crim justice midterm

Crime Control Model

Emphasizes efficient repression of crime, law & order, and not letting the guilty go free on “technicalities.”

Due Process Model

Emphasizes fairness and protecting the rights of the accused; better to let guilty go free than convict an innocent person.

Warren Court trend

More due process: expanded defendants’ rights and limited police power.

Burger/Rehnquist/Roberts Courts trend

Generally more crime control: narrowed some protections and prioritized law enforcement efficiency.

Funnel of Justice

The idea that most crimes do NOT make it all the way through the system from crime → arrest → conviction → prison.

Funnel stages

Crimes committed → crimes detected → arrests → prosecutions → pleas/ trials → convictions/acquittals → sentencing → probation/prison/execution.

Why cases “drop out”

Insufficient evidence, limited resources, uncooperative/unreliable victims, plea bargaining, charging decisions.

Why BOR didn’t originally apply to states

It was written to limit the federal government; states weren’t automatically bound.

How the 14th Amendment applies rights to states

Through the Due Process Clause, the Court “incorporates” certain BOR rights against states.

Selective Incorporation

Specific BOR rights apply to states once deemed “fundamental.”

Total Incorporation

All BOR rights apply to states automatically.

Case-by-case (fundamental fairness) approach

Asks whether state conduct shocks the conscience / violates fundamental fairness, even if no specific BOR right is incorporated.

Palko v. Connecticut (core issue)

Whether Double Jeopardy applies to states via the 14th.

Palko holding (then)

No incorporation of Double Jeopardy at that time; only rights “fundamental to ordered liberty” apply to states.

Palko later history

Overruled later; Double Jeopardy is incorporated now (Benton v. Maryland).

Cardozo’s incorporation test

Rights incorporated if fundamental to ordered liberty / essential to a fair system.

Adamson v. California (Black’s view)

Black argued total incorporation: “liberty” in 14th = shorthand for the BOR.

Why Black liked total incorporation

Less judicial discretion; clear rule that binds states to the whole BOR.

Why Black sometimes voted along selective incorporation

It was the Court’s approach/controlling doctrine in many cases.

Rochin v. California (facts)

Police forced stomach pumping for evidence.

Rochin rule

Some conduct violates Due Process if it “shocks the conscience.”

Duncan v. Louisiana (facts)

Battery conviction; question about jury trial right.

Duncan holding

Jury trial is fundamental for serious offenses, so states must provide it.

Why federal vs state jury standards differ

Not every procedural detail was historically applied to states (incorporation + doctrine over time).

Federal jury size

Typically 12 jurors in federal felony trials.

State jury size

Often 12, but can be smaller (some states allow 6 in some cases, depending on offense type).

Unanimity (modern rule)

For serious criminal cases, unanimity is required (after Ramos v. Louisiana).

Probable cause

Facts that would make a reasonable person believe a crime occurred and the suspect did it.

Warrantless public felony arrest rule

Police may arrest in public for a felony with probable cause, even without exigency (Watson).

Draper v. U.S. (what it teaches)

A detailed tip + police verification can establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

Paid CI relevance

A proven/reliable informant + corroboration increases reliability for probable cause.

United States v. Watson (what it teaches)

Warrantless public felony arrest is generally okay with probable cause.

Whren v. U.S. (what it teaches)

Pretext doesn’t matter: if there’s objective PC for a traffic violation, the stop is valid.

“No reasonable officer would do that” argument

Rejected in Whren; subjective motives don’t kill a stop supported by PC.

Ornelas v. U.S. (what it teaches)

Appellate courts review probable cause/reasonable suspicion de novo (fresh legal review) but defer to trial court fact-finding.

Can an appellate court add new facts?

No; it reviews the record facts and decides if they legally amount to PC/RS.

Payton v. New York (what it teaches)

Police generally need an arrest warrant to enter a suspect’s home to arrest.

Illinois v. Gates (what it teaches)

Tip reliability judged by totality of the circumstances, not rigid tests.

Atwater v. Lago Vista (what it teaches)

If there is PC for even a minor offense, a custodial arrest can be constitutional.

Virginia v. Moore (what it teaches)

Violating state arrest rules doesn’t automatically make the arrest unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.

State law limits vs 4th Amendment

States can give MORE protection; federal 4A is the constitutional floor.

“Stop” (Terry stop)

Brief detention based on reasonable suspicion, limited in scope/time.

Arrest

Greater restraint based on probable cause.

Two ways you’re “arrested”

(1) formal arrest declaration OR (2) a reasonable person wouldn’t feel free to leave due to restraint.

Hodari D fix-it

In California v. Hodari D., a person is “seized” only with physical force or submission to authority.

Hodari D evidence rule

If you don’t submit and you toss drugs while running, they’re typically abandoned and can be used (not excluded just because police chased you).

Warrant requirements

Issued by neutral magistrate, supported by probable cause, based on oath/affirmation, with particularity (place/items).

Why home arrests/searches get extra protection

Home has the highest expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment.

Warrantless home entry (allowed when)

With valid consent, exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, emergency aid, etc.

Knock-and-announce rule

Generally required, but not absolute.

When police can skip knock-and-announce

Reasonable suspicion that knocking is dangerous, futile, or risks destruction of evidence.

Wilson v. Arkansas takeaway

Knock-and-announce is part of 4A reasonableness, with exceptions.

Property damage during execution

Doesn’t automatically invalidate; question is whether officers acted reasonably.

Protective sweep purpose

Officer safety: quick check for dangerous persons.

Where officers can look on protective sweep

Only places a person could hide (closets, adjoining areas, etc.).

What can be seized during a protective sweep

Evidence/contraband in plain view while lawfully sweeping.

Murder-scene exception?

No. A body doesn’t authorize a full search; beyond plain view generally needs a warrant or another exception.

Illinois v. McArthur takeaway

Police can temporarily secure a scene / restrict movement while seeking a warrant if reasonable (to prevent evidence destruction).

Frisk definition

Limited pat-down for weapons based on reasonable suspicion someone is armed/dangerous.

Search incident to arrest definition

Broader search of arrestee + immediate grab area after lawful arrest.

Why search “immediate reach”

Officer safety + prevent evidence destruction.

Chimel key limit

Search incident is limited to person + area within immediate control; not a full house search.

Stop-and-frisk seizure

Weapons, and contraband only if immediately apparent by “plain feel.”

Search incident seizure

Weapons, contraband, and evidence found on person or within immediate control.

Automobile exception (core)

With probable cause, police may search a vehicle without a warrant due to mobility + reduced expectation of privacy.

Where they can look with auto exception

Anywhere the object of the search could be, including containers that could hold it.

Inventory searches (core)

Allowed for lawfully impounded vehicles to protect property, police, and safety.

Inventory limits

Must follow standardized procedures; cannot be a pretext for investigation.

South Dakota v. Opperman takeaway

inventory search can be valid when done routinely after impoundment

Knowles v Iowa

A citation alone doesn’t justify a full search incident to arrest; no full search just because you wrote a ticket.

Arrest in vehicle search limit (Gant rule)

Search passenger compartment only if arrestee is unsecured within reach OR it’s reasonable vehicle contains evidence of offense of arrest.

Chambers v. Maroney fix-it

If police have PC, they can search the car without a warrant; towing to station doesn’t automatically invalidate (your note “search now not valid” is not the main rule).

Container searches with PC

With probable cause to search for an item, police can search any container that could hold it.

Chadwick takeaway

Strong privacy in luggage; historically required warrants for some container searches once secured (but later doctrine expanded vehicle/container searches).

Acevedo rule

If police have probable cause that a container in the car holds contraband, they may search that container without a warrant (and with PC to the car, they can search containers too).

“Locked container exception?”

Under modern auto exception doctrine, locks don’t automatically require a warrant if PC exists to search that container in the vehicle.

Hot pursuit

Immediate, continuous pursuit of a fleeing suspect from a public place.

Can police enter “any home” in hot pursuit?

No; entry must relate to the fleeing suspect and be immediate/continuous.

Close pursuit search scope

Limited to finding the suspect / safety-related areas where suspect could be.

When hot becomes cold

When pursuit is no longer immediate/continuous (time breaks, lost trail), warrant usually required.

Emergency entry

Entry allowed to render aid/prevent harm/respond to emergencies.

Does plain view apply in emergency entry?

Yes, if officers are lawfully inside.

Wardlow rule

Headlong flight + high-crime area = reasonable suspicion, not automatically probable cause.

Does running give probable cause

Usually no; it supports reasonable suspicion for a stop.

Kentucky v. King

Exigency can justify entry if police did not create exigency by violating the 4th Amendment.

“Good faith”

Officers reasonably believe they’re acting legally; courts may not suppress when police act reasonably under existing law.

Securing premises while seeking warrant

Can be reasonable to prevent evidence destruction/escape (McArthur-style logic).

Warden v. Hayden takeaway

Hot pursuit can justify warrantless entry and search for suspect/weapons.

Consent search

Valid if consent is voluntary under totality of circumstances.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte rule

Police don’t have to tell you you can refuse; voluntariness is totality of circumstances

Bumper v. North Carolina rule

Consent is invalid if given only because police falsely claim they have a warrant.

Florida v. Bostick rule

Police may request consent on buses/airports; test is whether a reasonable person felt free to decline (totality of circumstances).

Can police ask to search cars by consent?

Yes, if consent is voluntary.

Third-party consent (Matlock rule)

Co-occupant can consent if they have common authority.

Apparent authority (Rodriguez rule)

If police reasonably believe the person has authority, consent can be valid even if mistaken.

Stoner v. California rule

A hotel clerk generally cannot consent to search your hotel room; it’s your privacy interest.

Plain view doctrine

Yes, if requirements are met.

Plain view requirements

Officer lawfully present + lawful access + incriminating nature immediately apparent (probable cause).

Arizona v. Hicks takeaway

Police can’t move/manipulate objects to create plain view; moving stereo to read serial # was a search.

Horton v. California fix-it

Plain view seizure doesn’t require that discovery be “inadvertent”; if officers are lawfully searching and see items with immediately apparent illegality, they can seize.