It means the ∆ has either been

(1) had physical force applied by the cop

(2) submission to the cop's authority

e.g. Cop says something, such as accusation, which make you think you cannot terminate the encounter.

*Look at the totality of the circumstances

Good Faith Exception to ER ->

If cop acted in objective, reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached/neutral magistrate, but was later found to be unsupported by PC -->

The Evidence can still come in

No, it is not coming in.

If RWTO could have found the defect, then it doesn't fall under the good faith exception.

When the government becomes an adversarial opponent and the 6th amdt right attaches.

Govt needs to step back when they become a formal adversary

What is deliberate elicitation?

What is the difference between eliciations when the ∆ is charged v. uncharged?

When information is being extracted, possibly while talking to an informant.

Exam: Look to whether the ∆ had been charged yet. Uncharged --> can ask leading questions

Charged --> can't ask, fly on the wall, interactions must be passive (Kulhmann)

Nope, if he/she does, the evidence is tainted.

Can't have a bounty system.

Yes,

1) Atty needs to be present to make sure the line up isn't suggestive. ∆'s won't typically know how line-ups should be conducted.

2) Right to confront witnesses during cross-x, want the atty to know what happened during the ID.

- Protects people not place

1) Is there an expectation of privacy

2) Is that expectation reasonbable?

Garbage on the curtilage case

Garbage not protected once its out on the curb bc it could be accessed by anyone.

J. Brennan’s Dissent – the wording the court uses of “could obtain” be the equaivlant of saying the police could get a hold of it bothered him.

• Flight is routine, don't do a Katz analysis 
• Anyone can fly over and see weed growing at 400ft, no tech necessary 
• J. O'Connner concurrence - driven by likelihood, lots of traffic at 400 feet

• Aerial survellience at 1000ft is fine too.
• Sheriff does not have to avert his eyes to crimes.

• Manipulate the bag on the bus. Search went to far when cop felt the bag bc it went beyond what was reasonably expected. 
• When analyzing expectation of privacy look to what could ordinarly happen, not to what could therotically happen.

The "Could" Cases - Greenwood, Riley and Ciraorlo suggest that if a public person could gather then the info then there is no expectation of privacy

Ordinary expectation cases - suggest that if its ordinary/reasonable to expect that to happen there is no expectation of privacy

1. View takes place from a location where the cops have a right to be.

2. Info could have been obtained from "plain view" surveillance without the special device.

Can use - flashlights binoculars

Cannot use - high tech devices not in general civilian use

1. Voluntary

2. Knowing and intelligent

By a preponderance of the evidence

less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.

-Applies to mobile homes but looks as to whether its being used as a residence or not and how mobile it is

• Does the ∆ have a 4th amdt right?
• Was there govt conduct?
• did the ∆ have a reas expectation of privacy?
• If so, did the police have a valid warrant?
• If no warrant did they fit into an exception?

• issued by a detached and neutral magistrate
• based on probable cause
• praticulary describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized

Yes but three requirement to go "behind the face" of the warrant:

1. a false statment was included in the affidavit
2. the affiant intentionally or recklessly included that false statement
3. the false statement was material to the finding of PC

aka Franks hearing

ESCAPIST

E: xigent Cirucmstances

S: earch incident to arrest

C: onsent

A: utomobile

P: lainview

I: nventory

S: pecial Needs

T: erry Stop and Frisk

the arrestee is unsecured and may still gain access to the interior of the vechicle

the cops reas beleive that evdiecne of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle. 

volntary

look at the totality of the circumstaces (age/education/mental condition/physical condition, setting, duration and manner of cops)

Right to remain silent

anything said can be used against him in court

he has the right to the presence of an atty

if he cannot affod an atty, one will appointed

Is it unnecessarily suggestive

AND

there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification

After prosecutor marks the exhibit and shows it to opposing counsel,

Hand the exhibit to the witnesss

Ask the witness to identify the it

"Tell us how you know this _______"

Is it in sustanially the same condition that you found it?

Then, Offer it into evidence and publish it to the jury.

Yes, the convicion will be admissible under the

"Any Crime, Any Time"

Every witnes by testfying subject himself to examination relative to his criminal conviction