midterm 1 - cases

Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

- Church Leased Land in Florida – Sacrificed animals as part of their religious ceremonies

- Town added ordinances prohibiting the practice of slaughtering animals for religious sacrifices

-- (Town made this law after the church had began this practice and was sacrificing animals)

- Regulated Action not Belief so?

SC held:

Law was NOT Neutral and Not generally applied – only made religious sacrifices illegal-burden practice

Ordinance not neutral so Court must use Strict Scrutiny = Compelling Governmental Interest/Narrowly Tailored

Reynolds v. US (1879)

- Mormon Defendant living in Utah

- Had two wives – Polygamy was advocated

- Federal Law prohibited Polygamy

- Federal Law vs. Action of “Polygamy”

SC Ruled:

- Conviction Upheld

(If I put it into action, the government can regulate that)

- Government Can Regulate Action just not religious belief

- Can’t believe in sacrificing human life and not be charged with murder

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

- Defendant was a member of Seventh-day Adventist Church

- Refused to work on her day of Sabbath (Saturday) – Fired

- Applied for Unemployment – Denied by South Carolina

SC held:

- State can’t deny her unemployment benefits as it violated her Free Exercise of her Religious Beliefs

- Denying Benefits put a Burden on her religious practice

If a Burden, the Government needs a “Compelling Interest” and the law has to be narrowly tailored to accomplish this goal = Strict Scrutiny Test

- Government had no compelling reason for denying her unemployment benefits

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

Employment Division (Oregon) v. Smith

-Native American Indians fired from work - drug rehab but tested for drugs

- Applied for unemployment benefits - denied

- Argued Smoked Peyote for religious ceremony

- Oregon argued that ingesting Peyote was illegal for all in the state and wanted to reduce drug use

SC Held:

- Denial of Benefits - Upheld - No violation of Freedom to Exercise Religion - State law was neutral and applied to everyone

- If neutral law/applied generally Do Not use Strict Scrutiny Test

*IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS*

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

- State law mandated children attend school to age of 16

- Defendant, who was Amish, refused to send his children to school (Ages 14 and 15)

- Convicted in State Court and Fined – Standing

- Yoder argued it violated his free exercise of Religion

-- Amish only send their children to school to 8th grade then learn a trade

SC Held:

- Reversed his Conviction

- State law placed a Burden on his religious way of life

- No, Compelling Government Interest to force Amish Children to attend few more years of schooling (Strict Scrutiny)

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

(1st & 14a violation)

- State law mandated that children must salute the flag at school

- Jehovah’s Witness objected to the law – his two kids attended school

- Dad told kids not to salute the flag – School expelled them! (Standing)

Broke their covenant with god by False Idolatry so Burdened their BELIEF

SC Held:

- Law violated their Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech/Can’t Force others to speak!!!

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, INC (2014)

- Privately owned corporation held by religious family exempt for Federal Law requiring employers to provide contraception coverage health plan

- Supreme Court held that the ACA violated their 1st Amendment Rights by placing a substantial burden on their religious beliefs – Strict Scrutiny

- Religious Freedom restoration Act (1993) vs. ACA

- If a Burden on belief, then use Strict Scrutiny – Other lesser restrictive ways to accomplish goal – other non-privates were providing the care

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

Masterpiece CakeShop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

- Owner of a cake shop did not want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple

- Owner argued it violated his Free Exercise of Religion – Placed a burden on their religious beliefs

- This Violated a Colorado discrimination law and a state commission found owner violated state law

SC held:

- Colorado discrimination law and commission decision was invalid

- Law and commission ruling was not religiously neutral violated Free Exercise Clause

- The Commission showed hostility towards Religion

- Forced him to use his artistic/creative skills against his religious beliefs

-- If it’s a generic goods or services you can force someone to do something but specialized or creative skills cross a line

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

Case Involved same Colorado anti-discrimination law

Lori Smith – Web Designer

She wanted to expand into creating webpages for weddings

Did not want to design for same-sex couples as it violated her religious beliefs

SC held:

- Can’t force a designer to create website = her art

- Violated her 1st Amendment Right – Freedom to Exercise her Religion

- Forcing her to create website would violate her own religious beliefs against same sex couples

- Would be different if general goods or services but this involved her “art”

**IMPORTANT FOR: CAN REGULATE ACTION NOT BELIEFS**

US v. Miller (1939)

Federal law that banned sawed-off shotguns

Supreme Court upheld the law:

Could regulate these weapons as they were not used in the military and had no purpose in the militia so it did not violate the 2nd Amendment

**IMPORTANT FOR 2A**

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

- Law that banned private armed men from parading/drilling in the city

- Presser part of a socialist armed group

- Arrested and Fined - 10 bucks

SC held:

- 2nd amendment rights only put limits on the fed gov. (Barron v. Baltimore)

- State and local gov could regulate armed groups and just not disarm them

- May need armed group for national security when called upon

- 2a as collective right called upon when needed to assist gov

Then came..

**COLLECTIVE RIGHT ARGUMENT**

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

DC banned owned handguns in person’s own residence - fed law

- Purpose of the law was to reduce violent crime in the city

- Second amendment - applies to the fed gov.

SC held:

2a individual's right to “Keep and bear arms” for personal self-defense

- This right is deeply rooted in our history and tradition

- Linguistics discussion on comas and meaning of words

Court expands the 2nd amendment to recognize an individual right to process and carry guns and beyond collective right for militia

**INDIVIDUAL RIGHT ARGUMENT**

Mcdonald v. City of Chicago (2010) J. Altio

- Chicago ordinance banned unregistered handguns in city

- Defendant wanted to buy a handgun for protection in his house

- Chicago argued, 2a. Did not apply to states per Pressor v. Illinois

SC held:

- The “individual” has a right to “keep and bear arms” - Heller

- Through 14a states must comply with 2a

- Due process clause

- Self defense

- deeply rooted in our history and tradition

Overruled Presser

New York State rifle and pistol association v. Bruen (2022)

- Plaintiffs applied for a gun license to carry in public - CWP

- NY denied their application

-- Need to show a special need for CWP

SC held: (j. thomas)

- Law violated 2nd amendment (14a)

-- Mcdonald case

- Prior case: right to bear arms in one's home for self defense

Expand Law - Now have individual right to bear arms in public

- Must be consistent with historical tradition of gun regulation

- Plain textual analysis approach

US v. Rahmi (2024)

- Fed law prohibited individuals from possessing firearms if they had DV restraining order

- Mr. Rahimi in texas had a DV restraining order

- Officers search house/firearms located

- Argued the Fed Law violated his 2a right based on Bruen Case

SC held: (J.Thomas)

- Law valid, pull away from “rigid” historical approach

- Can restrict individuals subject to RO from owning guns

- Our country has restricted gun possession from dangerous violate individuals in the past

- J. Thomas wanted to use a strict historical comparison

Olmstead v. US (1928)

Applied 4 words in 4a using literal/textual approach

- Defendant convicted of selling booze - Fed Law

- Prosecutors used wiretaps of conversation between Olmstead’s home = Office (outside)

SC held:

- Warrantless wiretapping was legal

- It did not occur inside the home

- No invasion into the actual home and therefore legal

-- Nothing was search or sized

- Literal reading of the text - technology

Historical approach: prevent search of material things - Britain to tax hidden goods

Katz v. US (1967)

Case overruled Olmstead

- Defendant involved in betting across state lines - fed.

- He learned from Olmstead and used a phone booth

- Police wiretapped phone booth - outside of home

SC held:

- Warrantless search was illegal

- Wiretap was outside of the house similar to the olmstead case but..

- Court decided 4a protects PEOPLE not just places

- It confirmed that 4a applies when people have a reasonable expectation of privacy

-- That is why there is a door on the photo booth

**4th AMENDMENT**

CA v. Ciraolo (1986)

Defendant growing Marijuana on his farm

- Backyard with two fences around for privacy

- Officers took aerial photographs from 1000 feet - public area

SC held:

No expectation of privacy from someone looking at your property from 1000 feet above (unreasonable expectation of privacy)’’

Then...... florida v. Riley

**4th AMENDMENT**

Florida v. Riley (1987)

- Defendant also growing Mary Jane on his 5 acre lot

- Police Helicopter - view greenhouse from 400ft

- Two missing roof panels on greenhouse/naked eye

- No expectation of privacy from this public space

- As any member of the public good has done this!

Therefore, the officers observation occurred in “Plain view” - Plain view doctrine

**4th AMENDMENT**

Florida v. Jardines

- Popo believed Mr. was growing mary jane in house

- Used drug sniffing police dog to walk around house/front door

-- This info was placed in a warrant - signed

- Search of house - Mary Jane plants - convicted

SC held:

Use of drug dog, was a search

Physical intrusion of govt on land - trespass - historical

Gathered info from his house and “curtilage” - “home is the castle”

Curtilage is immediate area surrounding your home is protected

This occurred without a warrant - illegal search, conviction reversed

Drug dogs legal for routine traffic stops under Illinois v. Caballes (2005) - in public and its quick

**4th AMENDMENT**

CA v. Greenwood

Laguna Beach PD get a tip someone is selling drugs

- Know they need a warrant, did not have one

- Need to have probable cause

Waited and went through Greenwood’s garbage

- Greenwood takes his garbage can and puts it on the street

- Find evidence that potentially is related

Defendant gets convicted

SC Held:

- Expectation privacy (14a) diminishes when you put your garbage on the street

**RIGHT TO PRIVACY**

Kyllo v. US (2001)

- Thinks defendant is selling drugs and growing mary jane in his house

- Takes a thermal imaging camera

-- Lights up the house

-- Sees a lot of electricity and heat

-- Creates warrant based on the thermal imaging

- Found the mary jane and convicted

SC held:

- Conviction reversed - thermal imaging was a search

-- Case expands definition of search

- Police used technology not in a general public use

- High expectation of privacy in your room and thermal imaging violates that privacy (stingray + LPR)

**RIGHT TO PRIVACY**

US v. Jones (2012)

- Defendant sus of drug dealing out of a night club

- Warrant for GPS tracking device for his jeep for 10 days in DC

- Incriminating evidence Day 11+ in

Maryland

SC held:

GPS was a warrantless "search"

Exceeded the scope of the warrant

Vehicle is an effect

Tracker occupied "private property" - therefore physical trespass

Conviction reversed

*RIGHT TO PRIVACY*

Carpenter v. US (2018)

Gov wanted cell-phone records of defendant fro his phone carrier - Sprint (3rd party)

- Involved in 211’s over a period of time

Police obtain warrants for his records from sprint

- Warrant required “reasonable grounds” Not probable cause

- 250 plus days of cell site location data

SC HELD (J. Roberts):

- Revered conviction

- Protect privacy of life v. collecting it from a 3rd party

- We retain our expectation of privacy in our movements cell phones - track everything

- Prior to this ruling, police could get cell-phone data from carriers for investigation without warrants as there was a 3rd to the warrant party

Chimel v. CA (1969)

- Santa Ana Police hand arrest warrant for Mr. Chimel

-- Investigation Burglary of a coin shop

- Arrest him in his house 0 then search entire house, garage, and attic - looking for contraband - find coins and convicted

SC held:

Search Incident to arrest exceptions does not extend to the entire house

Extends to person and then immediate area around them

- For safety reasons and to make sure contraband is not hidden/destroyed

- Ensure officers are not injured

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

- Hicks fires a weapon through the floors of his apartment

- Popo go to apartment to search for victims/suspects

-- Permissible under exigent circumstances exception

- Seized weapons and mask for apartment = legal/plain view

- Noticed expensive stereo moved it to get serial numbers

-- Moving the stereo around constituted a “search” without a warrant

-- Unrelated to the shooting investigation

- Limits plain view doctrine

-- Need probable cause to seize the item

-- Police had suspicion but not PC - moved stereo was illegal search - can't move items around

Riley v. CA (2014)

- defendant arrested for weapons and car searched

- Cops find and search cellphone - videos and photos

- Evidence used against him at trial - gang shooting

SC held: (J. roberts)

- “In the absence of a warrant a search is only reasonable if exception”

- “Search incident to an arrest” is an exception

- Case applies this doctrine to modern tech - cell phones

- Balance the right to privacy and gov. Interest

-- Cell phone data is not a risk to an officer

-- Cell phone data not at risk of being destroyed - acknowledge minicomputers

Holding: need a warrant to search your cell phone

expectation of privacy: Minnesota v. Olson (1990)

- Popo enters Olson’s friends house to arrest him - suspect in 211/187 - no warrant to enter

- Had been staying there at night as a guest

SC held:

- Overnight guests are protected - expectation of privacy - confession suppressed

expectation of privacy: Minnesota v. Carter (1998)

- defendant just used friends apartment to package drugs

- Cops enter without a warrant

SC held:

- Temporary guests - not protected by 4a

- No reasonable expectation privacy in house just visiting

US v. Arvizu (2002)

- Border patrol agent stops van

-- Isolated unpaved road in AZ

-- Facts: Slowed down, look nervous, cargo backseat, drug trafficking route, shift change

SC held:

- Car stop was legal/don’t need warrant

- Only need reasonable sus

- “To make reasonable sus to determination court looks at the totality of the circumstance of each case to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrong doing”

Officer

*EXCEPTION TO WARRANT RULE**

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

- Officer observed terry "casing" a store based on reasonable sus - patted down and found weapon

- Court created an exception to the warrant requirement:

= Search can still be reasonable under facts

- Reasonable sus to detain

- Reasonable sus person is armed and dangerous

- Can now search for weapons

- Officer safety

"Reasonable to conclude that criminal activity may be "afoot" and person involved may be armed and dangerous"

EXCEPTION TO WARRANT RULE*

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)

- Dickerson exits apartment complex – Cops believe it is a “crack” house and detain him

- Pat him down for “weapons” per terry case

- Officer feels a lump in his pocket - manipulates the substance - crack cocaine

SC held:

- Expanded terry stop and frisk exception:

- During pat down officers can remove other items than weapons if easily recognizable

- Can retrieve non-threatening contraband

- Created “plain feel” doctrine like “plain view”

Can’t squeeze or manipulate the contraband so this search was illegal

Bond v. US (2000)

- Border patrol stopped a bus in texas to check immigration status

- (Patrol officer) PO sees overhead bag and squeezes it - feels brick object

SC held:

- Reasonable expectation of privacy with luggage - concealed it

- Officer’s physical manipulation of the bag considered a search - beyond plain view/feel

- No warrant

- No exception

- Invalid search

- Conviction reversed

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)

- Police officers patrolling “high” drug trafficking

- Noticed Wardlow - he looks at them and runs away

- Cops give chase - detain him - terry frisk - weapon

SC held:

- Flight from police in high-crime area creates reasonable suspicion to detain

- Therefore, stop & frisk was legal

Inherent bias?

-- “Unprovoked flight from police”

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

- 14-yo smoking in girls bathroom

- Teacher caught her and searched purse/found mary jane

- Sent to juvenile court/motion to suppress denied

SC held:

- School officials are “agents” and subject to 4th amendment requirement

- School officials do not need probable cause to search

- Balance student expectation of privacy with school’s mission as a learning institution

- Allowed to search students as long as reasonable related to objectives of search and NOT excessively intrusive considering age and sex of the student

**SEARCH OF STUDENT**

Michigan Department of State Police v. Stiz (1990)

Police conduct DUI sobriety checkpoints

SC held:

- Legal, the search is “reasonable” intrusion

- States have substantial governmental interest to deter DUIS and intrusion is “light” to the citizen

- Search is reasonable related to goal - balancing test

US v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)

- Interior immigration checkpoint are legal

**WHEN SEARCHES/SEIZURES ARE REASONABLE W/O A WARRANT**

Indianapolis v. Edmund (2000)

Popo stopped all vehicles on freeway and used drug dog

SC held:

Stopping cars for “general crime control” was illegal without reasonable suspicion for each car

**WHEN SEARCHES/SEIZURES ARE REASONABLE W/O A WARRANT**

Maryland v. King (2013)

- Take DNA after arrest for certain crimes serious or violent crime - Database

SC held:

- Cheek swab - limited intrusion like fingerprint

- Booking process - Government interest

-- Identify suspect but what if case gets dismissed? Used to investigate other crimes?

**WARRANT EXCEPTIONS**

Bernard v. Minnesota (2016)

- No warrant necessary for a breathalyzers after arrest

- Not unreasonable searches/seizures

- Not intrusive compared too..

- Blood tests are more intrusive and need a warrant

*WARRANT EXCEPTIONS*

Missouri v. Mcneely (2013)

- McNeely arrested for speeding and crossing over center-line

- Refused breath test

- Taken to hospital 0 refused blood test - officer ordered it against their consent

SC held:

- Invalid - unreasonable search = need warrant

- Only government argues - BAC dissipates over time

- No exigent circumstances on a routine DUI investigation

- HIGH intrusion into the human body

- Expectation of privacy v. governmental interest

-- Right to privacy in your blood win!

Carroll v. US (1925)

- Cops investigate Mr. Carroll for selling Liquor - prohibition

- Pulled his car over in Michigan 0 searched it without a warrant

SC held:

- Not practical to secure a warrant

- Automobiles can be quickly moved

- Distinguished from home - time to secure a warrant

Carroll Doctrine:

1. Probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in vehicle

2. Exigent circumstances to believe the vehicle could be moved before warrant

CA v. Acevedo (1991)

- Popo see Acevedo leave an apartment they believe sells mary jane and he enters his care

- Acevedo has brown bag and placed it inside trunk and drives off

- Officers stop car and search trunk and brown bag

SC held:

- The police may search car or its containers if they have probable cause that contraband or evidence within the car

- Must believe evidence they are looking for could be in the container or bag

- Extends Carroll rule to containers within a vehicle

Collins v. VA (2018)

- Officers chase black/colored motorcycle - escapes

- Info on Mr. Collins and FB w/ photos of motorcycle at his house

- Officer goes onto the property, lifts tarps. Takes photos and conforms serial number of stolen motorcycles

SC held:

- Can’t search vehicle without a warrant on owners property

- Curtilage, the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, is part of the home for 4a purposes

- Automobile expectation v. Privacy on the curtilage

-- High expectation of privacy in area surrounding your house

Exclusionary Rule - Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

- Mapp involved in illegal betting

- Officers raided her house without a warrant - betting slips = pornography

Exclusionary rule applied to states:

- 14a - due process

- SC stated that the exclusionary rule was necessary to enforce the rights described in the 4a

- Court had to enforce integrity, so courts did now allow gov. to commit crime by using illegal evidence

- Make popo dept. better than their officers

Exclusionary Rule - Weeks v. US (1914)

- Weeks sus of gambling/illegal lottery

- Detained at a Bus station

- Cops go to his house - search without a warrant - local paperwork proving illegal lottery through the mail

SC held:

- illegally seized evidence excluding in court

- if you could use the evidence at the trial, the 4a would have no meaning

- Prevent officers from breaking the law

- Applied to Fed gov.

Hurtado v. CA (1884)

- H. discovered wife having an affair

- H. shoots & kills bf

- DA used an info not indictment

SC held:

- Grand jury right is NOT incorporated into state rights though 14a

- States can use their own process

- About half states require Grand Jury indictment

- Using an info is the other option

-- This is a sworn statement by a prosecutor after judge holds a preliminary hearing

-- CA uses indictment and info

**GRAND JURY FED RIGHT ONLY**

Green v. US (1957)

- Green acquitted of first-degree murder and convicted of second

- Green appealed - revered

- Fed gov/ tried him on first degree again - convicted now on 1st

SC reversed conviction

- The “state” with all of its resources and might should not get multiple chances to convict a person

- Not fair to client to give up appeal right v. fear of + charges

**DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE**

Benton v. Maryland (1969)

Benton charged with Burglary and larceny in State court

- Acquitted on Larceny found guilty on Burglary

- Jurors swore to existence of god - invalid - new trial

- Litigated both Burglary and Larceny Charge - Guilt on both

SC held:

- 5a against double jeopardy - applies to states

- Used Due process clause of 14a

-- Overruled Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

--- Was executed after gov. Had two attempts to convict him on first degree murder of a police officer

**DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE**

US v. Lara (2004)

Native American Indian convicted in Tribal court on Tribal Land

- Charge - Assaulted a federal officer

Federal gov prosecuted him for same conduct - assault officer

SC held:

- Permissible

- Double Jeopardy does not bar prosecution from two sovereign gov.

**DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE**

Gamble v US (2019)

- Defendant convicted for felon in possession of gun and sentenced to one year in prison - Alabama - State Law violation

- Fed Gov decided to prosecute him for same crime

SC held: Valid conviction

- This was a “long standing proactive”

-- Occurred over 170 yrs - Historical approach

- States + Fed gov can charge person w/ same conduct

- Same offense - defined by law, two diff laws (1 ST, 1 FED) so not same offense

- Alito argued not an exception as its based on “Two sovereign Entities” so therefore, NOT double Jeopardy

**DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE**

Hudson v. US (1997)

The defendant received benefits from two bank loans illegally

Fined for banking violations

Civil - governmental agency

Then prosecuted criminally

SC Held:

First was a civil fine not criminal

Therefore, DJ does not apply

Can now be prosecuted for same offence received civil fine

5th AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVIL

**5th AMENDMENT**

Dowling v. US (1990)

- Charged w. Bank 211 - ski masks

- Evidence of house 211 with ski mask - 2 weeks later/acquitted

- Can introduce evidence of a crime you were acquitted on in a diff case for other conduct

*PRACTICAL REMIFICATIONS*

US v. Ursery (1996)

- Civil Forfeiture does not violate double jeopardy clause

- Drug traffickers and automobiles

- NOT PUNISHMENT!!!

**DOUBLE JEOPARDY & CIVIL**

Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)

- Hendricks serving prison for sexual offenses

- Close to release, state filed a civil commitment order

- Allows State to commit a “Habitual sexual offender” to hospital” After timed served

- State must establish a mental disorder and likely to engage in conduct

- Indefinite CIVIL commitment

SC held:

- Not punishment

- Not criminal nature

- Not in violation of DJ

Malloy v. Hogan (1964)

- Malloy convicted of gambling and placed probation in Connecticut

- Called to testify at a STATE gambling Board - Admin Board

- Mally refused to testify - held in contempt - jailed

SC held:

- Right against Self-incrimination applies to the states

- Applies in civil proceedings of if might incriminate yourself

- Use Due process clause of 14a (DJ)

Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944)

- Ashcraft confessed killing wife w/hitman

- Ashcraft argued his confession was coerced

-- 36 hrs of intense interrogation with one break - abusive with sleep deprivation - under spotlights - rotated officers in

- Ware, hitman, argued his confession extorted as threatened with white mob

SC held:

- Both confession were inadmissible

- Only “voluntary” confession are admissible

- Violate due process - inherently coercive

- Precursor to Miranda - Totality of circumstances to see if confession is voluntary

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

- Escobedo arrested for killing brother-in-law and release

- co-defendant informed the popo Escobedo was the shooter

- Escobedo re-arrested now as suspect

- interviewed 14 hr

-Requested to see his lawyer - officers refused

-not advised of right to remain silent

- Escobedo confessed

SC HELD:

- General inquiry ended and now Escobedo was "focused on as a suspect"

- Therefore, needed to be advised of right to remain silent

- Conviction reversed (5a &6a) seld incrimination/right to attorney

Miranda v. AZ (1966)

- Ernesto Miranda - admitted to kidnapping and SA in a 2hr interrogation - typed statement

- Popo did hit tell him he had a right to an attorney

SC HELD:

- Police interrogations are "inherently coercive"

- Intimidating environment

- In order for confession to be voluntary... Suspects must be advised of their rights

con.,

- Court cited police training manuals - overcome will of the suspect

- Without warnings inherent coercive not admissible at trial

- When invoked questioning must cease immediately

Griffin v. CA (1965)

- Griffin fights w/ victim in her apt and kills her

- Griffin decides not to testify

- Pros. Argued that victim can't tell her story and defendant won't either

- Judge says that Defendant fails to explain, they can use against as truth of the matter

- Griffin Convicted

SC HELD:

- Conviction reversed - extends protection of the 5a

- Pros. can't comment on client invoking his 5a

Salinas v. Texas (2013)

- Investigating 2 homicides

- Salinas agrees to answering questions

- Answered all but: will shells found at crime scene match your weapon- Salinas does not reply

- Pros. commented on his refusal to answer question

SC held:

- Pros. can comment to a suspect not answering a question about murder

Alito:

- Person was not in custody and no Miranda Warnings were given

- Never invoked the 5a - must claim this right

Dickerson v. US (2000)

- Congress passed Crime & Control Act of 1968 - 2yrs after

- Confession in Fed Court admissible under totality of circumstances (voluntary) - Pre Miranda

- Congress disagreed w/ MW ruling and believe warnings were prophylactic guidelines not const. right

- Dickerson arrested w/o warnings and convict.

SC held:

- Struck down congress law lacks authority - Miranda Lives on

- Popo interrogation - isolates and pressures the suspect

- MW are necessary to protect right

US v. Patane (2004)

- Mr. P arrestes for harassing GF

- Questioned about diff topics/possession of a gun

- Officer never advised MR

- P tells officers where gun was location/in house

SC held:

- gun admissible

- Miranda is guideline not a const. right

- Physical evidence obtained from un-mirandized statements, as long as those statements were not forced by police, were constitutionally admissible

- no fruit of the poisonous tree

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

- Seibert's son and another person killed in an arson

- She was arrested and interrogated

- Pop used technique they were being trained on

-- Get confession without MW

-- Then advise suspect of MR

-- Then confirm original confession

SC held:

1st & 2nd confessions are not admissible

- use first illegal confession to get second confession

- MW were NOT EFFECTIVE

- police attempting to get around MW and made them ineffective

Brewer v. Williams (1977)

- William arrested for a girl's murder

- Charged and given attorney - invoked 5a

- Client transported by police car - 160miles

- Officer knew Williams was a mental patient & religious

- Officer commented to client abt finding girls body so the parents can give her a "Christian Burial" b4 it snowed

- Williams then leads police to body

SC held:

- Statements inadmissible violate 5th/6th

RI v. Innis (1980)

- Innis arrested for robbery and gun

- Mirandized and invoked 5a right

- transporting Innis - Officers talk to each other about missing shotgun

-- Handicap school nearby & kids could find shotgun and hurt themselves

-- Innis told popo where gun was located

SC held:

- Statements admissible

- interrogation = questions of function "equivalent"

- functional equivalent = should know their comment would elicit and incriminating response

- However, officers were not talking to client and did not know he was listening

JDB v. North Carolina (2011)

- Minor was sus of committing robberies

- he was in special ed & 13yro

- Police interview him @ school officials

SC held:

- student was in Custody - needed MR

- Test - would a reasonable and mental capacity as factors when determining custody

- Can use age and mental capacity as factors when determining custody

- Dissent: moved backwards towards Totality of circumstanced and away from bright light rule of when someone becomes a suspect

Howes v. Fields (2012)

- Fields already a prisoner serving time

- taken out of cell and questioned on diff matter - 2 officers - not handcuffed

- 5hr long - officers armed

- Officers told him he could return to his cell at anytime

- not advised MR - confessed to assault

SC held:

- Statement admissible

- Not in custody

- Therefore, no MR necessary

- Can consider "All of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation"

Illinois v. Perkins (1991)

- Perkins sus of murder

- in jail on unrelated charge

- Officer pretends to be arrested and placed in cell w/ suspect

- Suspect brags to officer - inmate about the murder

SC held:

- Statements admissible

- suspect put misplaced trust into a cellmate

- zero expectation of privacy

- info released to 3rd party

AZ v. Fulminante (1991)

- Mr. F step-daughter shot and killed

- Became a suspect in murder

- In prison on gun charges

- FBI placed informant in cell with Mr. F

- Word out in prison about killing a girl

- FBI informant promised "protection" if he confessed

SC held:

- Statement was found to be inadmissible

- Statement was involuntary

- Promises made ro suspect makes statement involuntary/coerced

Harris v. NY (1971)

- Harris sold drugs to cops

- Admitted to being middleman to cops

- At trial testified differently

- MR are procedural in nature, not rights

- Statements in violation of Miranda

- Can be used to impeach clients testimony at trial if he lies or differs from original statement

Duckworth v. Eagen (1989)

- E. arrested for stabbing woman

- Officers read MW: Provided lawyer if and when you go to court

- E; then confessed and moved to exclude as incorrect MW

SC held:

- Statements admissible

- Miranda warning doesn't need it be given in exact form

- As long as rights read as whole informed him of his rights

Florida v. Powell (2010)

- Powell Suspect in 211 - arrested & gun location in apt

- Interviewed at police station

- Officers told Powell he had a right to talk to a lawyer before answering questions

- Powell waived Miranda and confesses to knowing about gun

- Powell argued invalid - not advised about attorney

SC held:

- Police doesn't need to give precise language

- rights needed to be reasonable coney to suspect his rights under Miranda

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2012)

- T. suspect in a murder - shooter

- Read MR - sat quiet for over 3hrs without answering

- after 3+hrs officer use religious beliefs

-- Believe in god, believe in forgiveness, ask for forgiveness foe 187 - Berghuis asks for forgiveness

SC held:

- extended silence is not a clear invocation for his 5a

- suspect must "unambiguously and unequivocally invoke right to remain silent"

Mcneil v. Wisconsin (1991)

- McNeil charged with Robbery - attorney was appointed invoked 6a amendment in the robbery charges

- McNeill in custody and questioned about a diff murder

- officer read MR b4 interview on murder

- Mcneil waives * implicates himself

SC held:

- Statement admissible

- Right to attorney on robbery case did not mean right to an attorney on murder

- Invoking 6a does not invoke 5a

- 6a id offense specific