Term
| Katz v. US, Harlan's two fold test |
|
Definition
1. Person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
2. The expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable" |
|
|
Term
| Katz, phone booth case, rule |
|
Definition
| Whenever the govt intrudes upon that which a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, and even if there has been no physical intrusion, this constitutes a search under the fourth amend. |
|
|
Term
| Smith v. Maryland, pen registers |
|
Definition
whether installation of pen register constitutes a 4th amend. Search? No
1. No actual expectation of privacy in the number you dial
2.Even if you do have some subjective expectation of privacy in the number you dial, this is not an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable |
|
|
Term
| Fourth amend. two prong test: |
|
Definition
- Did actor exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy?
- Is this an interest that society recognizes as reasonable? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Exposure of info to 3rd parties - not a search
- Your movements in a public place (i.e. highway) - not a search
- Movements in your home - SEARCH
- Dog sniff - not a search
Sensory enhancement devices (some OK, others Not) |
|
|
Term
| tracking device (beepe) on truck |
|
Definition
| NOT a search b/c a person travelling on a public thoroughfare has no reasonable expectation of privacy |
|
|
Term
| tracking device monitering movements in home: |
|
Definition
| Beeper placed in home did constitute a search b/c there is a difference between tracking movements on public highways vs. the home |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Dog sniff of luggage at the airport
Not a search b/c it only shows presence or absence of drugs and is not as invasive as opening luggage, etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Locked gate with no trespassing signs
NOT a search b/c open fields fall beyond scope of 4th Amend
- "persons, houses, papers, effects" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Proximity of area to the home
2. Whether the area is included w/in an enclosure surrounding the home
3. Nature of the uses to which the area is put
4. Steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by
- whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's umbrella of 4th Amend protection |
|
|
Term
| sensory enhancement device |
|
Definition
| Rule: where the govt uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This was a search - physical intrusion b/c agents used "tactile" rather than "visual" intervention
Person expects other passengers/employees to move bag but not to feel it in an exploratory manner |
|
|
Term
| 4th amend. req. to obtain a warrant |
|
Definition
- Affidavit supported by oath/affirmation
- Particularity re: place/things
Neutral magistrate |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Fair probability that crime has occurred/is likely to occur |
|
|
Term
| Anonymous letter enough to est. PC? |
|
Definition
- No. no way to tell if it is reliable
Here, corroboration by PD would have been enough for PC
Investigation + anon letter is more than enough |
|
|
Term
| test for magistrate to est. probable cause: |
|
Definition
| make a practical, common sense decision whether, given the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." |
|
|
Term
| what is the role of court reviewing the valididty of a warrant? |
|
Definition
| To determine whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Based upon an affidavit showing PC that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place. US v. Grubbs
- Magistrate must determine:
○ That it is NOW PROBABLE that
○ Contraband, evidence or a crime, or a fugitive WILL BE on the described premises
○ When the warrant is executed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in their property.
General Rule - Law enforce may seize what they have prob cause to believe is criminal evidence (i.e. contraband, instrumentalities of crime, fruits of crime, mere evidence) |
|
|
Term
| what is needed to obtain an ARREST warrant? |
|
Definition
- PC that suspect was involved in crime
-Reason to believe that the suspect is within |
|
|
Term
| Who determines probable cause? |
|
Definition
| In a public arrest, police determine prob cause on the scene, in private house - magistrate who issues warrant makes determination |
|
|
Term
| Arrest warrants are for seizures of people, not... |
|
Definition
...not searches of people.
- Arrested in public - no warrant needed
- Arrested in your own home - warrant needed
Arrested in 3rd parties house - warrant needed |
|
|
Term
| If someone is arrested in a home w/o a warrant, the remedy is |
|
Definition
| not that the arrest is thrown out, rather that evidence found pursuant to such arrest is suppressed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
public place. No arrest warrant needed
-, retreating inside doesn’t protect her. The police are now in hot pursuit. You cannot thwart an otherwise lawful arrest by retreating inside |
|
|
Term
| requirements of a SEARCH warrant |
|
Definition
- Must be supported by:
○ Probable cause
○ Oath or affirmation
○ Based on info that's contained in an affidavit
○ Issued by neutral detached magistrate
-Describe with particularity the places to be searched and persons/property to be seized |
|
|
Term
| "In order to justify a "no-knock" entry, the police must have... |
|
Definition
...a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circs, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime.."
-the petitioner's apparent recognition of the officers combined with the easily disposable nature of the drugs, justified the officers' ultimate decision to enter without first announcing their presence and authority. |
|
|
Term
| When executing search warrant, they can only look in... |
|
Definition
| containers big enough to contain the item being searched for |
|
|
Term
Warden v. Hayden
Armed bank robber seen entering apartment by two cab drivers
-Police arrive soon after and get consent to enter the apartmen |
|
Definition
Under exigent circs exception cops can look for suspect or weapons***
-Rule: searching for a suspect or his weapons immediately following the commission of a crime qualifies as an exigent circumstance. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon
- Imminent destruction of evidence
- Need to prevent suspect's escape
- Risk of danger to police/others
*** not an exclusive list |
|
|
Term
| Exigency that justifies warrantless exception should restrict the scope of the resulting search |
|
Definition
○ i.e. cant look for a gun in a jewelry box
- Search must CEASE once exigency ceases
- Murder scene does not automatically create exigency
- Cops can ALWAYS enter scene to assist injured persons
○ If they are acting in their community caretaker function
-If they then find contraband in plain view they can seize w/o warrant |
|
|
Term
Kentucky v King
Issue: do the police create an exigent circumstance by knocking and announcing thereby causing the suspects to destroy evidence? |
|
Definition
- Knocking and announcing is not creating an exigency
-Exigency doesn't have to exist before police arrive |
|
|
Term
| Scope of search incident to arrest = |
|
Definition
- Search person in order to remove weapons
- Search person for evidence relevant to the crime for which they are arrested to prevent destruction
-Areas w/in immediate control |
|
|
Term
United States v. Robinson
-Officer has prob cause to arrest def for driving w/o DL
He searches incident to arrest and finds heroine packets in a crumpled pack of cigarettes |
|
Definition
: In the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under the Amendment
RULE: The right to search a person incident to arrest is automatic in all cases. |
|
|
Term
| When officer conducts a lawful arrest, he may also conduct a contemporaneous search of (Chimmel) |
|
Definition
○ The person, to search for weapons
○ The person, to search for evidence of the crime
-Grab area |
|
|
Term
Arrests of Automobile Occupants
New York v. Belton (1981)
Undercover passed by speeding car
Stops car:
- Terry pat on all occupants
- Search of grab area in car
-Search of jacket pockets from back seat |
|
Definition
| Rule: When an officer has lawfully arrested an occupant of an automobile, he may as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile and may also examine the contents of any containers found w/in the passenger compartment regardless of size or of the container is open/closed. |
|
|
Term
Arizona v. Gant (2009)
Gant arrested for driving w/ suspended license
In custody in police car when his car is searched
Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to arrest AFTER the arrestee has been secured and placed in the back of a patrol car |
|
Definition
| RULE: Police may search a vehicle incident to arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the interior of the vehicle OR when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the crime for which the arrestee is arrested will be found. |
|
|
Term
| search incident to a traffic citation... |
|
Definition
| not allowed b/c this is not a full lawful arrest |
|
|
Term
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001)
Officer stopped woman for driving w/ kids w/o seat belts.
Had choice to cite or arrest, decided to arrest
Car/person searched incident to arrest |
|
Definition
| Rule: when officer has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor offense has occurred, that officer may either issue a citation or arrest. If they arrest, they can search incident to arrest. |
|
|
Term
pretextual stop.
Whren v. US (1996)
Issue: Whether an officer stopping a car for a traffic violation has to be motivated to enforce the traffic law.
(Does an officer's subjective intent matter?) |
|
Definition
Rule: A stop is reasonable under the Fourth amendment as long as the officer making the stop has probable cause to believe that the motorist has violated a traffic code, regardless of the subjective motivations of the officer.
* Subjective intent doesn’t matter as long as circumstances justify the stop. |
|
|
Term
CARS AND CONTAINERS
Chambers v. Maroney
Police stop and arrest 2 robbery suspects and take car to police station where it is searched |
|
Definition
Search fit under exigent circumstances b/c cars are readily movable, subjects have been alerted as to police suspicion
Harlan's Dissent:
Cops should have seized car, then gotten warrant, then searched --> lesser intrusion on privacy |
|
|
Term
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Coolidge arrested on suspicion of murdering a 14 year old
His 2 cars seized from driveway and searched 2 days later, then again searched twice over a year later |
|
Definition
Chambers Rule: exigent circumstances justify the warrantless search of an automobile stopped on the highway where there is probable cause, because the car is movable, the occupants are alerted, and the car's contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained.
Does not apply here, because exigency is extinguished once car is seized and taken into police custody
"In short, by no possible stretch of the legal imagination can this be made into a case where 'it is not practicable to secure a warrant,' and the 'automobile exception,' despite its label, is simply irrelevant." |
|
|
Term
California v. Carney
Guy selling marijuana in his rv in exchange for sex
Cops enter w/o warrant and search
Is an RV same as automobile for 4th amendment purposes?
Issue: Did cops violate the fourth amendment by conducting a warrantless search of a mobile home located in a public place? |
|
Definition
Not search incident to lawful arrest because the search exceeded the scope of such a search - cops searched all, instead of just the grab area
Two justifications for the vehicle exceptions:
1. Mobility of vehicle
2. Reduced expectation of privacy in vehicle b/c they are already subject to government regulation
When does the automobile exception apply?
Vehicle is being used on the public highways OR when it is readily capable of such use AND it is found in a place not regularly used for residential purposes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Search incident to lawful arrest - can only search passenger area, including open and closed containers
Automobile exception - may search anywhere in the car where you have probable cause to believe contraband might be found, including the trunk. |
|
|
Term
| Automobile INVENTORY SEARCHES |
|
Definition
When vehicle is impounded, police can search and inventory entire vehicle, including trunk
Inventory searches must comply with whatever procedures the police department has established
Hypos:
1. RV on public highway, can cops search entire thing incident to lawful arrest?
a. When searching inc to arrest, you can only search grab area
b. When searching under automobile exception, can search everywhere that you have prob cause to believe that contraband will be found
i. UNLESS in the course of such search probable cause arises to search elsewhere |
|
|
Term
| Warrantless searches of cars may be permissible if: |
|
Definition
1. Police have probable cause to search a car under the automobile exception
2. If an occupant (or recent occupant) of an automobile is arrested, the police may sometimes conduct, as an incident of the arrest, a contemporaneous search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, even without probable cause to search.
When conducting an automobile inventory search provided the cops follow their own established guidelines |
|
|
Term
Arkansas v. Sanders
Sanders arrives at airport w/ suitcase of marijuana.
Cops stop taxi cab and take case out of trunk to search.
Prosecutor tried to use automobile exception to justify warrantless search |
|
Definition
| auto exception doesn’t apply because cops had prob cause to search the suitcase, not the car. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Rule: When police have probable cause to search a car without a warrant, they may also search any container fond during the car search that is large enough to hold the evidence for which they are looking. |
|
|
Term
| Automobile exception rule from California v. Acevedo |
|
Definition
Automobile Exception Rule: police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is contained within.
-Rule still left from Chadwick: To search a moveable that is not in a car, you still need a warrant |
|
|
Term
| Post-Acevedo: Cars and Containers |
|
Definition
Scenario
Warrantless search OK? (assume prob cause to search)
Walking w/ suitcase on street
No
Arrested w/ suitcase on street
Yes. Incident to arrest b/c its w/in grab area
Put suitcase in passenger compartment (no arrest)
Yes. Automobile exception b/c cops have prob cause
Arrested after putting suitcase in passenger compartment
Yes. Inc to arrest or auto except.
Put suitcase in trunk
Yes. Auto exception |
|
|
Term
| Can police search passenger's belongings? |
|
Definition
○ Yes. "police officers w/ prob cause to search a car may inspect any passenger's belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search."
However, can't search the person (unless they are under arrest) if no PC to believe that they have contraband on them. Terry pats are OK to search for weapons. |
|
|
Term
3 requirementss of
PLAINVIEW DOCTINE: |
|
Definition
1. Incriminating character of item to be seized must be immediately apparent w/o any further investigation
2. Officer must be lawfully located in the place from which the object can be plainly seen
3Officer must have lawful right of access to the object itself
-Rule: Probable cause is required to invoke the plain view doctrine |
|
|
Term
| When does plainview doctrine apply? |
|
Definition
- Applies :
○ During otherwise lawful search
○ No search, but officer comes upon object w/ criminal characteristics that are apparent w/o any further investigation by officer |
|
|
Term
Plain Touch
Minnesota v. Dickerson |
|
Definition
| " if an officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing for weapons and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its ID immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain view context." |
|
|
Term
Consent rule
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
Cop pulls car over for traffic violation
Driver Oks search of car
Find stolen checks under seat and charge one of the passengers |
|
Definition
| Rule: when the subject of a search is not in custody and the state attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the 4th and 14th As require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Consent justifies a search w/o a warrant, even one that is not supported by probable cause
2. Consent must be voluntary, but it need not be known
3. Burden of proof on government to prove voluntariness
4. Not considered voluntary if you are acquiescing to a show of legal authority (i.e. if cop tells you he has warrant, and then you consent, and then he invokes consent exception) - Bumper v. North Carolina
5. Consenter can limit scope temporally and scope (i.e. you can only search the kitchen for 10 minutes)
6. Consent can be withdrawn - must be clear - Carter v. State |
|
|
Term
THIRD-PARTY CONSENT
US v. Matlock: |
|
Definition
| Rule: the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, non-consenting person with whom that authority is searched. |
|
|
Term
Georgia v. Randolph
Issue: Whether one occupant may give law enforcement effective consent to search shared premises, as against a co-tenant who is present and states a refusal to permit the search. |
|
Definition
Rule: a physically present co-occupant's refusal to permit entry prevails over his co-occupant's consent.
Reasoning: commonly held beliefs : mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched. |
|
|
Term
| fine line re: cotenant objection |
|
Definition
Fine line: only applies to co-tenant who is present AND states their refusal
" if a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant's permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| it would be reasonable for an officer to think so, consent by that person can be used to justify a warrantless searchObjective test: what would a reasonable officer under the circumstances have done? |
|
|
Term
| Terry 2 part reasonableness test |
|
Definition
2 part test:
1. Whether officer's action was justified at inception
a. Reasonable suspicion
2. Whether the action was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place
a. Scope of search related to reason for initiating stop
b. (Frisk for weapons) |
|
|
Term
| reasonable suspicion: Terry context |
|
Definition
| would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate?Specific articulable facts taken together with reasonable inferences must justify action taken |
|
|
Term
| General rule, what must all seizures be supported by? |
|
Definition
| All seizures must be supported by probable cause EXCEPT Terry stops, which require only reasonable suspicion |
|
|
Term
Florida v. Royer
Royer taken to small room @ airport for questioning
Take his license and ID |
|
Definition
Crt: evidence suppressed b/c "at the time that Royer produced the key to his suitcase, the detention to which he was then subjected was a more serious intrusion on his personal liberty than is allowable on mere suspicion of criminal activity."
"as a practical matter, Royer was under arrest." |
|
|
Term
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
Terry stop during traffic stop
Officer ordered person out of car |
|
Definition
| "when an officer legally stops a driver on the highway, he may order the driver out of the car w/o further justification" |
|
|
Term
US v. Mendenhall
Drug runner stopped by DEA @ airport
Her docs reviewed and returned
Asked to go to DEA office - agrees
Searched (strip-search turns up drugs)
Issue: was she seized |
|
Definition
RULE: If the consent for a search was the product of a seizure that violated the 4th Amend, then the consent is not voluntary.
SEIZURE = a person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the 4th Amend only if, in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave (Mendenhall test) |
|
|
Term
| mendenhall factors to consider re: whether a seizure for 4th amendment purposes occured: |
|
Definition
- Threatening presence of several officers
- Display of a weapon by cops
- Physical touching by cops
-Language/tone of voice of officers |
|
|
Term
Central inquiry re: whether stop and frisk is valid is reasonableness
2 part analysis for reasonableness: |
|
Definition
1. Whether stop was warranted at inception
2. Whether search was reasonably related in scope to the circs that warranted the stop in the first place |
|
|
Term
| What is the Mendenhall Test? |
|
Definition
| Mendenhall test - Seizure = in view of all circs surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| requires either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority |
|
|
Term
Alabama v. White
Cops get anonymous tip from caller re:
White will be leaving her apt w/ brown case, driving car to motel, case has drugs
They go to apt and see her leave apt BUT with no case
Car matched descrip and she seemed to be travelling to the hotel
Cops pull over, search car (with consent) and find drugs
Issue: Did officers have R.S. necessary to justify the stop? |
|
Definition
| ○ No. But w/ corroboration by officers and the predictive nature of the info provided by informant, were suffic for RS |
|
|
Term
Illinois v. Gates test for P.C.:
totality of the circs to determine whether there is PC
Factors applied to determine whether anon tip establishes probable cause: |
|
Definition
- Informant's veracity, reliability, basis of knowledge
"what was important was the caller's ability to predict a respondent's future behavior, because it demonstrates inside information - a special familiarity with the respondent's affairs."
-No RS if no predictive info given by anon caller |
|
|
Term
Reasonable Suspicion
context of anonymous tip |
|
Definition
- Must be articulable and something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch
- Some minimal level of objective justification
- Less demanding std than PC
- Totality of the circs consideration |
|
|
Term
| Diff b/w PC and RS in context of anonymous tip |
|
Definition
- RS can arise from info that is less reliable than that req'd to show PC
- Quantity and quality if info counts
- Predictive info is significant
- RS doesn’t have to be enough to equal fair probability (this is rather PC) |
|
|
Term
Illinois v. Wardlow
Patrol caravan in high crime neighborhood
Def sees cops and immediately runs
Issue: Whether being in a high crime area coupled with flight from police is sufficient for RS? |
|
Definition
Presence in high crime area alone is not suffic for RS
Flight alone is not suffic BUT
These are both factors to consider
"determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior."
Rule: Neither headlong flight nor presence in a high-crime area, standing alone, are necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but both are suggestive of such. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- If cops have PC, they can arrest --> search incident to arrest, or acquire warrant to search
- If cops have RS --> Terry stop for weapons
- No suspicion --> consent or they cant do anything |
|
|
Term
| SPECIAL NEEDS SEARCHES / ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES |
|
Definition
Subset of searches that don't require warrants or probable cause or reasonable suspicion b/c govt interest is so great that the indiv's privacy interest is greatly diminished
For the search to be lawful however, the primary purpose cant be the search for criminal activity, but rather the search must be motivated by welfare/ public safety concerns |
|
|
Term
| what is the only requirement for special needs/ administrative searches? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| examples of special needs searches/ administrative searches: |
|
Definition
| i.e. inventory search, business searches (at govt agencies), security checkpoint (permanent and temporary), drug/alcohol screening (level of intrusion is minimal but must also be tied to special need - i.e. public safety --> drug testing of railroad operators) |
|
|
Term
Brown v. Texas
3 prong test to determine when a special needs test is reasonable |
|
Definition
1. State's interest
2. Effectiveness of that type of search
3. Level of individual privacy intrusion
a. Objective
i. Duration of seizure
ii. Intensity of investigation
b. Subjective
-Whether the search caught the subjects by fear/surprised them |
|
|
Term
Rakas v. Illinois --> LANDMARK standing case
Robbery of clothing store
Cops pull over getaway car w/ driver and 3 passengers
Find shells/shotgun
2 passengers moving to suppress evidence citing 4th Amend
Issue: Whether passengers in a vehicle have standing to challenge the car search and suppress the evidence which was the basis for their arrest. |
|
Definition
Test for Standing:
Whether the person had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched
Here: the passengers had no legitimate expectation of privacy in glove box or under seat. |
|
|
Term
Minnisota v. Carter
Did respondents, as temporary guests using the premises for business purposes, have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment? |
|
Definition
prop used for comm purposes is treated differently for 4th A purposes than residential property"
Factors considered by court:
- Purely commercial nature of transaction
- Relatively short period of time on premises
- Lack of any previous connection b/w respondents and house-holder |
|
|
Term
Rawlings v. Kentucky
Guy dumped drugs into purse of woman he had known for a few days
Challenged search/seizure because he owned drugs
Standing? |
|
Definition
| no standing b/c he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the purse |
|
|
Term
Exclusionary rule:
(Mapp v. Ohio) |
|
Definition
| exclusionary rule to states - Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth A may not be used against a defendant in a criminal proceeding |
|
|
Term
| exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine |
|
Definition
a. Independent source?
b. Inevitable discovery?
c. Attenuation? |
|
|
Term
| independent source excpetion to fruit of poisonous tree doctrine |
|
Definition
| RULE: the independent source doctrine allows the introduction of evidence discovered during an unlawful search, if the evidence is later discovered through a source that is untainted by the initial illegality. |
|
|
Term
| Inevitable discovery exception to FRUITS |
|
Definition
| Rule: If the government can establish that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the evidence discovered through illegal means is admissible. |
|
|
Term
| Who has burden of proof re: independent source/ inevitable discovery? |
|
Definition
| govt to prove inevitable discovery/independent source = preponderance of evidence |
|
|
Term
Four factors
Attenuation exception to FRUIT |
|
Definition
1. Length of time that has elapsed b/w initial illegality and seizure
2. Flagrancy of the initial misconduct
3. Existence/absence of intervening causes of the seizure of the fruit
4. Presence/absence of an act of free will by the def resulting in the seizure of the fruit |
|
|
Term
| The exclusionary rule will not be applied despite violations... |
|
Definition
| Rule: excl rule will not be applied despite violations, where the costs associated with suppressing evidence outweigh the benefit |
|
|
Term
Good Faith exception
Exclusionary rule: police act under a warrant that turns out to be invalid: |
|
Definition
| When police act under a warrant that is invalid for lack of probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police acted "in objectively reasonable reliance" on the subsequently invalidated search warrant. |
|
|
Term
| Good faith exception doesnt apply: |
|
Definition
- When warrant based on knowingly or recklessly false information
- Magistrate abandons his role as a neutral and detached judge of probable cause
- Warrant affidavit is so severely lacking in probable cause that it would be unreasonable to issue a warrant
- Warrant on its face is clearly deficient (not particular enough) |
|
|
Term
| GOOD FAITH CASES: Looking at the flagrancy of police conduct in applying exclusionary rule: |
|
Definition
| Rule: to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. |
|
|
Term
Davis v. US
RULE: Evidence obtained during a search conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent... |
|
Definition
| is not subject to the exclusionary rule. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
14th - ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…
5th - No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… |
|
|
Term
| causation issue w/ coercion |
|
Definition
| Issue of causation --> despite coercion, if coercion doesn’t actually lead to the confession, it is still admissible. |
|
|
Term
| Wigmore's test re: voluntariness of confession (from Lisenba Case) |
|
Definition
1. Was the inducement of a nature calculated under the circumstances to induce a confession irrespective of its truth or falsity?
2. Was there a threat or a promise, a fear or a hope?
3. Was the confession voluntary?
Was the inducement such that there was any fair risk of a false confession? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Characteristics of the suspect
a. Background, age, intelligence, etc.
2. Morality of police conduct
-Coercion can be mental as well as physical
-If the intent of the police is simply to illicit a confession, then the court may find the confession to have been obtained coercively
- will is overborne? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Statements that stem from custodial interrogation are not admissible unless the gov't can prove that certain procedural safeguards were followed. |
|
|
Term
| Do police have to use the exact Miranda language? |
|
Definition
No. They can come up with other warnings but they have to show the court that their procedures are at least as effective as their procedures. Generally states just follow the court's language
-Subjective knowledge of the person doesn’t matter, you must always give Miranda warnings |
|
|
Term
| when must Miranda warnings be given? |
|
Definition
| prior to custodial interrogation |
|
|
Term
| What happens if a person says they wish to remain silent? |
|
Definition
The police have to stop the questioning
-Must show that the person knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel
If they continue questioning it is considered coercive |
|
|
Term
| custodial interrogation when undercover police officer in jail? |
|
Definition
| custodial interrogation rule does not apply when officer is in jail (no miranda because no police dominated atmosphere in those situations) Illinois v. Perkins coercion is determined from the point of view of the suspect. If they don’t know its an undercover officer in jail, then there cannot be coercion because they don't know it’s the police. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Custody = restricted freedom to depart |
|
|
Term
| are Miranda warnings nec. for every person police question? |
|
Definition
| police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody'. |
|
|
Term
Berkemer v. McCarty
2 issues:
1. Does Miranda apply to statements made by a suspect accused of a misdemeanor traffic offense?
2. Does the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop constitute custodial interrogation for the purposes of Miranda?
-Motorist pulled over for weaving, suspected of DUI
Cop asks him about drinking after pull-over and performs (fails) FSTs
Arrested, taken to station, questioned again. |
|
Definition
Rule: if the police take a suspect into custody and then ask him questions w/o informing him of the rights enumerated in Miranda, his responses cannot be introduced into evidence to establish his quilt.
1. Does Miranda apply to misdemeanor traffic offenses?
a. Yes. Unreasonable to expect cops to figure out what their charging a person as soon as they stop them so that they can figure out Miranda. BLANKET RULE: Miranda applies.
2. Does traffic stop constitute custodial interrogation?
a. Rule: in custody when a reasonable person would feel they are not free to leave.
b. The safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as soon as a suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. |
|
|
Term
| Ordinary traffic stops do not trigger Miranda b/c |
|
Definition
○ Brief
○ Take place in public
○ Less police-dominated atmosphere than is inherent in a custodial interrogation at a police station
A policeman's unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was "in custody" at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. What were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation
2. Given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. - Express questioning or its functional equivalent
○ Functional equivalent = words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
-Police subjective intent/non-intent is not dispositive BUT any knowledge the police may have had concerning the unusual susceptibility of a Def to a particular form of persuasion might be an important factor in determining whether the police should have known that their words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incrim response |
|
|
Term
| Public safety exception to Miranda |
|
Definition
when there is an objectively reasonable need to protect the public or the police, officers may forego mirandizing suspect
"the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination." |
|
|
Term
Missouri v. Seibert
"Missouri two step"
Facts: police practice to interrogate, get confession, then give warnings, and get confession again
Issue: is the second post-warning statement admissible? |
|
Definition
Hell no!
Missouri two step factors:
- Completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation
- The overlapping content of the two statements
- Timing and setting of the first and second round of questioning
- Continuity of police personnel
- Degree to which the interrogator's questions treated the second round as continuous with the first
Rule: were Miranda warnings, when given, effective enough to accomplish their object? |
|
|
Term
US v. Patane
Issue: whether a Miranda violation renders physical evidence inadmissible. |
|
Definition
"As Miranda exists to protect against violations of the self-incrimination clause, it is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement."
Holding: nope. Miranda covers self-incrim statements, not physical evidence. |
|
|
Term
| What if a susoect invokes his right to counsel, and then police uestion him the next day? |
|
Definition
it is inconsistent with Miranda and its progeny for the authorities, at their instance, to reinterrogate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted his right to counsel.
When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. |
|
|
Term
| How must the fifth amendment right to counsel be invoked? |
|
Definition
| Request for counsel must be unambiguous --> must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney |
|
|
Term
| How can the fifth amend. right to counsel be waived? |
|
Definition
Individual has not waived right to counsel unless the individual himself initiates the conversation with police
*** waiver must be a voluntary, knowing and intelligent relinquishment of the Miranda rights.
Voluntary = actions by a person whose will is not overborne by the state
Knowing/Intelligent = suspect must have full awareness of the consequences of abandoning the Miranda rights
- Not crime-specific --> waive rights in general, cops can question you about whatever
Waiver is personal:
- 3rd party cant invoke your rights for you |
|
|
Term
| 6th amendment right to counsel |
|
Definition
Rule: The 6th A prohibits govt interrogation of a defendant after indictment outside the presence of counsel.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ...to have the assistance of Counsel" |
|
|
Term
| once a 6th amend. right to counsel attaches: |
|
Definition
- Once 6th A right to counsel attaches, all further discussions with or information from def must go thru def's counsel.
- Interrogation occurs when officers deliberately elicit incriminating information from an individual. |
|
|
Term
| US v Henry and Kuhlmann v. Wilson |
|
Definition
| Def/suspect has to prove some action on the part of the police (beyond mere listening) to be able to claim a 6th A violation. |
|
|
Term
| 6th amendment right to counsel rule |
|
Definition
- 6th A right to counsel attaches when judicial proceedings have been initiated, whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.
- Once adversarial proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the govt interrogates him (Massiah clarified).
- To waive the 6th A right to counsel, the State must prove an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege. |
|
|
Term
Patterson v. IL
Issue: Do Miranda warnings adequately safeguard a criminal defendant's right to counsel? |
|
Definition
| Rule: Nothing in the 6th amendment prevents police from initiating contact with a suspect whose 6th amendment right to counsel has attached, but who hasn't requested, retained, or been appointed counsel. |
|
|
Term
McNeil v. Wisconsin
Issue: Whether the accused's invocation of 6th A right to counsel automatically constitutes an invocation of Miranda right to counsel. |
|
Definition
- If you request counsel for one crime, police can initiate questioning related to other crimes that have not yet been charged provided you have been Mirandized, and rights have been properly waived.
- When accused invokes 6th A right to counsel, it is offense specific, but he can be approached by officers to waive through Miranda for that offense. Even if there is no Miranda waiver, he can be approached and questioned on other crimes w/o violating 6th A right to counsel. |
|
|
Term
| Blockburger test (Blockburger v. US) |
|
Definition
| - Crimes constitute the same offense only when the elements of one offense are necessarily included in the elements of the other offense |
|
|
Term
Kansas v. Ventris
Issue: when statements are admissible against suspect himself
Facts:
- Jailhouse informant got info from suspect in violation of 6th A
○ Can prior inconsistent statements be used to impeach? |
|
Definition
| Yes; statements obtained in violation of 6th A can nevertheless be used to impeach def's testimony at trial. |
|
|
Term
| 6th amend. right to cousnel, what constitutes "criminal proceedings" |
|
Definition
| Criminal proceedings are initiated through a formal charge, preliminary hearing, information, indictment, or arraignment. |
|
|
Term
| what are the differences between 5th and 6th amendment right to counsel? |
|
Definition
There are several differences between these two rights. While the Fifth Amendment right to counsel may apply before a person has been arrested, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until after criminal proceedings have begun against an individual.
In contrast to the Fifth Amendment right to an attorney, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, meaning that once invoked, the Fifth Amendment right to an attorney forbids police to question a suspect on any matter until the suspect has a chance to speak to an attorney. On the other hand, under the Sixth amendment right to counsel, the suspect is entitled to have their attorney present at interrogations and proceedings involving the specific offense, but police may question the suspect on unrelated matters outside the presence of their attorney which was the basis for the aforementioned United States Supreme Court ruling that being in jail or prison does not mean "in custody" for Miranda. |
|
|
