Ls - Crim Pro Tailored Down - Take 2

Front 1

Categories involving threshold issue of search

Back 1

"(TIPCO) Technology, Informants,Physical Manipulation, Curtilage, Overflight"

Front 2

Is it a search? (Informants - case name)

Back 2

White

Front 3

"Is it a search? (Technology case name w/ ""specialized technolgy"""

Back 3

Kyllo

Front 4

Is it a search? (Physical Manipulation)

Back 4

"Bond Factors - Look at TIP (Type of Contact (visual v. tactile), Intent of Contact (obsevational vs. exploratory, proximity of item to person (have they relenquished control)."

Front 5

Is it a search (Curtilage)

Back 5

"Curtilage is subject to the same protections as the home. Weigh the following factors: PEPE (Proximity, Enclosure, Purpose, Exclusions)"

Front 6

Probable Cause

Back 6

*facts and circumstances *within the officer knowledge OR *reasonably trustworthy information *warrant a fair probability that 1) SEARCH = an item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be search when the search is to take place 2) ARREST = an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested

Front 7

Pretextual arrests case name & rule

Back 7

"Officer’s Subjective intent does not matter, only what the officer knows for PC purposes (Whren)"

Front 8

Appelate review for Gates test

Back 8

Appellate Review = did the magistrate have a substantial basis for finding PC?

Front 9

Arrest in Public (2 cases)

Back 9

No warrant required. Warantless arrests based on PC for felonies are always valid when made in a public place. [Watson credit card] Warantless arrest for misd committed in his presence. [Atwater seatbelt]. Rationale = You get hearing 48 hrs after arrest (Gerstein hearing)

Front 10

Third Party's Home for arrest warrant (case name only)

Back 10

Stegald

Front 11

Warrant issuance

Back 11

"A neutral/detached magistrate must determine that there is PC that evidence will be on the premises described when the warrant is executed. Warrant must describe the place to be searched, person or thing to be seized with particularity."

Front 12

"Mistakes in warrant application, case names"

Back 12

Garrison -ok mistake. Franks- bad faith.

Front 13

Franks Hearing

Back 13

"D makes substantial preliminary showing of knowing or reckless disregard. If the statement was necessary to finding PC a franks hearing is held. If perjury est. by POE, and w/o the false ev the affidavit would lack PC, evidence is suppressed."

Front 14

Warrant Execution Issues (List)

Back 14

"(MKSMS) Mistake, Knock and Announce, Scope, Method, Staleness"

Front 15

Knock & Announce case name that establishes rule

Back 15

Wilson

Front 16

List the EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT

Back 16

"(ICECAPSCaPS), Iventory Search, Consent, Exigency, Checkpoints, Automobile, Plain View, SILA, Consensual Encounters, Protective Sweep, Stop and Frisk"

Front 17

Search Incident to Arrest case named

Back 17

Search the person (Robinson) - Search area within that person’s control (Chimel).

Front 18

SILA - Monitoring Power case name only

Back 18

Chrismen

Front 19

SILA & Vehicle Searches

Back 19

"[Gant] Test = PC to arrest + Reason to believe the interior of the car harbors evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested, Scope = Limited to crime of arrest and places harboring evidence or weapons within D’s reach. Rationale = Preservation of evidence, officer safety"

Front 20

Exigent Circumstances

Back 20

"PC to enter + Exigency (circs made conduct imperative, Scope = As broad as rsnbly necessary to prevent danger that suspect in house may resist, escape, destroy evidence, Any space that could harbor a person, Use w/SILA. Rationale = Safety + Preservation of Evidence - Types = fights [Brigham], public + police safety, hot pursuit, prevent escape"

Front 21

Vehicle & Container Searches

Back 21

"[Acevedo] Test = Warrantless search of the entire car and containers limited by size and nature of items for which there is PC. Rationale = Cars are mobile, cannot get a warrant, less privacy expectation in vehicle. If PC is for a container, can’t search whole car. Can search a passenger’s belongings but not her person."

Front 22

Inventory Searches

Back 22

"Police must (1) acting in GF (2) according to police regulations concerning inventory procedures, inspection of an impounded vehicle is rsnbl. Scope = Limited to procedures, cannot be so broad as to give officer unlimited discretion [Wells] – nothing in procedures covered locked suitcases in trunk, so officer could not inventory the locked suitcase in D’s trunk Rationale = Protects owner’s property, protect police/impound from claims of theft/loss, officer safety"

Front 23

Consent Searches

Back 23

" [Shneckloth]Test = State must show consent was voluntary and not the result of duress/coercion, Totality of circumstances test.. Does not have to be knowing waiver. Whether suspect knows he can refuse is one factor to consider. Limited to what a rsnbl officer would have understood about the exchange btw the officer + suspect regarding the scope"

Front 24

Plain View Doctrine cases

Back 24

Horton & Hicks

Front 25

What is Rsnbl Suspicion?

Back 25

"rsnblness determined using totality of circs, rsnbl suspicion is less stringent than PC, more than a hunch, less than PC. Not a circumstance that applies to a large number of people. Believing someone is wanted for a felony qualifies as reasonable suspicion."

Front 26

Seizure of Persons Defined case name

Back 26

Mendenhall

Front 27

Consensual Encounter case name

Back 27

Bostick

Front 28

Protective Sweep

Back 28

"[Buie] Incident to LA, protective sweep of the immediate area from which an attack could be launched + adjoining rooms. Need rsnbl suspicion to search beyond adjoining room. Rationale = Police safety. Scope = Once individual is found, sweep ends"

Front 29

Checkpoints -case name only

Back 29

Lidster

Front 30

Due Process

Back 30

"Focuses on voluntariness & coercion [Connelly]. Test = Totality of the Circumstances. Coercion can lead to unreliable statements that will compromise right to a fair trial. Examples, excessive deception, coercion, violence & threats or promises of protection/child killers."

Front 31

Cases under 5th amendment

Back 31

"MQM - SPIED - Miranda, Quarles, Mosley, Shatzer, Perkins, Innis, Edwards, Davis"

Front 32

Public Safety Exception for Miranda case name only

Back 32

Quarles

Front 33

Innis

Back 33

" express questioning or its functional equivalent. Words or actions on the part of the police, that the police should know are rsnbly likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Whether police knew it would elicit an incriminating response includes knowledge police have about suspect’s particular susceptibilities"

Front 34

Perkins

Back 34

An undercover law enforcement officer does NOT have to give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions about an unrelated crime that may elicit an incriminating response

Front 35

Mosley

Back 35

"admissibility depends on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously (conscientiously) honored. Not a blanket prohibition, can be interrogated on another subject as long as rsnbl time has passed + new warning is given."

Front 36

Davis

Back 36

" Ambiguous request that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, does not require the police to cease questioning. However, Clarification of ambiguous request is highly encouraged"

Front 37

Shatzer

Back 37

{inmate]. Effect of realease. All invocations are dissipated 14 days after being released from custodial interrogation.

Front 38

6th Amendment Cases

Back 38

"(Good Food Makes Me Puke) Gideon, Patterson, Faretta, Massiah, Montejo"

Front 39

Right to Assistance of Counsel - When applies? How does it work?

Back 39

Triggered when formal proceedings are filed. It is offense specific – only attaches to those offenses for which D has been arraigned. Two offenses are the same if the statutory elements of one are included in the other.

Front 40

Patterson

Back 40

Miranda is sufficient to inform you of your 6A right [Patterson]. Waiver must be knowing/intelligent/voluntary.

Front 41

Faretta

Back 41

"In court proceedings, D must be made aware of dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. D cannot prospectively invoke your 6A right to counsel, and invocations are offense specific"

Front 42

Massiah

Back 42

"Once the right to counsel has attached, the 6A render inadmissible statements “deliberately elicited” from a defendant in the absence of counsel, unless there is an express waiver of the constitutional right - don’t want police to surreptitiously circumvent 6A RTC. Undercover Police can listen passively."

Front 43

Montejo's arguments on “police badgering” policies

Back 43

"Montejo held that bc Miranda/Edwards protects against badgering, a waiver will typically suffice to waive rights during custodial interrogation.  When a D is not in custody, he is in control, and need only shut his door or walk away to avoid police badgering.  Montejo suggests it is the D’s responsibility to avoid being badgered.  What police actions would constitute badgering in 6A remains unclear."

Front 44

When the exclusionary rule will not apply

Back 44

"(PFISH) Patane Statement, Faith (good), Incriminating others, Standing, Harris Statement"

Front 45

Standing

Back 45

"Carter: Lacking a possessory interest in or close connection to the place to be searched, Ds will not be allowed to make a 4A violation claim (Fleeting and insubstantial connection) Look at Connection to premises, purpose for being there, duration of stay, social guests almost always ok. 4A right is a personal right."

Front 46

Good Faith Reliance

Back 46

Exclusionary rule does not apply where officers executed search warrant in GF [Leon] (Unsure how this applies to bad arrest warrant) No GF when 1) Franks (police mislead magistrate) 2) Where magistrate abandoned neutral/detached 3) warrant lacks any reasonable PC 4) Warrant is facially deficient.

Front 47

Policies / past holdings behind good faith

Back 47

"Seems to be a policy that the court doesn’t want to punish the police for court mix ups. It wouldn’t serve the deterrence purpose of the exclusionary rule. Examples, if magistrate makes mistake in warrant, if police rely on mistake in court database, if police rely on wrong info from another PD."

Front 48

Patane

Back 48

"Physical evidence obtained as a result of a Miranda violation is admissible b/c 5A protects against self-incriminating statements being introduced at trial, whereas physical evidence speaks for itself"

Front 49

Harris

Back 49

"Where police have PC to arrest, but they make arrest inside home w/o warrant, exclusionary rule does not bar statements made by D outside the home"

Front 50

Independent Source

Back 50

"Look for separate facts leading to PC and a warrant. [Murray] As long as the police rely on independent evidence in obtaining warrant after warrantless search, the taint has dissipated. Magistrate can’t know about illegal entry, evidence from illegal entry can’t be used, police would have sought a warrant even w/o knowledge of evidence"

Front 51

Inevitable Discovery (case name only/facts)

Back 51

[Nix] Christian burial speech vs. search party

Front 52

Attenuation (Factual)

Back 52

" [Wong Sun] Did the evidence that D wants to suppress come about by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint? Always a but for situation. Look to factors such as (FLIC) Flagrancy of violation, Length of time/closeness in time, Independent act of free will (look for coercion), Consent to a search. Also Watch for Patane/5A violation!"

Front 53

The effect of Miranda Warnings on attenuation - case name only

Back 53

BROWN

Front 54

Hudson

Back 54

Knock and Announce [Hudson] Would suppressing the evidence deter police misconduct? Attenuation is only applied where deterrence benefits outweigh substantial social costs. The cops were already there and would have access to the information anyway. D can file a civil suit against police.

Front 55

Question First Practices (not deliberate)

Back 55

" [Elstad] – To determine whether Miranda advisements delivered midstream can attenuate previous un-Mirandized statement, consider whether suspect would see it as a separate interrogation: Overlapping content of statements, Timing and setting of 1st vs. 2nd, Diff in location/police personnel, Degree to which 1st round was continuous with 2nd round, Completeness/detail of questions asked and answered in 1st round"

Front 56

Question First Practices (deliberate)

Back 56

"[Seibert] – Where police employ deliberate question-first practice, curative measures must be taken to ensure that a rsnbl person in the suspect’s situation would understand the import and effect of Miranda warning/waiver: Substantial break in time btw pre-warning statement + warning, OR Additional warning that explains the likely inadmissibility of the pre-warning custodial statement"