Criminal Procedure Pitt

Incorporation doctrine

a process by which the supreme court has made most of the rights in the bill of rights applicable to state criminal cases. for a law to apply to the states, the constitution has to explicitly say it.

Barron v Baltimore

incorporation doctrine was established

• started with his property being taken from Barron through eminent domain

14th amendment

no state shall deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

• applies to both criminal and civil matters

Duncan v Louisiana

what due process of law requires in state criminal matters, from investigation to trials to sentencing, is that the process is FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR

Rights never made applicable to the states

• Charged by a grand jury during criminal trials (5th amendment)

• bail shall not be excessive (8th amendment)

Weeks v The United States

• what should be the remedy for a defendant in a criminal case whose rights were violated by the government during the investigation and prosecution of his case

Mapp v Ohio

the exclusionary rule was applied to the states

• evidence that is obtained, but in violation of a defendant’s constitutional right is not admissible in court

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States

• evidence that is directly obtained unconstitutionally as well as evidence that is indirectly obtained as a result of the police’s conduct

  • search one house that leads to evidence at another location, both pieces of evidence are void bc they were unconstitutional searches

Unconstitutional evidence

can be used in CIVIL CASES, not criminal

When can unconstitutional evidence be use

when it is collected by a private citizen, as they are not employees of the government

Nicks v Williams

if evidence is obtained unconstitutionally, but the government is able to prove that the same evidence would have been constitutionally found, then it is an exemption to the exclusionary rule

United States v Leon

• good faith exception (search warrants)

• the warrant cannot be so lacking in information that a reasonable police officer would know that they do not have probable cause

  • cannot be mislead to lied to as it would violate this clause

new federalism

the federal government does not have certain protections in an area, the states are free to give their own protections in that area

• always free to give more protections, never less

suppression motion

hear the facts and evidence from both sides to determine whether or not there is a violation

Civil Remedy

consequence of violating a person’s constitutional rights, which creates a civil case of action against a civil entity

• can be sued in civil court for unrest

arrest

• Taking a person into custody against his will for criminal prosecution or interrogation, where a person believes that they are not free to leave

• a person’s liberty must be restricted

• involuntary detention

Beck v Ohio

defines probable cause

• the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest cause a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed a crime

Arrest warrant

officers have to go before a judicial officer

• bring it before a magistrate

  • a criminal complaint, the crime that they are charging the person with, the section of the crime code that is being charged, the date of the crime, and a brief description

affidavit

a sworn statement from an officer that lays out the facts and circumstances at the time of arrest that are enough for a reasonable person to believe that the person has committed a crime

exceptions for an arrest warrant

• when the crime the police are seeking a warrant for is a FELONY

• police start their chance without a warrant outside the home, but the suspect runs into their house

• crime is a misdemeanor but is committed in the presence of an officer

• any arrest that is taking place in a public area

home arrest rule

if the person is in their home, an arrest warrant is needed

Terry v Ohio

reasonable suspicion

“stop and frisk” “terry stop”

US v Sokolow

how a terry stop also applied to drug courier profiles and airport stops

Michigan v Sitz

sobriety checkpoints; can interrogate at random

Wolf v Ohio

made unlawful searches and seizures applicable to the states

serach

intrusion of privacy of the government into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy

4th amendment protections

1. anyone whose privacy is being intruded upon

2. people with a reasonable expectation of privacy

expectation of privacy

place where a person’s complete privacy is expected

Kats v The United States

when determine whether or not a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, you look at the totality of the circumstances

Open Fields Doctrine

any area in which an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy

Curtilage

expectation of privacy is protected

• the area outside of a home, but is close to the home

Dune v United States

test to determine if an area is an open field or not

• the home’s proximity to the area watched

• induced in the area surrounding the home

• the area’s normal uses

• any special steps taken by the person to protect the people passing by

Illinois v Gates

search warrant required, based on the totality of the circumstances

• file with a judicial officer and file for a warrant

• affidavit for probable cause

United states v Evans

any building or structure that is within the curtilage of the house can be searched, even if it is not attached

Rules to follow for a search to be reasonable

• only law enforcement can execute search warrants

• “ Knock and Announce” rule

• protective sweep

exceptions to search warrant requirements

• A search incident to a lawful arrest

  • wingspan rule (searching that person’s wingspan

• inventory search

• automobile exception

  • United States v carroll (established)

• consent

• emergency situations

• administractive/regulatory searches (TSA/customs)

• public school searches

Witness

• person cannot avoid being called

• have to appear when called

• cannot retroactively plead the 5th

immunity

promise the government will not prosecute the witness

types of immunity

transactional (crime)

• government cannot prosecute the witness for the crime that their testimony implicates them in, even if there is independent evidence.

types of immunity

Use

• the government cannot prosecute the witness from what is in their testimony, but if there is independent evidence, then that can be used in prosecuting.

Confession

are not automatically a violation against the privilege against self incrimination (PASI)

Miranda v Arizona

a suspect who is subject to custodial interrogation must be given his rights