criminal procedure 2

Warrant.

Order allowing search and seizure of somewhere or something

3 things needed for warrant

Neutral and detached magistrate

Probable Cause

Particularity

Lo-Ji Sales Inc. v. New York (1979)

“Collect anything else obscene”

Not specific enough

Arrest warrants

Need to show that the person probably committed the crime.Don't need to show location

Search warrants

Need to show PC that items are related to crime

Items will be at X at Y time

Exact item and location

Maryland v. Garrison (1987)

Warrants for one apartment, ends up being 2. Police search both, get sued for wrong one. Basically good faith so scouts says yes

Andresen v. Maryland (1976)

A warrant was upheld despite broad language due to complexity of the crime

Challenging warrants (4 common reasons)

1. Didnt state exact time or place

2. Didnt connect evidence to criminal activity

3. Reliance on conjecture and generalizations

4. Too much reliance on officer training and expertise

Arrest

Taking into custody, formal accusation of a crime

Detainment

Stopped and held in custody but not formally charged. Temporary hold for questioning, safety or future arrest

Stop

Formally not allowing someone to leave

Non-stop

Regular or private conversation. Not enough PC or RS to initiate an actual stop

A stop can become an arrest by (4 factors)

1. Purpose of the non-stop

2. Manner of the stop

3. Location

4. Duration

Arrest warrants not required when

Officer has PC to believe a felony has occurred

Witnesses a misdemeanor

Payton v. New York (1980)

Police used a crowbar to get in house when no one answered the door. Needed a search warrant

Steagald v U.S (1981)

Need a separate warrant for 3rd party’s house

Can avoid with exigent circumstances or consent

Hudson v Michigan (2006)

Evidence doesnt need to be excluded if no knock rules were violated

Sabbath v U.S (1968)

“Shocks the conscience” and deliberate “reckless interference” is the extent police can break and enter

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Ended fleeing felony rule (using deadly force if you have PC to believe someone committed a felony and is fleeing)

Graham v. Connor (1989)

To use deadly force, person needs to be a danger to the officer or society

Based on what officer knew at the time

Wilson v. Layne (1999)

Washington post reporters present during warrant. Scouts says its a violation of privacy to go inside

Search warrants not required when:

After legal arrest

Plain view (from where you can legally be)

Exigent circumstances

Consent (without threat or coercion)

Major restrictions on search warrants

Time (should be 6am to 10pm according to Gooding v. U.S 1974)

Scope and manner (cant search 3rd parties without consent, but can Frisk. Can detain if involved in search area and there is RS/PC)

Michigan V. Summers (1981)

Police can detain occupants during searches for contraband based on PC for offixer safety, assistance, and prevention of flight

Bailey V. U.S

Detention is limited to immediate vicinity of the premises being searched

Harris v. U.S (1947)

Looking for a small item can be broad scope search vs searching for a large TV. Avoid unnecessary property damages

U.S v. Mendenhall (1980)

A stop occurs when someone reasonably believes they are nor allowed to leave

California v. Hodari D. (1991)

A seizure during a pursuit occurs only when the police apply force or suspect submits to authority

U.S v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)

Women held for 16 hours at border for suspicion of drugs. Court says okay.

Reasonableness of a stop is determined by:

1. The public interest

2. Nature and scope of the intrusion

3. Facts the officers faced in the situation given their knowledge and expertise

Frisk

Superficial patdown of the outside of one’s clothes. RS needed that person hss a weapon

Delaware V. Prouse (1979)

Can stop a driver if they have readonabe and articulable suspicion that a crime occurred

Can also remove from car for safety

Can frisk driver with RS

Armspan rule

Protective sweeps

Can do a sweep if someone is arrested to look for immediate access to weapons

Not a full search, just plain view, quick and looking for weapons

Plain touch and feel

Can seize weapons felt through clothing

Cannot manipulate objects to make them appear

Profiling

Mostly focused on drug running

Individually not suspicious traits but combined they are

Reid v. Georgia (1980)

Man has fervent movements in airports agents try to stop and get consent search, he runs and leaves bag of cocaine.

Scotus says not enough evidence for RS

U.S v. Sokolow (1989)

Man has many suspicious traits. Scotus says each trait is not individual grounds for RS. But all combined, they cause RS.

Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

SCOTUS invalidates convictions under 14th amendment due process because of brutal interrogation techniques

Williams v. U.S (1951)

Physical brutality to coerce a confession violates the 14th amendment.

Massiah v. U.S (1964)

Scotus ruled that the sixth amendment right to counsel is violated when the government deliberately elicits incriminating responses from a person

“ Formal criminal proceedings.”

Deliberate elicitation

The government must not deliberately elicit incriminating responses.

Officers create a situation to induce a confession rather than initiating formal questioning.

Brewer v williams 1977

Police were told not to speak to a suspect. While transporting him, they guilt tripped him about the location of the body. Technically, no formal questioning, but still broke him down through casual conversation. SCOTUS reverses confession.

U.S v. Bayer 1947

Fourth amendment fruit of the poisonous tree does not apply to confessions.

Harris v. New York 1971

Out of court statements obtained in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment.

Public safety exception to Miranda.

Custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings is permissible. If public safety is in jeopardy, as established in New York v. Quarles 1984

Maryland v. Shatzer 2010

Allowed resumption of questioning about the same crime after more than two weeks, with a fresh miranda warning

Waver of miranda and requirements

1. Government must demonstrate that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived their rights

2. A valid waiver cannot be presumed from silence or the mere fact of obtaining a confession.

3. Lengthy interrogation or incommunicado incarceration before a statement is strong evidence against a valid waiver.

4. Evidence of threats, trickery or coercion invalidates a waiver.

Preponderance of evidence, totality of circumstances, and uncoerced statements after Miranda implies waiver of right to remain silent.

California v. Prysock 1981

Juvenile defendant was informed of right to a lawyer, but not explicitly that one would be provided if indigent. SCOTUS ruled the warning sufficient, indicating no specific wording is required.

Miranda, warnings and waivers.

1. The adequacy of miranda warnings is crucial and adequate warnings can lead to confessions being excluded from court.

2. Suspects can waive their Miranda rights choosing not to remain silent

3. Miranda rights do not need to be advised if it compromises public safety.

When Miranda warnings are required

A person must be both in custody and subject to interrogation.

Interrogation

involves questioning initiated by law enforcement officers that tends to incriminate the individual

Rhode Island v. Innis 1980

Scotus ruled that interrogation must involve a measure of compulsion beyond custody.This includes both direct questioning and its functional equivalent (any police words or actions likely to elicit an incriminating response)

This specific case was not an interrogation because it was not directed at the suspect

Miranda v. Arizona 1966

Protect against self incrimination during custodial interrogations. Statements made without them are inadmissible in court

Custodial interrogation

Questioning by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in a significant way.

Custody

Occurs when a person is taken into custody or significantly deprived of their freedom of action , the key consideration is how reasonable a person in the suspect's position would perceive their situation

Berkemer v. Mccarty 1984

Traffic stops are not considered custody because they are temporary brief, and public.

But Miranda rights apply regardless of the severity of the offense, including misdemeanors.

California v. Beheler 1983

Miranda rights are not required if a suspect is not under arrest, voluntarily comes to the police station and is allowed to leave after a brief interview.

Confession.

Implicating oneself in criminal activity, following police questioning or interrogation.

Admission.

Admitting to involvement in a crime without police prompting. treated synonymously with a confession in this context.

Totality of circumstances

To determine if a confession is involuntary, consider the suspect's vulnerabilities and condition in conjunction with police conduct.

Searches incident to arrest

Searches conducted immediately following an arrest

Exigent circumstances

Searches conducted in urgent situations where obtaining a warrant is impractical.

Automobile searches

Searches of vehicles based on probable cause

Plain view doctrine.

Seizures of evidence in plain view of law enforcement officers.

Public arrests

Certain arrests made in public places.

Chimel v. California 1969

Searches incident to arrest are permitted to remove weapons that could be used to resist arrest or escape and to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.

Custody requirement

Person must be taken into custody for the search to be valid.

Knowles v Iowa 1998

A search following a citation without arrest does not meet 4th amendment requirements.

Contemporaneousness

Search should occur soon after the arrest to be justified.

Preston v. U.S 1964

A search of the car at an impound lot was invalid because it was not contemporaneous with the arrest.

Exception to comtemporaneousness

An immediate search is nearly impossible or the exigency still exists at the time of the later search

3 types of exigencies

1. Hot pursuit

2. Likelihood of escape or danger to others

3. Evanescent evidence

PC still required

Warden v. Hayden 1967

Robbery suspects wife grant's warrantless entry. deemed reasonable due to exigent circumstances of robbery, suspect and evidence seized.

Minnesota v. Olson 1990

Olson was only the driver, not the murder suspect. The weapon had been recovered, reducing the urgency, and the building was surrounded, making escape unlikely. SCOTUS rules that warrantless entry and arrest were unconstitutional.

Missouri v. McNeely 2013

Need for warrants for blood draws when practical.

Birchfield v. North Dakota 2016

Differentiated between blood and breath tests ruling that warrantless blood tests are not permitted, but warrantless Breathalyzer tests are allowed.

Three prong test

1. No time to obtain a warrant.

2. Clear indication that evidence will be found

3. Search conducted in a reasonable manner.

Cupp v. Murphy 1973

Immediate exigency requirement. Justification for warrantless searches must be immediate.

police forcibly took evidence from a suspect's fingernails.

Welsh v. Wisconsin 1984

Scotus held that warrantless nighttime entry into a suspect's home for a non jailable offense violates fourth amendment

Carroll v. U.S 1925

Warrantless searches of automobiles are permissible under certain conditions.

1. Probable cause

2. impractical to get a warrant

Automobile probable cause distinctions

PC to search doesnt mean PC to arrest

PC to arrest doesnt authorize full search. Passenger compartment only

3 requirements of valid warrantless vehicle search

1. The exception must only apply to automobiles.

2. The search must be based on probable cause.

3. It must be impractical to obtain a warrant

California v. Carney 1985

The setting determines if a vehicle serves a transportation function

Scope of automobile search.

Defined by the object of the search and the places where there is probable Cos 2 believe it may be found.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire 1971

Evidence was not admissible because the police were not lawfully in the cars when the evidence was seized. the plain view doctrine originates from this

Three requirements for plain view seizure

1. Lawful presence

2. Immediate apparentness.

3. Inadvertent discovery

The lawful access requirement

For the plainview , doctrine to apply , police must have lawful access to the object to be seized. Plain view alone does not justify warrantless seizure of evidence.

4 lawful vantage points

1. During a warranted search

2. During a valid arrest, including warrantless arrests in public arrest based on exigent circumstances and arrests with warrants.

3. During a warrantless search based on probable cause

4. During nonsearches , such as observing evidence from a public space

Immediately apparent.

For the plain view doctrine to apply, police must have lawful access to the object and must be immediately apparent that the object is subject to seizure. means the officer has PC to seize the object.

Arizona v. Hicks 1987

Police entered an apartment without a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Officer suspected the stereo was stolen and checked its serial number without a warrant. Court ruled his action did not satisfy Plainview doctrine because it was not immediately apparent.

Texas v brown 1983

Officer observed a knotted opaque balloon fall from a glove box during a routine stop and suspected it contained drugs. SCOTUS ruled that the distinctive character of the balloon provided probable cause, satisfying the pv doctrine.

Inadvertency

Objects seized under the plain view, doctrine must not have been anticipated by the police.

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte 1973

Established, that consent must be voluntary and not coerced.

Totality of circumstances test

To determine if consent was voluntary consider factors such as:

1. Show of force by police.

2. Age, mental condition, or intellectual capacity of the person.

3. Whether the person was in custody

4. Whether the consent was given after the officer claimed to have a warrant.

Florida v. Jimeno 1991

SCOTUS ruled that the scope of the search is limited to what the person consenting allows

Third party consent

Immediate family, spouses, roommates

Vehicle drivers can consent even if not the owner

U.S v. Santana 1976

Extended warrantless arrest permissions to the curtilage of a home

U.S v. Matlock 1974

Third, party consent is valid if the third party has a common authority over the area and the non consenting party is not present.

Illinois v. Rodriguez 1990

Warrantless entry is valid if based on the consent of someone the police reasonably believe has authority even if this belief is incorrect.