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;
128 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
The Fourth Amendment: |
Protects against searches and seizures. Q's to ask: Does the 4th Amendment apply? Have the requirements been complied with? If the 4th Amendment has been violated, what is the remedy? |
|
|
Duncan v. Louisiana: black teen found guilty of assaulting a white teen; was sentenced without a jury trial. Was the State obligated to provide a jury trial? |
Yes- 14th Amendment insures criminal cases will be tried with a jury. |
|
|
Katz v. US: FBI taped Katz’s conversation, which took place in a phone booth; convicted him oftransmitting gambling information. Was the recording an illegal search; violation of the 4th Amendment? |
Yes, Illegal Search; there was an expectation of privacy. Created Katz Test. |
|
|
Katz Test- subjective prong: |
Whether the person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy- Are the police doing more than a regular citizen? Has suspect assumed the risk of a privacy violation? |
|
|
Katz Test- objective prong: |
Whether society has an expectation of privacy in those circumstances. |
|
|
Smith v. Maryland: Police put a pen register on Smith’s phone without having a warrant to do so after he was accused of stalking woman. Was the pen register an illegal search? |
No, not an illegal search. Apply Katz Test: People don’t actually expect the numbers they dial to be private. Everyone knows the phone company knows who you call. 3rd Party Doctrine: Sharing information with one party is equivalent to making that information public. The numbers dialed, not the content of the conversation was searched. |
|
|
Oliver case: no expectation of privacy to... |
Persons open field property. |
|
|
Kyllo v. U.S: Police use thermal energy detector to measure amount of heat emitting from Kyllo’s home use that information to obtain a warrant to search her home. Was the thermo energy detector a search? |
Yes, illegal search; impeded the structure of the home. Limiting technology reach. Is the technology available to the general public? (here, no). Dissent: Holding is too narrow, and too broad- Narrow: Only concerns the home. Broad: it prevents any technology that enhances senses. |
|
|
US v. Jones: FBI put tracking device on Jones’ car to track his movements for a month and convict him. Was the GPS tracking a violation of the 4th Amendment? |
Yes, GPS tracking is a violation. Mosaic Theory: Watching someone for an extended period of time allows you to see asubstantial part of their life and privacy. |
|
|
US v. Karo: DEA placed beeper on a can of ether that was sold to Karo. Is the placement of the beeper on the cans a violation of the 4th amendment? |
No, the placement of the unwanted object did not interfere with Karo’s interest in possession of the cans. |
|
|
FL v. Jardines: Police dog sniff a man’s home from the front porch after receiving a tip week was being grown there. Was the dog sniff on a porch a violation? |
Yes, the dog sniff was a violation. Scope of invitation: the front porch is an area of a home, police officer’s violated the scope of invitation of the porch with the dog sniff. Katz Test: the curtilage of a home enjoys same protection as the inside of the home. Officers physically entered and occupied the area to engage in conduct not permitted by the homeowner. |
|
|
TEST FOR WHETHER A SEARCH HAS OCCURRED: |
1. Katz 2 prong Test: objective or Subjective Testfor privacy 2. Jones: When govt action is a trespass ofproperty, there may be a search regardless of Katz Test. |
|
|
US v. Place: police take luggage off carrousel and held 90 min to wait for dogs to sniff. Seizure? |
Yes- Holding luggage for excessive amount of time constitutes a seizure. |
|
|
Spinelli v. US: Police suspected Spinelli was gambling across state lines because of his constant travel, later police said someone informed them that Spinelli was gambling across state lines. Were the police issued a warrant based on proper probable cause? |
No, there was not probable cause. Aguliar two prong test for informants: Veracity/ Truthfulness Basis of Knowledge |
|
|
Illinois v. Gates: Police get anonymous tip about drug dealer, police corroborate informants tip and get warrant and find drugs as informant said. Was the court right to issue a warrant? |
Yes- warrant issuance was proper. Totality of circumstances test: replaces Spinelli two prong test. Probable Cause- fair probability not substantial probability. Deference to magistrate. |
|
|
Anticipatory Warrants: |
Probable cause for a future crime. |
|
|
Arrest warrant requirements: |
1) Probable Cause to think P committed a crime; 2) Reasonable Belief P is in the place on the warrant to be arrested. |
|
|
Payton v. NY: Police suspected P of murder, entered P's home without a warrant and found evidence that he committed the crime. Is this entry without a warrant a violation ofthe 4th Amendment? |
Yes, this is a violation. Must have a warrant to search a home (absent certain circumstances). Need to have a neutral magistrate. |
|
|
WATSON RULE: |
If arrested midday in public no warrant needed; can see crime being committed. |
|
|
Search warrant requirements: |
1. Probable Cause to believe search will uncover evidence relating to the crime. 2. Reasonable Belief to believe evidence isin the place stated on the search warrant. |
|
|
Lo-Ji Sales v. NY: Officer purchase obscene porn and suspects the store has more. Get warrant from magistrate but also bring magistrate to thestore to look for more; at the store officers and magistrate go through tons of porn. Was the issuance/carrying out of this warrant a violation? |
Yes, this is a violation. Warrant has to be issued by a neutral party; w/ judge being brought to the scene he is no longer a neutral party. |
|
|
Richards v. Wisconsin: With warrant police bust open motel room door and find cocaine; plaintiffs moves to suppress evidence because police did not knock and announce. Did the police violate the 4th amendment when they did not knock and announce? |
No violation. Police had reasonable suspicion. Knocking would inhibit an effective investigation– 15-20 seconds wait till open door. DISSENT: Not every drug investigation poses a substantial risk. Should be up to a neutral magistrate to determine the reasonableness of no knock entry. |
|
|
Exigent circumstances cited in Richards to overcome "knock and announce": |
-Threat of violence -Demand and refusal -Prisoner on the loose -Evidence would likely be destroyed -Flexible reasonableness requirement with countervailing law enforcement interest |
|
|
Kentucky v. King: Police buy cocaine from dealer and chase him, lose him, and enter wrong apartment where they find weed and cocaine. Were there exigent circumstances present here? |
Yes, exigent circumstances existed warrant wasnot needed; Police had probable cause to believe suspect was in the vicinity of the two apartments. Exigent Circumstances Test: (1) Circumstances were not created in bad faith. (2) No exigency if it was reasonable foreseeable police tactics would create an exigent circumstance. (3) It is foreseeable that tactics would create an exigent circumstance. -Exigent Circumstances: Emergency aid, hot pursuit – in the moment of a crime, Preventing destruction of evidence. |
|
|
Chimel v. CA: Police came to Chimel’s home with arrest warrant for a burglary, police asked to look around his house, Chimel refused, police arrested him and did so anyway. Was the search was a violation? |
Yes, the search was a violation. Search Incident to Arrest: police can search what’s in a person’s immediate control when arrested; Searching the entire home was not in Chimel’s immediate control. |
|
|
US v. Robinson: Officer searched the suspect and felt an object under the suspect’s coat. The officer proceeded to remove a closed cigarette pack from the suspect’s coat which contained heroin. May a police officer conduct a thorough search of a person beyond frisking for weapons when the arrestee has committed only traffic offense? |
Yes. A search of an arrestee’s person beyond frisking for weapons is reasonable under the 4th amendment, even where there is no reason to believe the arrestee committed any crime other than the traffic violation. |
|
|
Riley v. CA: Riley was arrested for driving with expired tags, car was impounded and inventoriedwhere they found guns; when arrested police found his cell phone and went through it. Was going through Riley’s cell phone a violation? |
Yes, Search was a violation. Search upon arrest is to protect the officers safety and preserve evidence; phone did not pose a threat or was not at risk for evidence to be deleted. Phone open police up to personal information. |
|
|
NY v. Belton: Man pulled over for traffic stop, cop smells weed and sees package, places man under arrest, searches car, and finds cocaine in jacket pocket. Was the search of the car valid? |
Yes, search and seizure of the cocaine in the pocket was valid. Passenger seat of car is in the area of control of an arrestee in a car. |
|
|
Arizona v. Gant: Officers wait at Gant’s home to arrest him, when he arrives they arrest him and place him in the back of their car. Then search his car. Did the police violate the 4th Amendment with this search? |
Yes, this search was a violation. Search of car incident to arrest can only take place if: -Driver is in the proximity of the car and can gain access to the car. -There is a reason to believe evidence related to the crime is in the car. |
|
|
Whren v. U.S: Menare pulled over for a traffic stop, police saw Whren with drugs and arrested them. Whether search for drugs after traffic stop is valid? |
Yes, no violation was made. |
|
|
Chambers v. Maroney: Police take car to station and search the car at station after arresting occupants. Is the car being taken to the station and searched instead of being searched on site a violation? |
Yes, was a violation. Search not incident to arrest because search was not contemporaneous to the actual arrest. |
|
|
US v. Chadwick: Police confiscate footlocker that is leaking talcum powder, arrest owners and take trunk to federal building and search it. Whether searching the trunk without a warrant was a violation? |
Yes, violation exists. The trunk has a higher expectation of privacy, a warrant should have been procured. |
|
|
California v. Acevedo: Police see man put brown bag in his trunk, they stop him and search is trunk. Is this a violation? |
No, this is not a violation. Police can look anywhere they have probable cause to think there will be contraband. |
|
|
Plain View Doctrine: |
Cop can seize contraband when in a place that he has the right to be; warrant, public place, or consent. |
|
|
Horton v. California: Cop has warrant to search home for stolen rings, searches home and findsand seized guns, guns were not included in the warrant. Violation? |
No violation. Inadvertence Doctrine: officers are permitted to seize an item not in the warrant aslong as they don’t go beyond the scope of what they were originally looking for. |
|
|
Arizona v. Hicks: Police search an apartment for man who fired a gun and call in serial number of an outof place turntable. Was calling in serial number of the turntable aviolation? |
Yes, was a violation. Need probable cause to search, officer only has reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
Schnckloth v.Bustamonte: passenger consented to search of a car, cops found stolen checks. Was there actual consent to the search? |
Yes there was consent. Would a reasonable cop believe the subject knewhe could reject the search? -Officers language -Time of day -Where officer is standing -Whether weapons are drawn -Tone |
|
|
Terry v. Ohio: Officer believes men are casing a store. Officer stops them and frisks them andconfiscates weapons. Is this a violation? |
No, not a violation. Reasonable for officers to stop and frisk whenthey believe weapons are present for their own safety. Cop must have articulate facts as to why they believed suspect had a gun. |
|
|
Police/Citizen encounters- CONSENSUAL: |
Cannot be coercion. |
|
|
Minnesota v. Dickerson: Police frisk man for weapons and find drugs. Violation of 4th? |
No, not a violation. May confiscate any contraband found when conducting a lawful Terry Frisk. |
|
|
TERRY STOP: |
Requires reasonable suspicion that crime is occurring; occurs until suspicion is dispelled. |
|
|
Terry Frisk: |
Requires reasonable suspicion; only a pat down of outer clothing. |
|
|
ARREST requires: |
Probable cause. |
|
|
SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST: |
Occurs automatically with custodial arrest. |
|
|
US v. Mendenhall: DEA agent stops women at the airport asks for her ticket and ID, sees there’s a different name, asks woman to come back for a search she agrees to and finds narcotics. Did the woman consent to this search, or was this a violation? |
No, not a violation woman consented- view all circumstances to determine if a reasonable person would have believed he was free to leave. |
|
|
US v. Drayton: Police board bus and question to search everyone, find drugs on on man and arrest him. Man sitting next to him was then searched and also had drugs and was arrested. Was the search voluntary or involuntary? |
Search was voluntary. View all circumstances to determine if a reasonable person would have believed he was free to leave: Presence of gun was apart of the uniform. Officers never demanded they search people. Officers do not have to inform that people don’t have to consent. |
|
|
Illinois v. Wardlow: Man saw police and ran, police catch him and find a weapon on him. Violation? |
No violation, running from the police creates a inference giving the officer reasonable suspicion. |
|
|
Special needs searches- Vernonia School District v. Wayne Action: school districts make all student athlete take drug tests after experiencing influx of injuries due to drug use. Is a warrant needed? |
No violation, no warrant is needed. Special need; retrieving a warrant would interfere with the swift and informal disciplinary procedure that is needed; better to test all without suspicion. Student athletes have lower privacy interests. Athletes are leaders in the school. |
|
|
Pottawatomie Counts v. Earls: School requires students to take a drug test to participate in extracurricular activities. 4th amendment violation? |
No violation. |
|
|
Mapp v. Ohio: Police went looking for a fugitive in a home and found obscene materials instead. Is the evidence admissible? |
No, evidence is inadmissible- exclusionary rule. |
|
|
Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: |
-Good faith -Fruit of the poisonous tree -Independent -Inevitable disclosure |
|
|
Rakas v. Illinois: police saw a car they were radioed about and stopped it. They ordered everyone out and searched the car and found weapons. Passengers seek to have weapons found suppressed. Can standing be established in the absence of ownership? |
No- no standing in the absence of ownership. DISSENT: open season on cars. |
|
|
Minnesota v. Carter: Police walks by and sees coke in apartment, gets warrant. D says looking in the window was an illegal search and coke should be inadmissible, but D did not live inthat apartment. Do household visitors have the same protections as owners against unreasonable searches and seizures? |
No, temporary guests do not have the same protections as owners. Held the visit was brief and commercial innature. |
|
|
Murray v. U.S: officers see suspicious activity and enter warehouse to see what is happening. See drugs then go get a warrant without telling the magistrate about their warrantless entry. D moves to have evidence suppressed. Should it be? |
No violation. Legal basis existed for the second search with the warrant- independent source. |
|
|
INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: |
Future prediction that evidence will be found. |
|
|
Wong Sun v. US: police illegally enter 1 when under surveillance, police found heroin 1 said he got from 2, police went there and found drugs three days later 2 said he got from 3. What gets suppressed? |
Excluded narcotics from 1 and 2 but not 3. Because time had passed from when 2 told on 3 it was considered to be independent- no fruit of the poisonous tree argument. |
|
|
GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION US v. Leon: Police surveyed Leon based on false anonymous informants tip; applied and received warrant. Judge later concluded affidavit for search warrant insufficient. Should evidence found based on a faulty warrant be excluded? |
No, evidence should not be excluded. Cop made an effort to do the right thing and get a warrant; cop believed he was doing the right thing. |
|
|
Hectorv. State: Slave confessed after being tortured when suspected of stealing money. Admitted? |
Refused to admit the confession. Unreliable, not freely given. |
|
|
Brown v. Mississippi: D is tortured after being indicted for murderand confessed. Admitted? |
Refused to admit the confession- violates the 14th Amendment due process clause. |
|
|
Spano v. NY: D accused of killing, told friend who’s a police officer what happened, friend told his supervisor. Police told officer friend to tell Spano that he (the officer friend) would get in trouble if he didn’t confess, so D confessed. Admitted? |
Confession is inadmissible, D was coerced in confessing. Lying may be used as a police tactic but cannot: 1) show a fake document or 2) promise something they do not plan on delivering. Confession must be of the D’s on volition. |
|
|
5th Amendment: |
Protects against self incrimination. |
|
|
Miranda Analysis: 1.Does Miranda Apply? |
a.) Is suspect in custody? b.) Is suspect being interrogate? |
|
|
Miranda Analysis: 3. Has Miranda been complied with? |
a.) Were warning given i.) Were they waived or asserted? |
|
|
Miranda Analysis: 5. Remedies for violation? |
a.) Exclusion i. Fruits analysis ii. Public Safety Exclusion |
|
|
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION: |
Was the suspected questioned in a police controlled atmosphere? Is the plaintiff free to leave? Would a reasonable person in a similar situation believe they were free to leave? |
|
|
Berkemer v. McCarty: Man pulled over after being suspected of drunk driving. Man is taken to the station and given a blood test where no alcohol is found, Man confesses to drinking and doing drugs but is never read his rights. Does roadside questioning constitute an interrogation? |
No, roadside questioning is not an interrogation. No violation. Unreasonable delay in requiring Miranda. Not in custody settings (not alone, other cars passing by). |
|
|
Rhode Island v. Innis: Police find suspect and arrest him, while on their way to station they make comments about area and a kid finding the gun, suspect tells where the gun is. Interrogation? |
No interrogation. OBJECTIVE TEST: 1) forseeability statement will elicit a confession 2) statement are reasonable and likely to elicit aconfession |
|
|
Illinois v. Perkins: Suspect confess to jailhouse snitch in jail. Interrogation? |
Not in custody/no interrogation. No police dominated situation. Miranda does not apply to undercover policing. |
|
|
North Carolina v. Butler: Butler was read his rights, refused to sign waiver but confessed. Admissible? |
Yes- a specific oral waiver is not needed; must be a knowing and intelligent waiver. |
|
|
Michigan v. Mosley: Suspect invokes right to silence and cop leaves. Another cop comes in, Mirandizes him and questions him about a different crime. 5th amendment violation? |
No 5th amendment violation- 1. Different Crime 2. Passage of time 3. Fresh set of Miranda warnings |
|
|
Edwards v. Arizona: Man charged with first degree murder and read rights, says he wants a lawyer. Next morning officers come back and tell him he has to talk, provide Edwards with tape of person telling on him, and Edwards confesses. 5th amendment violation? |
Violation of 5th Amendment- once you invoke right to counsel, cannot be questioned until attorney is provided. 2 week cleansing period exception. |
|
|
PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION- New York v. Quarles: woman tells police she raped and gives a description, police find man and cuff him. While cuffed police ask where the gun is and he tells. 5th amendment violation? |
No violation- public safety out weighs Miranda rules here. |
|
|
Scope of Public Safety exception: |
Limited questioning Proximity in time Proximity in place Question is necessary to secure safety of officer or public Question is reasonably prompted by series of events |
|
|
Oregon v. Elstad: Police suspects boy has stolen from his neighborand come to his house to question him he confesses, they take him to the station read him his rights and ask the same questions. Admissible? |
Police questioning at station is admissible- confession was somewhat spontaneous on D's part. |
|
|
Dickerson v. US: Does a statute saying that voluntarily made confessions are admissible trump Miranda? |
Nope. Miranda is embedded in routine police practice. DISSENT: believed Miranda is overreaching(bandes agrees, conflicting laws exist). |
|
|
Missouri v. Siebert: Police question woman with out Miranda she confesses and they Mirandize her and question her again, leading her to make the same statement post Miranda reading. Admissible? |
Inadmissible, violation of 5th, no break in between questioning- bad faith attempt to avoid provisions on Miranda. |
|
|
Massiah v. US: A codefendant wore a wire for the police and got the defendant to make statements incriminating himself. Statements were brought out at trial. Admissible? |
Government deliberately elicited incriminated statements in the absence of his counsel; statements inadmissible. SUBJECTIVE TEST: (1) whether the officer acteddeliberately (2) suspect was indicted or arraigned for crime suspected. |
|
|
Brewer v. Williams: D arraigned, cop talked to D on way to lawyer and reasonably engaged in conduct likely to elicit an incriminating response. D confessed. Admissible? |
Statement is inadmissible- no affirmative waiver of right to counsel. 6th amendment waiver standard is same as 5th- voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Here cop engaged in deliberate elicitation (even was at the level of interrogation), and D had consistently sought advice of counsel prior to this regarding his rightto counsel prior to questioning- so not a knowing waiver and 6th violated. |
|
|
McNeil v. Wisconsin: Does invocation of right to counsel for one charge also invoke right for an unrelated charge? |
No- if the two crimes have different elements invocation in one charge will not carry over to the other. Cobb case defines same crime as having all the same elements but one (i.e. murder and manslaughter for the same incident). |
|
|
Gideon v. Wainwright: man charged with felony is denied representation and has to represent himself. Violation? |
Right to counsel extends to all criminal cases. |
|
|
Katz objective prong factors to consider: |
-Voluntary disclosure to 3rd party/public does not constitute a search, because you assume the risk that it will be disclosed (White) -Eavesdropping- Katz vs White: participant vs nonparticipant -Mode of intrusion |
|
|
Why was Katz considered a search? |
-Katz shut the door -booth is a temporarily private place, occupants expectation of freedom from intrusion is reasonable -Physical trespass no longer required- still qualifies as a search, but search can be more than physical trespass. -Emphasis on protection of the PERSON underthe 4th Amendment |
|
|
4 factors of curtilage to consider (case-by-case determination): |
(1) proximity of area to the home (2) whether area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home (3) nature of the uses to which the area is put (4) steps taken by resident to protect the area from observation by people passing -OPEN FIELDS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY FOURTH AMENDMENT, nor is garbage outside of a house. |
|
|
Knowles v. Iowa, an Iowa police officer stopped D for speeding and gave him a ticket, then conducted a full search of the vehicle and found pot. 4th amendment violation? |
SC held the search violated the 4th amend b/c there was no arrest. Not about what you could do,but what you actually did. |
|
|
In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, D was driving w/ her two kids in the front seat with no seatbelts on. A crazy police officer pulled her over and insisted on dragging her to jail, where she was released after an hour and later paid a $50 fine. She filed suit claiming the city lacked const authority to permit custodial arrests for such a minor offense- did they? |
The ct rejected this argument. Ct wants a reasonable person standard- would a reasonable police officer in this situation make an arrest? Gives police a lot of discretion. |
|
|
IL v. Rodriguez- Police are called to a house where there is a young woman who says she was beaten by D. She takes police over to “our apartment” so they can arrest him, and they find drugs in plain view while there. However, the woman did not actually currently live in the apartment. Can entries and subsequent findings by police be upheld when they mistakenly believe they have the right to enter? |
Yes, they can. A cop must look at the knowledge they have at the time to make a reasonable decision. If police’s belief is reasonable, then its ok. Not actual authority, but apparent authority. |
|
|
Weeks v. US- D was arrested at work, and cops went into his house w/o a warrant and seized papers that were introduced against him at trial. Should the papers have been suppressed? |
Yes, they should’ve. The letters were a result of an unlawful search in violation of the 4th amend. If this were allow edit would go directly against the 4th amend to the point where it would render the 4th useless. However, this only applies to the federal govt, not to the states, so the papers seized by the state are still admissible. |
|
|
Wolf v. Colorado- Q of if D is denied DP when evidence is admitted against them in a st trial that wouldn’t be admitted in a federal trial b/c it was seized in an unreasonable search. DP? |
Due Process was not violated. Prosecuting in st court does not exclude admitting evidence that would be excluded in federal ct. The sts have the freedom to adopt federal laws if they want to, but they have the discretion not to and we can’t force them to do so. |
|
|
Miranda Analysis: 2. If it applies, was it given? |
1) it was given. |
|
|
Miranda Analysis: 4. If given, was their waiver or assertion? |
Waiver- suspect agreeing to speak anyway Assertion- suspect asserting their Miranda rights |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 5th: 1. Is he in custody? |
Test- whether a reasonable person would feel that they are free to leave/terminate discussion. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 5th: 2. If he is in custody, is he being interrogated? |
Direct questioning or its functional equivalent- statements officer reasonably believes will elicit incriminating statements. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 5th: 3. If he is being interrogated, was he given Miranda? |
Pretty basic- just whether they were given or not. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 14th DP: 1. Was their govt misconduct? |
Must be govt misconduct for a DP violation. Did the govt do anything out of line, as established by precedent? To determine coercion/voluntariness of statement, it's a totality of the circumstances test. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 5th: 4. If Miranda was given, was it effective? |
Would a reasonable person believe they were free not to talk anymore? If given after a prior interrogation, whether free and relaxed, leading back to first interrogation, focus shift/change in situation. Do they feel as though they have a clean slate now? |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 5th: 5. If Miranda was ineffective, was it intentional on the part of the officers? |
Any steps taken by officers to indicate their questioning was set up to intentionally circumvent Miranda. |
|
|
Can confession be suppressed because of earlier Miranda violation per fruit of the poisonous tree? |
No- Miranda is fruitless, and it can't be suppressed under this argument- Argon v. Elstad. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 5th: 6. If Miranda was given, was it waived? |
Waiver has a knowing and intelligent standard, and has to be voluntary. Must understand Miranda warnings and be able to acknowledge what he is giving up. Voluntary- any police misconduct? Violation of either prong is enough. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 14th DP: 2. If 14th was violated, was their fruits? |
Look to proximity of confessions, if causal chain was broken (Wong Sun case)- leaving, significant time lapse, intervening act of free will. Breaking causal chain is when police couldn't predict reaction. |
|
|
Will fresh Miranda warnings break the causal chain from a 14th amendment violation? |
No- completely controlled by police as to when they are given- would give them total control over breaking causal chain. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 14th DP: 3. Were curative measures taken? |
Hard to determine what could be effective beyond telling suspect in plain english that what they said before cannot be used against them. |
|
|
Confession Analysis under 14th DP: 4. What is a violation? |
Looking at the coercion/voluntariness of a statement under a totality of the circumstances test. |
|
|
Thorton v. US- extension of Belton- does it matter if occupant sees cop before or after he exits car? |
No- regardless, searching the passenger compartment of the car is allowed. What matters is time of arrest, not time of search. |
|
|
Camara v. Municipal Court- housing authoritywanted to inspect houses for faulty wiring and such- can they just go in against people’s will, or do they have to have PC? |
No- not criminal, so 4th amendment doesn't apply- but once they’re in they could find anything, so it’s brought w/in the 4th amend- so now do they need PC that someone has faulty wiring? Create area warrants- faulty wiring somewhere in here so they should be able to check. As long as there’s a pre-existing plan and men on the ground don’t have discretion, it’s ok. |
|
|
Hodari case- police yell at suspect to stop, suspect runs, and while doing so throws his cocaine on the ground, police then tackle him. Cops had no reasonable suspicion to suspect guy when they first yelled stop at him- will cocaine be suppressed b/c cop made illegal seizure by yelling “stop!” that directly led to the cocaine being discovered? |
No- ct says b/c he ran, he didn’t actually get seized until he either complies or gets physically stopped- so not actually seized until the point where he’s tackled. If he’s not seized until then, cocaine is not the product of an illegal seizure. |
|
|
4th amendment Analysis: 1. Does 4th amendment apply- was there a search? |
Katz two prong test- 1) Subjective- did the person have an expectation of privacy? 2) Objective- would a reasonable person have an expectation of privacy? |
|
|
IL v. Coballes- car pulled over for minor traffic violation, while running license call for K-9 unit, which arrived and then alerted for drugs. Was it a search? |
No- ct takes formalistic approach- dog sniff not a search, was pulled over legally, so there’s noproblem. Only issue would be if he was kept for a longer period of time just for a dog sniff. Length and scope of stop matters as to whether it’s a search or not. |
|
|
4th Amendment Analysis: 2. If there was a search, was it reasonable? |
Warrant requirement, or warrant exception (such as exigent circumstances or search incident to arrest). To get warrant, must have probable cause to search. |
|
|
Gerstein Hearing: |
If a warrantless arrest has been made, must bring person in front of Magistrate w/in 48 hours to determine if they can keep holding him. |
|
|
Scott v. Harris- car was rammed from behind after long high speed chase and driver became quadriplegic. Excessive force? |
Ct says no- it was reasonable force, judged from the perspective of the officer. |
|
|
Georgia v. Randolph- two residents of same dwelling, one says no to search and the other says yes- do they get to come in? |
Depends on how you view consent- about what’s reasonable and social expectations- expectationis if one objects, they don’t get to come in. Party that says no wins. If someone says no and then is arrested, as long as it was a valid arrest, they can then come in even if they did it just to get him out of the way. |
|
|
Standing- person’s rights have actually... |
Been violated- not enough that you could go to prison if evidence is used against you- must be that evidence seized violates some personal right of your own. 3 types of rights- 1) privacy 2) liberty 3) possessory. |
|
|
Rawlings case- can’t complain about search of purse where you stored your drugs b/c... |
It’s not your purse, and can’t claim possessory interest in illegal contraband. Don't have standing to challenge search. |
|
|
Utah v. Strieff- officer admits he has no good reason to seize suspect. Asks for name and ID, does so, runs name and finds an outstanding warrant and he arrests him. Valid arrest? |
Ct holds even though he had no PC to stop in the first place, they will uphold the arrest b/c of thewarrant- intervening cause that separates from fruit of the poisonous tree. |
|
|
Connelly case- suspect is psychotic- voices say he can either kill himself or confess. Can’t say about reliability. No police misconduct. Free will- not really his choice to do so- not acting out of his free will, but no misconduct. Should we suppress the confession? |
No- ct says it was through no fault of the state, and unless there’s police misconduct, they won’t find a DP violation. If there’s no police misconduct, that’s the end of the inquiry. |
|
|
Fulminate case- govt informant offered protection for telling him what happened- coercion? |
Yes- ct thinks there’s a coercion argument b/c he thinks he will be subject to physical violence if he doesn’t confess. Seen as a physical threat by the govt. |
|
|
Chavez v. Martinez- guy shot by police and injured, that questioned while he was lying therebleeding out, but they then never charge him w/ anything. The confession was never introduced at trial, so the suspect files a 1983 suit. DP violation? |
Not anymore- court creates a higher threshold for violating due process in a 1983 suit- must “shock the conscience.” Two different 14th amend tests then for civil or criminal suits. |
|
|
Schmerber- w/drew blood under objection of suspect. 5th amendment violation? |
No 5th amend b/c it’s not YOU incriminating yourself- it’s some other guy saying what your blood said. |
|
|
Mathiason- Mathiason dropped by the station for Q’ing and st says he was free to leave, but he was a parolee, which might make it more likely he would feel as though he has to comply w/ any order given from police. In custody? |
Mere location doesn’t define custody or not- if they are free to leave. |
|
|
JDB v. NC- juvenile may have different idea of custody... |
Than adult, so different proof could be brought in. |
|
|
Does waiver last forever? |
Two week cleansing period followed by refreshed Miranda warnings, it can be waived. Suspect has to be the one who initiates the conversation to get past a previously given waiver that they do not want to talk. |
|
|
Davis case- waives right to silence in beginning but later says “maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” Did he invoke his Miranda rights? |
No- must unambiguously ask for a lawyer for them to be invoked. |
|
|
Powell case- extends Massiah to... |
Suspects who have been arraigned. |
|
|
Kuhlmann case: Informant must do more than... |
merely listen; they must engage in conduct that is designed to elicit incriminating responses. |
|
|
Henry case: if the informant initiates... |
A conversation about anything, it counts. |
|
|
Johnson case: statements submitted by an informant that were gathered prior... |
To agreement to become an informant are not protected by 6th. |
|
|
For what crimes are you entitled 6th right to counsel? |
Test: if you were sentenced to jail, you are entitled a lawyer (i.e. if you were sentenced to jail time, you better have had a lawyer. So, if there is a possibility of jail time, courts will appoint a lawyer). |
|
|
Full 4th amendment analysis: |
Is there a search or seizure? Is Probable Cause required? Is a warrant required? Has a warrant been obtained? Does Probable Cause exist? Are there exigent circumstances or other exception to warrant requirement? What exception? Good faith? Properly executed? |
