Due Process Final #15

Miranda rights, interrogation, seizure, custody

Terry v. Ohio facts?

• While patrolling, officer in plain clothes, has his attention on 3 men

• He has been an officer for several years

• observed the men go up and down the street -> talked to each other, and then did the pattern again 24 times 

• officer then feared they may have a gun, so he went up to them, asked for their names to which on of the men mumbled

• Officer then turned around one of the men and patted down the outside of his clothing and found that they were both carrying guns 

Terry v. Ohio Issue?

Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other man in violation of the 4th Amendment?

Terry v. Ohio reasoning?

• Stop and frisk are minor inconvience/petty indignity and needed in law enforcement

• he was seized, so 4th amendment in play; seizure was reasonable; he was not free to leave

• now a lower standard for probable cause: reasonable suspicion

Terry v. Ohio holding?

In favor of the US/Ohio

Reasonable suspicion

Specific and articulable facts with rational inferences from facts that the person is armed and dangerous; cannot be a guess - never a hunch

How to know if a seizure was reasonable

• was the stop reasonable at its inception

  • PC or reasonable suspicion

• Whether the search reasonably related in scope to the circumstances for why stopped in the first place

Commonwealth v. Long: facts, issue, reasoning, holding

• racially motivated minor traffic infraction

• now need to look at officers history and can suffice that it was raciallly motivated

Commonwealth v. Van Radar: facts, issue, reasoning, holding

• same as long

• applies to pedestrian stops as well

Neom v. Vasquex Perdomo: facts, issue, reasoning holding

• shadow docket case

• can stop for any reason (HS, ICE)

Minn v. Dickerson facts

• police stop Dickerson under stop and frisk (reasonable suspicions) theory

• officer indicates he feels a lump in his jacket -> contraband

• officer knew it was not a weapon, however, did not know what it was until he moved (manipulated) the package 

Minn v. Dickerson issue?

Does the search exceed the Terry stop scope?

Minn v. Dickerson holding?

In favor of Dickerson 

Minn v. Dickerson reasoning?

• Allowance of a plain touch/plain feel doctrine -> immediatly identitfy what it is

• Had to manipulate item 

• act was after he patted him down

US v. Mendenhall facts?

• At the airport, DEA agents in plain clothing, characteristics of person carrying narcotics is noticed

• Appraoched her, and said they were cops, and asked for identfication -> has many identities

• Ask to go to the backroom, cannot say no

• says yes to being searched, found narcotics

US v. Mendenhall issue?

was she seized at the interaction that violated her 4th Amendment rights?

US v. Mendenhall holding?

In favor of the US

US v. Mendenhall reasoning?

• Not PC for stop

• not seized at the interaction

• consented to the search

• only 2 officers, no uniform, public area, no display of weapons, basic conversation

Camara?

Administrative case that developed a reasonablness test for administrative searches

Sole justification of Terry case?

Protection of police officers and others

When officers lawfully stop a car based on reasonable suspicion they can:

• briefly detain the occupants for investigation (Terry Stop)

• and, frisk the driver or passengers only if they reasonably believe someone is armed and dangerous

What is a Seizure?

• When law enforcement significantly interferes with a persons or their property’s freedom of movement or possession 

• seizure does not require formal arrest or charges; it’s about central or interference

Example of Seizure?

• stopping a person on the street (Terry Stop)

• Taking a person’s property (like a backpack or car)

• confiscating contraband or evidence

What is custody?

• Being under formal legal control by law enforcement, usually after an arrest or detention, often implying that freedom to leave is denied

• custody is broader; all custody is a type of seizure, but not all seizures constitute custody

Example of custody?

• Being handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car

• being formally arrested and booked at a station 

Miranda v. Arizona facts?

• 41 cases together; in each case efendants were:

  • questioned by police, etc. in a room cut off from the world

  • They were never given any right/warnings

  • questioning elicited oral statements incriminating themselves

• Miranda was 2hr interrogated, and later confessed to a robbery/crimes

Miranda v. Arizona issue?

Does the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

Miranda v. Arizona holding?

In favor of Miranda

Miranda v. Arizona reasoning?

• Have to be in custody for Miranda to apply

• Has to be given clear and unequivocal terms

• interrogation stops if someone remains to be silent

• court looks at the psychological influences by police

What are the Miranda rights?

• You have the right to remain silent

• Anything said can and will be used against you in the court of law

• You have the right to an attorney

• If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you

When are Miranda rights given?

• When there is a restriction on a persons freedom, so much so that they are in custody

• The person is subject to interrogation

Berkemer v. McCarty facts?

• Ohio state patrol sees man weave in/out of lanes; pulls over

• difficulty standing -> traffic offense, taken into custody, respondent was not told that he would be

• failed sobriety test, asked if had intoxicants and said yes 

• formally placed under arrest, patrol car -> station 

• Jail -> questioning resumed, no alcohol in system

• no point in sequence was he told his Miranda rights

Berkemer v. McCarty issue?

• Does the decision in AZ v. Miranda govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation by a suspect accused of a misdemeanor traffic offense? -> statements made at station

• Does the admissibility of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop constitute custodial interrogation for purposes of the doctrine enunciated in Miranda -> statments at roadside

Berkemer v. McCarty holding?

In favor of McCarty at station, lost at roadside

Berkemer v. McCarty reasoning?

• police have no way of knowing offenses committed

  • unreasonable for them to make guesses as to the nature of criminal conduct at issue before deciding how they may interrogate

• “were they in custody” -> important

• At roadside, was not in custody, resembled Terry Stop, not a coercive situation, in public as well

Oregon v. Mathiason facts?

• Upon request, Mathiason went to station to be questioned

• Put into a room w/ door shut; no Miranda was given

• Officers then falsely said his fingerprint had been found at the scene of a crime; confessed, then said he could leave, was given Miranda, and then tapped the confession 

Oregon v. Mathiason issue?

Can incriminating evidence obtained from a suspect during a voluntary interview be used if the police did not read Miranda rights to the suspect?

Oregon v. Mathiason holding?

In favor of Oregon

Oregon v. Mathiason reasoning?

• No custody, because of the absence of any “restraint on freedom of movement”

• Did not rise to the situation of Miranda

• Freedom to depart was not messed with

Rhode Island v. Innis facts?

• Taxi driver disappearenses, respondent found and arrested 

• was told Miranda numerous times

• Understood rights, and wanted to speak to a lawyer

• Officer in front of car said they were worried if kids will find the missing shotgun. Respondent chimed in, said where it was

Rhode Island v. Innis issue?

Was Innis interrogated?

Rhode Island v. Innis holding?

In favor of Innis

Rhode Island v. Innis reasoning?

• Not interrogation; defined as:

  • direct questioning

  • words that would elicit incriminating responses

    • functional equivalent - likely to elicit

• Offhand remarks -> no way of knowing would be susceptive

• not easily forceable

Functional Equivalent

• words/actions by the police that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect

• Was the result easily forceeable?