Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law Practice Flashcards

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering constitutional criminal procedure case law, incorporation, Fourth Amendment search/seizure exceptions, Fifth Amendment Miranda doctrines, Sixth Amendment rights, and Exclusionary Rule principles.

Fourth Amendment Analysis Flowchart

A systematic framework used to analyze Fourth Amendment claims, moving from government action to search/seizure determination, warrant validity, and warrant exceptions.

Fourth Amendment Search Precedents Table

A foundational summary of Supreme Court holdings categorizing various law enforcement location surveillance and search methods as Fourth Amendment searches or non-searches.

Essential Search Warrant Precedent Cases

Key Supreme Court cases defining limits on search incident to arrest, pretextual stops, entry into homes, co-habitant consent, and mobile searches.

Special Needs Warrant Exception Categories

Categories where primary governmental objectives override standard warrant requirements, including border searches, administrative/caretaking, inventory searches, reduced expectation of privacy, and highway checkpoints.

The Ever-Expanding Reasonableness Doctrine

A series of Supreme Court decisions broadening police authority under reasonable suspicion standards for stops, protective sweeps, checkpoints, and chases.

Differences Between 5th and 6th Amendment Issues Regarding Statements

Comparison of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rules regarding when rights attach, what they attach to, waivers, fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree applicability, and impeachment.

United States v. Cruikshank

Established that state action is required for a constitutional violation; the Constitution protects against violations by state/federal governments, not purely private conduct.

Hurtado v. California

Held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Fifth Amendment grand jury indictment requirement to apply to the states.

United States v. Shipp

Established that actions or willful negligence defying a Supreme Court mandate or stay of execution constitute contempt of court.

Powell v. Alabama

Incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause to apply to states in capital cases.

Brown v. Mississippi

Held that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause incorporates protection against involuntary confessions extracted through violence and torture.

Duncan v. Louisiana

Incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial against the states for serious crimes carrying more than six months in prison.

Katz Test

A two-prong search test requiring both an actual subjective expectation of privacy and an objective expectation that society accepts as reasonable.

Jones Test

A Fourth Amendment search test establishing that government action is a search when officials physically trespass on a constitutionally protected area.

Katz v. United States

Held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, establishing that electronic bugging of a public phone booth is a search.

Smith v. Maryland

Held that installing a pen register at a central telephone office is not a search because individuals voluntarily convey dialed numbers to third parties.

California v. Greenwood

Held that searching garbage left outside on the curb is not a search because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in discarded items.

Kyllo v. United States

Held that using sense-enhancing technology not in general public use (thermal imaging) to explore details of a home constitutes a search.

Open Fields Doctrine

Principle affirmed in Oliver v. United States stating that individuals may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted in open fields outside the curtilage.

Curtilage

The land immediately surrounding and associated with a home, treated as part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Illinois v. Caballes

Held that a narcotics dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop is not a search because it only reveals contraband.

Florida v. Jardines

Held that using a trained police dog on the curtilage (front porch) of a home to gather incriminating evidence constitutes a search.

Carpenter v. United States

Held that obtaining historical Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) tracking cell phone movements over time constitutes a search.

Search Warrant Requirements

Four mandatory components: a detailed factual affidavit establishing probable cause, an oath or affirmation by a credible observer, particularity of location and items, and signature by a neutral detached magistrate.

Illinois v. Gates

Replaced rigid tests with a 'totality of the circumstances' approach for assessing whether an anonymous tip establishes probable cause.

Groh v. Ramirez

Held that a search warrant must state with particularity the items to be seized on its face unless it explicitly incorporates an attached affidavit.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

Held that an Attorney General involved in prosecution is not a neutral and detached magistrate and cannot validly issue a search warrant.

Maryland v. Garrison

Held that a search warrant valid based on information known at issuance remains valid even if executed on the wrong location due to honest mistake.

Richards v. Wisconsin

Held that police must knock and announce unless there is reasonable suspicion that doing so would be dangerous, futile, or inhibit evidence preservation.

Automobile Exception

Doctrine allowing law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.

California v. Acevedo

Held that police may search a container inside a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the container holds evidence or contraband.

Hot Pursuit Exception

Exigent circumstance rule permitting police in pursuit of a fleeing felon to enter private property without a warrant to apprehend the suspect and seize evidence.

Payton v. New York

Held that routine felony arrests inside a home without a warrant or exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment.

Brigham City v. Stuart

Held that officers may enter a home without a warrant under the emergency aid exception if there is an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is facing imminent injury.

Chimel v. California

Held that a search incident to arrest is restricted to the arrestee's person and the immediate area within their reach or control.

Arizona v. Gant

Held that police may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance, or if it is reasonable to believe the car contains evidence of the arrest offense.

Riley v. California

Held that officers cannot search digital content on a cell phone seized from an arrestee as a search incident to arrest without a warrant.

Plain View Doctrine

Rule permitting officers to seize incriminating evidence without a warrant if they are lawfully present and the evidence's illegal character is immediately apparent.

Whren v. United States

Held that subjective intentions of police officers do not render a traffic stop invalid under the Fourth Amendment as long as probable cause of a traffic violation exists.

Georgia v. Randolph

Held that police cannot conduct a consensual search of a home if one physically present co-tenant explicitly objects, even if another co-tenant consents.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Held that public school administrators do not need a warrant or probable cause to search students, requiring only reasonable suspicion.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

Held that highway checkpoints set up primarily for general crime control (such as narcotics interdiction) violate the Fourth Amendment.

Terry Stop

A brief investigative detention justified by reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, allowing a protective frisk for weapons.

United States v. Mendenhall

Established that a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when, under all surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave.

California v. Hodari D.

Held that a Fourth Amendment seizure requires either the application of physical force or submission to an officer's show of authority.

Rodriguez v. United States

Held that police cannot extend a completed traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff without independent reasonable suspicion.

Miranda Warnings

Procedural safeguards required prior to custodial interrogation informing suspects of their rights to silence, counsel, appointed counsel, and warning that statements will be used against them.

J.D.B. v. North Carolina

Held that a child's age is a relevant objective factor when assessing whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes.

Rhode Island v. Innis

Defined Miranda interrogation as express questioning or its functional equivalent that police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Held that suspects must unambiguously invoke their Miranda rights, and uncoerced answers after understanding rights constitute an implicit waiver.

New York v. Quarles

Established the public safety exception to Miranda, permitting un-warned custodial questioning to locate an immediate public danger (e.g., a discarded firearm).

Edwards v. Arizona

Established that once a suspect unambiguously requests counsel under the Fifth Amendment, all interrogation must cease until counsel is provided or the suspect reinitiates.

Maryland v. Shatzer

Held that a 14-day break in custody allows police to re-interrogate a suspect who previously invoked their Fifth Amendment right to counsel.

Massiah v. United States

Held that Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon formal charges and prohibits undercover agents from deliberately eliciting statements from an indicted defendant.

Texas v. Cobb

Held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific and does not apply to uncharged crimes even if factually related to the charged offense.

Exclusionary Rule

Judicial remedy barring unconstitutionally obtained evidence and its unattenuated fruits from admission against a defendant at trial.

Mapp v. Ohio

Incorporated the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to apply against state law enforcement and court proceedings.

Attenuation Doctrine

Exclusionary rule exception where the connection between illegal police action and discovered evidence is sufficiently interrupted or distant to permit admission.

Inevitable Discovery Exception

Rule permitting illegally obtained evidence at trial if the prosecution proves it would have ultimately been discovered through lawful independent means.

Independent Source Doctrine

Rule permitting admission of evidence initially discovered unlawfully if later obtained through an entirely separate and legal search method.

United States v. Leon

Established the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule when police act in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a magistrate that is later invalidated.