Legal Terminology For Appellate

Front 1

probable cause

Back 1

A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Front 2

certiorari

Back 2

a writ of superior court to call up the records of an inferior court or a body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity

Front 3

Stare decisis

Back 3

Latin for “let the decision stand.” Guide not absolute rule that sets precedents

Front 4

Uphold

Back 4

the decision of the lower court, that is, say that it was correct

Front 5

reverse

Back 5

say it was wrong.

Front 6

remand

Back 6

it can say that the lower court made some error and order it to re-examine the case.

Front 7

Amendment IV

Back 7

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Front 8

exclusionary rule

Back 8

a rule of evidence that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. Established federally in Weeks v. United States (232 U.S. 383) (1914) and on the state level in Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 642) (1961)

Front 9

good faith exception

Back 9

an exception to the exclusionary rule: evidence obtained by the use of a warrant later found to be unsupported by probable cause is admissible if the investigating officers acted in reasonable reliance that the warrant was valid

Front 10

fruit of the poisonous tree

Back 10

a doctrine of evidence: evidence that is derived from or gathered during an illegal action (as an unlawful search) cannot be admitted into court; evidence that is inadmissible under an evidentiary exclusionary rule because it was derived from or gathered during an illegal action

Front 11

totality of the circumstances

Back 11

suggests that there is no single deciding factor, that one must consider all the facts, the context, and conclude from the whole picture whether there is probable cause

Front 12

two pronged test

Back 12

established under Aguilar and Spinelli. Determines whether there is probable cause in an informant’s tip based on;
(1) the informant's "basis of knowledge" -- how he obtained his information, and
(2) the informant's credibility or at least the specific reliability of his present information.

Front 13

Illinois v. Gates
Facts of the Case

Back 13

The Bloomingdale, Illinois Police Department received an anonymous tip that Lance and Susan Gates were selling drugs out of their home. After observing the Gates's drug smuggling operation in action, police obtained a warrant and upon searching the suspects' car and home uncovered large quantities of marijuana, other contraband, and weapons.

Front 14

United States v. Leon
Facts of the Case

Back 14

The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.