exclusion. Statute may exceed good faith exceptions that SCOTUS is willing to read into the fed. Q provisions.
|
|
|
AZ: Good Faith Exclusionary Rule
Generally |
Evidence improperly obtained by a peace officer is nevertheless admissible if the court determines that it was obtained as result of a good-faith mistake or a technical violation.
|
|
|
AZ: Good Faith Exclusionary Rule
Wiretapping: |
Exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to wiretapping or eavesdropping.
|
|
|
AZ: Good Faith Exclusionary Rule
Definitions: Good Faith Mistake / Technical Violation |
Good faith mistake: "A reasonable judgmental error concerning the existence of facts which if true would be sufficient to constitute PC.
Technical Violation: Exists when an officer in good faith relies upon any of the following: 1) Statute later held unconstitutional 2) Warrant later invalidated due to good faith mistake 3) Controlling court precedent which is later overruled, unless the court overruling it orders the new precedent applied retroactively |
|
|
AZ:
Searches Made Pursuant to Warrants: Oral Issuance of Search Warrants |
If the officer applying for the warrant is not within the physical presence of a magistrate, the magistrate may orally authorize the peace officer to sign the magistrate's name on the warrant. The sworn statement on which the warrant must be based may be taken orally but must be recorded on tape, wire or some other comparable method; it may be taken on phone, radio or any other means of communication including facsimile.
|
|
|
AZ:
Requirement of Prior Announcement Before Breaking to Serve Warrant Generally: |
Before breaking to enter a building, premises or vehicle or any part of these, officer must give notice of hsi authority and purpose.
|
|
|
AZ:
Requirement of Prior Announcement Before Breaking to Serve Warrant Exclusionary Rule: |
Noncompliance with this requirement will invalidate the search and require exclusion of the information obtained.
|
|
|
AZ:
Requirement of Prior Announcement Before Breaking to Serve Warrant: Exceptions |
1) If after giving proper notice, officer receives no response or is denied entry, she may break to enter.
2) If the officer has a reasonable belief that the persons inside the structure are in imminent peril of bodily harm, she may make immediate entry without notice. 3) It is likely that an exception would be recognized for situations in which the officers have a reasonable belief that advance notice would result in the destruction of evanescent evidence or resistance by the occupants (typically in drug cases) |
|
|
AZ:
Search Warrants Seizure of items not described |
An officer executing a warrant may seize anything she comes across which she has reasonable cause to believe is subject to seizure.
|
|
|
AZ:
Search Warrants Search of Persons |
An officer serving a search warrant for premises or a vehicle can search any persons therein if:
1) It reasonably appears necessary to protect herself or others from use of weapons on the subject; or 2) It reasonably appears that the property or items subject to seizure by the warrant may be concealed on the person. |
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Generally: |
Violations of federal law unless conducted pursuant to authorization closely resembling federal statute.
AZ has enacted a statute prohibiting some of this activity but authorizing some as well. |
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Scope of Statute |
Protects "conversations and discussions" "wire or electronic communications" and jury deliberations. It protects the contents of these from being intentionally intercepted by one NOT A PARTY to the communication or by one not present at the conversation or discussion without consent of either sender or receiver. A recording of a phone call can be used as evidence if it was made by one of the parties to the call. A conversation on a wireless phone does not fall within the scope of the statute.
It is also prohibited to obtain any knowledge of the contents of wire or electronic communications by connivance with an employee or officer of a communications service provider. |
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Basic Prohibition: |
Violation of the right to be free from wiretapping/eavesdropping is a criminal offense unless it was done with a court order, or is within one of the exceptions. It is also a violation to aid or encourage another to engage in one of the prohibited actions.
|
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Court Order Authorizing Wiretapping or Eavesdropping |
Judge may issue ex parte court order if she finds on the basis of evidence submitted that:
1) There is PC to believe that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit: murder, gaming, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, theft, dealing in narcotic drugs, marijuana or dangerous drugs, or any felony dangerous to life, limb or property; or any conspiracy to commit any of these offenses. 2) There is PC to believe that particular communication concerning that offense will be obtained through the process. 3) Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or would be too dangerous. 4) There is PC to believe that wire or electronic communications concerning the offense are being made or about to be made, or oral communications concerning the offense are being made or are about to be made by the person in different and changing locations. |
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Requirements of Court Order Authorizing Wiretapping or Eavesdropping |
1) Identity of person whose communications are to be intercepted, if known.
2) The nature and location of the communication facilities to be intercepted or the location of the communication to be intercepted. 3) A "particular description of the type of communications sought" and a statement of the "particular offense" to which it relates. 4) The identity of the agency authorized to do the intercepting and of the person who authorized the application for interception; 5) The period of time during which the interception is authorized, including whether or not it must automatically stop when the described communication is first obtained; and 6) That the authorization be executed as soon as possible, that it be conducted in such a way as to minimize interception fo communications not subject to interception, and that it terminate upon attainment of its authorized objective or on the date specified whichever comes first. |
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Court Order: Time Limits |
The order must authorize interception for only so long as necessary to achieve the objective, but never longer than 30 days. Extension may be granted, but application and issuance of them must be as if they were new applications and orders.
|
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Requirement of Recording |
If possible, the intercepted communication must be recorded. This recording is to be made available to the court and sealed under the judge's direction.
|
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Notice to Persons Whose Communications are Intercepted or Sought by Application |
Generally: within 90 days of the expiration of a court order (or extension of it) or the denial of an application for such order, the person named in the order or application and such other parties to intercepted communications as the court may require must be served with the following:
1) fact of the entry of court order or application 2) Date of entry and period of authorized interception 3) Information on whether or not communications were actually intercepted. Postponement of Notice: Service of this notice may be postponed by the court on a showing of good cause. |
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Access to Intercepted Communications |
On motion, the judge may make available to persons served with the above notice such portions of the intercepted communications, applications or orders as she determines to be in the interest of justice.
|
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Reliance on a Court Order as a Defense |
Good faith reliance on a court order issued under the statute is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action.
|
|
|
AZ:
Wiretapping and Eavesdropping Exceptions: |
The basic prohibition on interceptions except as authorized by court order does not apply to persons who are performing normal operator, repair or service functions. Also, the prohibition does not apply if it would prevent normal service, or if a party to the communication has consented to the interception. It does not apply to ost radio communications or interceptions necessary to identify the source of interference on lawfully operating stations or consumer electronic equipment. Neither does it apply to interception of oral communications from child monitoring devices (baby monitors). Finally, there is an exception for divulging lawfully or inadvertently obtained communications to a law enforcement agency when the communications appear to pertain to a crime.
|
|
|
AZ:
Pretrial Procedures Speedy Trial |
A D must be tried within 150 days of his arrest or the service of summons upon him. This limit may be extended by filing a motion for continuance whcih may be granted only on extraordinary circumstances and a showing that a delay would be indispensible in the interests of justice.
|
|
|
AZ:
Pretrial Procedures Appearance |
Appearance of the D or counsel may be made by use of AV devices as long as all parties are able to view and converse with one another simultaneously.
|
|
|
AZ:
Compelled Appearance by Suspect to Supply Information Concerning Physical Characteristics: Purposes for Which Order May Issue |
A magistrate on a proper showing may issue an order directing a person to appear at a specified place and time so that law enforcement officers may obtain information regarding his physical characteristics, including but not limited to: blood, urine, saliva, hair, comparative personal appearance, fingerprints, palm-prints, handwriting, handprints, voice, footprints, measurements, photographs, etc.
|
|
|
AZ:
Compelled Appearance by Suspect to Supply Information Concerning Physical Characteristics: Required Showing |
1) Reasonable cause (which is something less than PC) for belief that a specifically described criminal offense punishable by at least a year's imprisonment has been committed.
2) Procuring the evidence of the identifying physical characteristics sought may contribute to the identification of the person who committed the offense; and 3) The evidence sought cannot be otherwise obtained from teh law enforcement agency involved or the identification division of the department of public safety. |
|
|
AZ:
Compelled Appearance by Suspect to Supply Information Concerning Physical Characteristics: Time Limits |
Ct order must specify how long the detention may last, not to exceed three hours.
|
|
|
AZ: Double Jeopardy
|
In AZ, if a single act or omission constitutes two different crimes under two different statutes, D can be convicted of both or all crimes he committed in the same act or omission, but sentences must run concurrently. Of course if one offense is a lesser included offense of another, double jeopardy may bar multiple trials and convictions.
|
|
|
AZ: Bail
|
Under the 8th Amendment, and under AZ's own Q, a criminal defendant has a right to reasonable bail. Under the AZ Rule of Criminal Procedure, a person charge with an offense bailable as of right, is entitled to be ROR'ed unless the court determines that there is not a reasonable assurance he will appear for his trial. Under AZ Crim. Rule 7.3(b) Court can impose any condition of release, including high bail, that it determines is necessary to assure the D will show up.
|
