UCLA COMM 170 midterm

Two competing interests to consider- Lawful & Unlawful arrests

1. an interest to protect public safety and welfare

2. an interest in individual liberty

5th Amendment

The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due process

-protects against self-incrimination-cannot be compelled to witness against yourself

probable cause

exists when FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES within the police officers knowledge would lead a REASONABLE PERSON to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime

T/F Officer does not need probable cause to search a vehicle and arrest

false

Probable cause case:

-Maryland V. Pringle

-People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal. 2d. 407

-Brinegar V. United States (1948)

-Ybarra v. Illinois (1979)

People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal. 2d. 407 (probable cause)

Probable cause in California is "such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime."

Brinegar V. United States (1948) (probable cause)

Probable cause protects "citizens from rash and unreasonable inferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime," while providing "fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection."It is "incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages."

Maryland v. Pringle (2003) (probable cause)

-speeding, asks for license and registration, wad of money falls out, asks to search car, they say yes (could have said no)

-find 5 bags of cocaine in back seats

-After all three men deny ownership, the officer arrests each of them for possession of cocaine

-pringle confesses to the police he and his friends were going to a party, that the cocaine belonged to him, and that he intended to sell it or use it for sex

-Pringle gets 10 yrs in jail without the possibility of parole, meaning he cant get out earlier than 10 yrs

-Got up to supreme court, Pringle argued he was convicted based on his confession, Said officer did not have probable cost to arrest me

-To have probable cause for a group, you need to be able to assert that the members of the group are members of a common enterprise; thus, Pringle's friends could be arrested

-Pringle appeals his case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that his confession is the fruit of an unlawful arrest, because the officer had no probable cause to arrest Pringle

-An arrest without probable cause violates: (1) the 5th Amendment provision that, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," and (2) the 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.".

-In this case, drugs and a large amount of rolled-up cash were found in a car. The three occupants in the car, driving in the early morning hours, said nothing about who owned the drugs or money. Based on those facts, it is reasonable to conclude that any one, or all, of the occupants had knowledge of and control over the drugs in the car. Accordingly, an objectively reasonable police officer could conclude that there was probable cause to arrest Pringle and his companions.

-pringle lost

Common Enterprise

-The legal doctrine holding all occupants in a vehicle liable for all contraband found and seized inside.-small group of people in small space in coordination with each other

An arrest w/o probable cause violates...

(1) the 5th Amendment provision that, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,"

(2) the 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Ybarra v. Illinois (1979) (probable cause)

The belief of guilt must be "particularized" with respect to the individual. Were there enough facts and circumstances to lead a reasonable person to believe that each of the three committed the crime of drug possession?

What constitutes an arrest?

-when you reasonably believe that you will not be able to leave within a relatively short period of time

Arrest or not: A shopper in a mall is stopped by a police officer who says he would like to know whether they saw the robbery that took place a few minutes ago

no

Arrest or not: A police officer yells hold it right there you are under arrest to two suspects who assaulted someone on the street- as the officer handcuffs suspect 1, the officers tells suspect 2 stay right there

yes

A driver is stopped for a routine traffic violation

detention, not arrest

"unfairly trick"

Police cannot use force, threats of force, or threats of prosecuting you to make you talk

CONFESSIONS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

Ok or not: Police claim to have a video of you committing a crime

OK

Ok or not: Police claim to have your fingerprints/DNA evidence at the scene of the crime

OK

Ok or not: Police claim to have a confession already from your partner

OK

Ok or not: Police claim to have a witness at the scene of the crime

OK

Ok or not: Police claim that a witness identified you in a lineup

OK

Ok or not: Police promise that if you talk to them you won't be prosecuted at trial

Not OK- cannot explicitly make promises-impermissible because they don't have the authority to make those decisions-try to be vague in saying "things will go well if you cooperate with us"

involuntary confessions/interrogation tactic cases

-Sheriff, Washoe County v. Bessey (1996)

-State v. Cayward (1989)

-People v. Mays (2009)

-People vs Cox (1990)

-Miller v Fenton (1985)

-People vs Thomas (2009)

-Rogers vs Richmond (1961)

Sheriff, Washoe County v. Bessey (1996)

-14 yr old girl goes to the police traumatized saying a man has performed numerous sexual acts on her without her consent

-ask him to go to police station to answer questions; when he gets there they become more accusatory; he denies

-a police officer presented the defendant with a false crime lab report, prepared by the police, showing that the defendant's semen was found on the couch at the apartment where the assault took place.

-he confesses

-The trial court suppressed the statements from evidence.

-In an appeal by the State, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed, holding that the statements were not involuntary

-The court drew a distinction between the use of a deliberate falsehood intrinsic to the facts of the alleged offense (i.e., a lie about the existence of incriminating evidence) and the use of a deliberate falsehood extrinsic to the facts of the alleged offense, of a type reasonably likely to procure an untrue statement or to influence an accused to make a confession regardless of guilt (i.e., a promise or threat about preferential or detrimental treatment by the authorities, that welfare benefits or mental health treatment will be given or withdrawn, or of benefit or harm to someone) and held that the former is one item to be regarded in the totality of circumstances relevant to voluntariness, while the latter will be regarded as coercive

-The Bessey court declined to place emphasis on the use of written rather than verbal misrepresentations by the police, calling the distinction one without a real difference.

-Holding that the police detective's use of the falsified lab report "went to the strength of the evidence against the defendant, a consideration intrinsic to the facts of the alleged offense," id. at 326, the court in Bessey concluded that the voluntariness of the confession was to be assessed under the totality of the circumstances standard.

It found that, applying that standard, the defendant's statements were not involuntary. "The false report would not have implicated any concerns on the defendant's part other than consideration of his own guilt or innocence and the evidence against him. There is nothing about the fabricated document presented to the defendant in this case which would have produced a false confession

-said false evidence could be written or verbal- the court did not care bc said does change the voluntariness of a confession

State v. Cayward (1989) (unfairly trick)

-Florida-19 yr old male suspected of sexually assaulting 5 yr old neice-police suspected but not sufficient enough evidence to charge him

-faked 2 scientific reports showing that semen stains found on the neice's underwear were his -Florida said faking this was too much and was not a voluntary confession

-Thus, the court adopted a "bright line" rule, stating that the manufacture and use of false documents by the police to induce a confession "has no place in our criminal justice system.

-In reaching its decision, the Florida court reasoned that, unlike oral misrepresentations, manufactured documents have "the facial appearance of authenticity." Id.

People v. Mays (2009) (unfairly trick)

-shooting outside a fast food restaurant in SF-eyewitnesses ID Mays

-when questioned Mays repeatedly asks to take a polygraph test -police administer a fake test during which he denies involvement in the crime -they show him fabricated results and he confesses is sentences to 25 years

-Mays says crosses line, claims to have lied because he felt defeated

brought up that in Cayward they did not allow use of fabricated tangible evidence, but California did not care. Since the graph merely showed squiggly lines with handwritten notations such as "intend to lie" and is useless as evidence without testimony from a certified polygraph examiner, there is no risk of its presence in the record being mistaken for a true polygraph test somewhere down the road.

*should we trust the jury to judge the reliability of the confession under which it was obtained

People v. Cox (1990) (coerced confession)

-jury finds Dale Cox of attempted burglary with intent to commit a felony after trying to open a door and activating a burglar alarm

-owner finds him naked outside his condo

-Cox says he was on meth and told all these crazy stories about why he did what he did

-said everything and anything he said was involuntary because he was on drugs and didn't know what he was doing

-The thrust of Cox's argument, however, is not that the police were coercive, but that his mental condition was such as to preclude a knowledgeable and voluntary decision to make incriminating statements. Exclusion of evidence on this ground was conclusively rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Colorado v. Connelly (1986)

-Cox contends the evidence establishes that at the time he was under the influence of methamphetamine, and was incapable of exercising rational free will; no one describing Cox found him to be in-alert, misdirected, or unable to communicate clearly. There was no evidence of "intoxication" in the ordinary sense.

-Where no constitutional violation has occurred, state rules of evidence are appropriate to govern the admissibility of evidence and to guard against false or unreliable evidence.

-under the totality of these circumstances, the confession was deemed voluntary

-Coerced confessions- the issue is whether, under the totality if the circumstances, the state has obtained the confessions in a manner that comports the due process

Even when drunk, high, on drugs etc-- still seen as voluntary confession

Miller v. Fenton (1985) (coerced confession)

-The issue is whether, under the

totality of the circumstances,

the State has obtained the confession in a manner that comports with due process.

-Factors to be considered include: the youth of the accused; his lack of education or his low intelligence; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of questioning; and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep.

People v. Thomas (2009) (coerced confessions)

-totality of circumstances

-couple finds 4 month old baby dead

-question him; put a lot of pressure on him

-The most likely medical diagnosis was that the child's death had been caused by either intracranial injuries or septic shock.

The whole time, Thomas is told that his child's survival could depend on his disclosure of how he had caused the child's injuries (but child is already dead)

-The interrogation lasted about 9 and 1/2 hours, broken into an initial two-hour, and a subsequent 7 and 1/2-hour session.

-In between, defendant, having expressed suicidal thoughts during the initial interview, was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 for some 15 hours on a secure psychiatric unit. By prearrangement, he was released back to his interrogators who immediately escorted him back to the police station where the interrogation resumed.

-threatened that, if he did not take responsibility, they would "scoop" Ms. Hicks out from the hospital and bring her in, since one of them must have injured the child.

-after decided to take the fall for his wife - said take responsibility to keep her out of trouble

-Another patently coercive representation made to defendant—one repeated some 21 times in the course of the interrogation—was that his disclosure of the circumstances under which he injured his child was essential to assist the doctors attempting to save the child's life-- LYING

-Perhaps speaking in such a circumstance would amount to a valid waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege if the underlying representations were true, but here they were false. These falsehoods were coercive by making defendant's constitutionally protected option to remain silent seem valueless and the respondent does not plausibly argue otherwise. Instead, it is contended that they did not render defendant's ensuing statements involuntary because there was no substantial risk that appealing to defendant's fatherly concern would elicit a false confession. It has long been established that what the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids is a coerced confession, regardless of whether it is likely to be true

-convicted of 2nd degree murder

-appeal that the confession should not be evidence

-NY court said that someone's life (close family members) depends on you crosses the line and would unlawfully coerce someone to confess

-court said he's guilty but later one Supreme Court overturned it

rogers v Richmond (1961)

-Established exclusionary rule

-"Our decisions under that [Fourteenth] Amendment have made clear that convictions following the admission into evidence of confessions which are involuntary, i.e., the product of coercion, either physical or psychological, cannot stand. This is so not because such confessions are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system—a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charges against an accused out of his own mouth."

Why could fake confessions be dangerous?

-The person who forged them might leave/die

-stuff could get mixed in with documents/evidence not realizing it was fake at the beginning

totality of circumstances

the issue is whether, under the ___________________, the state has obtained the confession in a manner that comport with due process

Depraved Indifference Murder

second degree murder

***Factors to consider in determining the voluntariness of a confession-- TEST QUESTION

-physical harm

-threaten suspect with harsher sentence or promise leniency

-threaten to arrest or jail suspects family members/children

-unduly lengthy interrogation/suspect deprived of basic rights

-police fabricate tangible evidence

-did they exploit the suspect's age, low IQ, lack of education

Why do police think that nobody who is innocent will confess?

-police think they should be able to be deceptive in order to find criminals because why would anyone innocent confess to something they did not do

In two experiments, researchers show college students and police investigators true and false confessions

-2 experiements

-inmates were told to make a confession with info on real confessions and make one up with details

-first experiment: college students did better than police but not better than chance; neither did better than chance

-cops had more confidence that they were right

-2nd experiment where they told them it would be 5 true and false

-55- 45, this time but its close, not a sig difference

-Once again neither group exceeded chance levels

Levels of pressure - high and low pressure police interrogations

ex (actual trial): mock jurors psych college students

- a man charged with murder of his estranged wife and male neighbor

-Two conditions in which the confession was obtained:

---High pressure

Officer handcuffs and take out his gun, officer wouldn't remove handcuffs and the guy claim his hand is broken and arms hurt and gun waved in his face

Defendant felt pressured and compelled that he had to tell the cop what he wanted to hear

---Low pressure

Guy just confessed immediately

No handcuffs, no pressure, etc

Percentage of jurors who judged the confession to be voluntary low pressure 75% high pressure 30% they thought it was voluntary

Why do innocent people confess?

-Minimizing and offering deals

-To stop the pain

- To stop the abuse.

- To curry favor with the interrogator.

- To follow some thread of hope that cooperation will bring freedom.

eyewitness testimony

- Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)

-Kash Register

Perry v. New Hampshire (2012) (eyewitness testimony)

-At 2:30 a woman observes a suspicious looking male roaming the parking lot beside her apartment building looking into cars

-When the police arrive, they find Perry holding two car stereo amplifiers in his hands. A metal bat lay on the ground beside him

-One officer goes up to the fourth floor to ask for more details of the man she saw (what does he look like, who , etc) she points to Perry, who is standing next to the officer on the ground down below

-About a month later, the police show the women a photo array that includes a pic of Perry. She is unable to identify him.

-Perry asks for a rule requiring trial judges to prescreen eyewitness evidence for reliability any time an identification is made under suggestive circumstances.

-Supreme Court held that the due process clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness' identification unless the identification was procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances, arranged by law enforcement.

-The Court further stated that the Constitution does not protect a defendant against a conviction based on questionable evidence by not prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by allowing a defendant to persuade the jury that the evidence should not be believed. Therefore, Due Process will only prohibit the introduction of evidence when inclusion of the evidence is so extremely unfair that its inclusion would violate fundamental concepts of justice.

-The Court also rejected Perry's argument that eyewitnesses are uniquely unreliable, and emphasized that the fallibility of eyewitness identification does not warrant a due process ruling requiring a trial court to screen evidence for reliability, unless there was improper state conduct.

-perry loses

Kash Register (eyewitness testimony)

- Case based on eyewitness testimony. one said remembers him from went to school together

- No murder weapon was recovered and none of the fingerprints lifted at the West Los Angeles crime scene matched Register's.

- Police seized a pair of his pants that had a speck of blood on them, but the blood type matched both the murder victims' and Register's.

-Register testified and denied involvement in the crime.

- Register's girlfriend testified that he was with her at the time of the shooting.

-after three days of deliberation, a jury convicted Register of first-degree murder, attempted robbery and illegal use of a firearm. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

-wrongly convicted

-Register was released on November 8, 2013. On December 13, 2013, the prosecution dismissed the charges. In January 2016, the city of Los Angeles agreed to pay Register $16.7 million to settle a federal wrongful conviction lawsuit.

Grand Jury cases

-Eric Garner V. New York (2014)

-Brown V. Missouri (Ferguson Case) (2014, but garner first)

Eric Garner V. New York (2014) (grand jury case)

-Officer Pantaleo said he heard garner said he couldn't breathe but that alone suggests he could breathe and that he tried to disengage as quick as he could which the video evidence contradicts

-At the same time, Mr. Garner's ability to speak, the officer testified, suggested that he, in fact, could breathe.

-Despite low bar in a grand jury for indictment, he was not indictment

-Police bias since we trust them to uphold law, we tend to believe they didn't do wrong, position of authority

- Grand jurors did not charge London with a crime despite him killing Eric Garner- In most cases, defendants do not testify in front of a grand jury- Police cases are different; grand jury wants the justification defense from an officer; also, officer has heightened credibility before grand jury

"I know a false confession if I saw one"

-police officers think that they would be able to detect a false confession but through two experiments with college students and police investigators we see that there is not a statistical difference in their judgement accuracy

-asked how confident they were in making the right choice- the cops were a lot more confident

-55% vs 45%- college students were slightly better but

grand jury benefit

Grand jury benefit is its supposed to protect against prosecutor/judge corruption

Do you want your faith in the hands of a jury of your peers vs a judge?

The incorporation doctrine has made most all provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

Pretrial processes

-5th amendment reads in part " no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on an indictment of a grand jury"

-Capital offense: more than 1 year jail time

-Nearly all provisions of BOR have been held to apply to state level but this is not one of them

-Majority of crimes committed at state level

you have a right to a preliminary hearing and sometimes a grand jury but you're not entitled to it

All but two states use grand juries for indictment in practice in at least some cases

-------Only pennsylvania and Connecticut don't

Brown V. Missouri (Ferguson Case) (2014, but garner first)

-Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed eighteen-year-old man, on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, MO.

-In most cases a preliminary hearing is used but he used a grand jury, and even though the weight of testimony seemed to indicate his hands were up and he isn't charging and the officer shoulndt have felt there was fear of death and bodily harm

Prosecutor is usually advocating persuasive case for going to trial, but he provided ALL evidence when usually at grand jury level its not necessary upon you to present info in support of officer, you should get case to go to trial

-Vast weight of testimony indicated he wasnt charging

-Prosecutor should tell jury, defendant doesn't want to go to jail, he'd say anything to protect himself, you shouldn't believe the testimony on its own, especially when a dozen witnesses, but he says the opposite

-Prosecutor speaking: If we don't get a conviction at trial which is a good possibility, and i have a public trial and everyone is following it and i don't get a conviction the whole town will burn and its incumbent upon me to keep the peace in this community especially when this has been happening all over the country

-He was trying to get rid of it at this stage

Not what a prosecutor should be doing

*Changes in LAW*

Now in California pretrial processes

Vast majority of felony charges are brought through a preliminary hearing rather than via a grand jury

-In 2015 CA crafted a rule that if there is an officer involved shooting you cant use a grand jury in response to these infamous cases where a white officer kills a black man or woman and there is no indictment

Cases relating to miranda

-Harris v. New York 1971

-Michigan v Tucker 1974

-New York v. Quarles 1984

-Oregon v. Elstad 1985

-Moran v Burbine 1986

-Illinois v. Perkins 1990

-New York v. Harris 1990

-Davis v. United States 1994

-United States v. Patane 2004

-Montejo v. Louisiana 2009

-Howes v. Fields 2012

Harris v. New York (1971)

Facts: An arrested drug suspect made incriminating statements without the benefit of Miranda warnings. At trial he gave an alibi at odds with his earlier statements. To impeach his credibility, the prosecutor introduced the suspect's initial statements.

Ruling: Statements made without miranda warnings may be used for the narrow purpose of counteracting perjury.

Michigan v Tucker 1974

Facts: A rape suspect who had not been given Miranda warnings claimed he was with a friend at the time of the crime. Police questioned the friend, who did not corroborate the story, and his testimony was used as evidence.

Ruling: Although police were led to the witness by the defendant's statements made without the required warnings, the reliability of the witness's testimony is not affected and the testimony may be used.

New York v. Quarles 1984

Facts: A rape suspect was apprehended after a chase through a supermarket. Police discovered an empty holster and asked "Where's the gun?" The suspect revealed where he dropped it. Police then read the suspect his Miranda warnings.

Ruling: When there is a danger to public safety, police may ask questions to remove that danger prior to reading Miranda warnings. Answers to such questions may be used as evidence

Oregon v. Elstad 1985

Facts: A burglary suspect made an incriminating statement prior to receiving Miranda warnings. He later was given his warnings at the police station and confessed. The confession was used in court over his attorney's objection that the initial self-incriminating statement tainted all future interrogations.

Ruling: The confession may be used as evidence because it was preceded by Miranda warnings. Initial statements made prior to warnings may not be used.

******Modified by: Missouri v. Seibert****

Moran v Burbine 1986

Facts: A muder suspect in custody made incriminating statements after receiving Miranda warnings and waiving his right to have an attorney present during questioning. The suspect's lawyer had previously contacted police and indicated a desire to advise his client. Police did not inform the suspect of his lawyer's wishes

Ruling: Statements may be used as evidence. The defendant knew he had a right to an attorney and a right to remain silent. His waiver of these rights was not coerced.

Illinois v. Perkins (1990)

Facts: An undercover police agent obtained incriminating statements from a prison inmate without first providing Miranda warnings.

Ruling: Miranda warnings are not required when a suspect is unaware, he or she is speaking to a law enforcement official and gives a voluntary statement.

New York v. Harris (1990)

Facts: Police unlawfully entered the home of a murder suspect without a warrant and without permission. They arrested the suspect and took him to the police station. He was read his Miranda warnings and subsequently signed a written confession.

Ruling: The fact that police enter a home illegally to make an arrest does not taint a subsequent confession at the police station that takes place after Miranda warnings are given..

***Davis v. United States 1994****

Facts: In the middle of an interrogation session, a murder suspect who had received proper Miranda warnings commented, "Maybe i should talk to a lawyer." The questioning continued for about another hour, at which time the suspect said, "I think i want a lawyer before i say anything else." At that point the investigators terminated the interview.

Ruling: Miranda does not require police to stop questioning when the suspect makes an ambiguous reference to an attorney.

***United States v. Patane 2004***

Facts: An arrested suspect who did not receive full Miranda warnings was questioned at his home by police officers about a possible firearms violation. The suspect voluntarily admitted to having the pistol in question and gave the officers permission to retrieve it from his bedroom.

Ruling: The failure to give full Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical evidence obtained from information voluntarily supplied by the suspect in custody.

Montejo v. Louisiana 2009

Facts: Although he remained silent and never requested a lawyer, an indigent charged with first-degree murder was automatically assigned counsel. After the appointment, but before the suspect was read his Miranda warnings, cooperated in a police-initiated interrogation, cand confessed to the crime.

Ruling: Overruling Michigan v. Jackson (1986), the court held that police are prevented from initiating custodial interrogations only after the defendant affirmatively asserts the right to counsel.

Howes v. Fields 2012

Facts: Without first giving Miranda warnings, two armed sheriff's deputies interrogated an inmate in a jailhouse conference room concerning a crime unrelated to his incarceration. The inmate confessed.

Ruling: Because the inmate was informed that he could terminate the interrogation at any time and return to his cell, he was not "in custody" for Miranda purposes and therefore no warnings were required.

preliminary hearing vs grand jury

Preliminary hearing: judge makes decision

Grand jury: jury of your peers

Abortion & Contraception Cases

-Griswold v. Connecticut 1965

-Eisenstadt V. Baird (1972)

-Roe V. Wade 1973

-Planned Parenthood V. Casey 1992

-Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt(2016)

-Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019)

Griswold v. Connecticut 1965

Question - are Connecticut's contraceptive laws a violation of privacy?

Griswold opened birth control clinic and gave contraceptives to married couple

Decision - birth control laws unconstitutionally intrude upon right of marital privacy

Why it matters - found constitutional right to privacy and deemed that right fundamental

----->CALLED IT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, THIS IS A HUGE DEAL; MADE IT EQUAL TO THINGS LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Fundamental rights: it cannot be denied without violating Fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions

Governments can place limits on right to privacy only if those limits survive strict constitutional scrutiny, Gov. must prove that restrictions are necessary and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling gov. interest

Privacy argument found in five amendments: first, third, fourth, ninth, and fourteenth

Implications:

Under griswold governments may place limits on the right to privacy only if those limits survive "strict" constitutional scrutiny, which means that the government must demonstrate that its restrictions are necessary and narrowly tailored to serve as a compelling government interest.

Paves the way for Roe v Wade

fundamental right

it cannot be denied without violating Fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions

Eisenstadt V. Baird (1972)

Under Massachusetts law at the time, it was a felony to distribute contraceptives to unmarried men or women.

Justice brennan asserted that the law violated the "rights of single people" under the 14th amendments equal protection clause.

If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

--foundation for Roe V Wade

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Question - does Texas' statute infringe upon fundamental personal rights (right to medical care and right to marital / personal privacy which includes right to abortion)?

Texas law made it a crime to procure an abortion unless necessary to save mother's life

Doctor refused to give rape victim abortion because it was against the law

Decision - right of personal privacy INCLUDES ABORTION DECISIONS

This right must be considered against important state interests in regulation

-First trimester

State can only require basic procedural safeguards, such as requiring the procedure be performed by a qualified health professional, andcannot limit access to abortion

-2nd trimester- End of first trimester to point of fetal viability

State can regulate abortion only to protect health of mother.During this time, a state law COULD require a doctor before performing an abortion procedure, to describe to a woman seeking an abortion the risks associated with the procedure

-3rd trimester- Period after point of fetal viability

State can restrict or even ban abortion as long asit is still allowed when the mother's life or health at risk.

What can or should constitute a serious health risk?

Grey area that is not decided

Book stuff below

Background: a 21 year old carnival worker living in texas claimed to have been raped to be pregnant as a result of that rape.Her doctor refused to perform an abortion, citing an 1857 Texas law, revised in 1879 that made it a crime to procure an abortion unless it was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Pro choice side: wanted to convince the court that abortion was a fundamental right under the Griswold doctrine. Unless texas could provide a compelling and narrowly drawn interest, the law should fall.

State's argument: concerning the rights of fetuses. State's compelling interest is protecting human life.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Under Casey's modified standard, regulating abortion before the point of fetal viability is unconstitutional only if it places an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy

Casey prevents states from passing laws that have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

A minor was required to obtain the consent of at least one parent or guardian.

A Wife was required to inform her husband of her plans to terminate her pregnancy.

Undue burden bc it could result in abuse

A 24-hour waiting period was required for women seeking abortions in order to obtain informed consent.

Not an undue burden

The "Woman's Right to Know her Unborn Child Act" (Wisconsin, 2013)

The thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea," then-Governor Walker said of the ultrasound law. "Most people I talked to, whether they're pro-life or not, I find people all the time that pull out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids' ultrasound and how excited they are, so that's a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, we still have their first ultrasounds. It's just a cool thing out there."

He added, "We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information that more people if they saw that unborn child would make a decision to protect and keep the life of that unborn child."

2014 STUDY based on Data from medical records for 15,575 visits by women seeking abortion care at a large, urban abortion provider in 2011. Showed that whether women viewed or did not view the ultrasound across different certain groups, over 95% in all groups continued with abortion and the largest gap between those who viewed and didnt view in a group was 3.5%.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

States may not enact provisions that have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.

Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019)

Indiana seeks to require health care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation.

Mass cremation of fetal remains is permitted.

At least seven other States have fetal disposition regulations: Ark., Minn., La., N.C., Ohio, Okla., Tex

Indiana seeks to prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.

DNA testing, which screens for several genetic disabilities such as Down syndrome, can occur as early as 10 weeks into the pregnancy.

Missouri v. Seibert (2004)

Patrice Seibert, her two teenage sons, and two of their friends set their mobile home on fire with Jonathon inside, son that died in his sleep & suffered from Cerebral Palsy.

-turned on a tape recorder and gave Seibert her miranda warnings. Seibert waived her rights, and Hanrahan resumed the questioning. He asked Seibert to repeat her incriminating statements and she did. Prosecutors charged Seibert with first-degree murder. Officer Hanrahan admitted that withholding the Miranda warnings was a conscious decision. He claimed he was following an interrogation technique he was taught: question first, then give the Miranda warnings, and finally question again with the goal of getting the suspect to repeat the incriminating statements.

-Defense attorneys moved to suppress both the pre-warning and postwarning statements but the trial court, following the precedent set in Oregon v. Elstad, held that postwarning statements could be admitted.

- Question is Can police question you without reading miranda rights on purpose and after you make incriminating statements read you miranda rights and have you repeat it/ continue talking about it.

----U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHELD saying " because the question first tactic effectively threatens to thwart Miranda's purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted, and because the facts here do not reasonably support a conclusion that the warnings given could have served their purpose, Seibert's post warning statements are inadmissible.

-The admissibility of postwarning statements should continue to be governed by the principles of Elstad unless the deliberate two step strategy was employed. If this 2 step strategy was employed, post warning statements that are related to the substance of pre warning statements must be excluded unless curative measures are taken before the post warning statement is made.A substantial break in time and circumstances between pre warning and miranda warning may suffice in most circumstances

-Dissenting: they believe they are bound by elstad to reach the opposite result and that as said in elstad the court must examine whether taint dissipated through the ;passing of time or change in circumstances

United States v. Calandra 1974

The exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury investigations. A witness before the grand jury may not refuse to answer questions that are based on illegally obtained evidence.

United States v. Leon 1984

Illegally seized evidence is admissible if law enforcement officers has a reasonable good faith belief that they were acting consistent with appropriate legal authority, such as relying on a search warrant later proven to be defective.

Nix v. Williams (1984)

Evidence discovered as the result of an illegal search may still be admissible if it can be shown that police following correct procedures inevitably would have discovered the evidence.

Arizona v. Evans (1995)

Evidence obtained pursuant to a search incident to a valid arrest may be admissible even if police based the arrest on information found in court records later determined to be inaccurate.

Hudson v. Michigan 2006

Evidence from the search of a residence may be admissible where the police had authorization to search but entered in violation of established knock- and announce rules.

Herring v. United States 2009

Evidence gathered in a search incident to a valid arrest may be admissible even if the arrest was based on erroneous law enforcement records that the arresting officers relied upon as being accurate

levels of pressure

-Guilt or innocence question, no statistically sig difference in judgements of ultimate guilt or innocence despite low or high pressure settings

---Raises concern that they see the difference in the first 2 questions but the judgments are no different depending on what condition you were placed in

eyewitness testimony

In a different experiment Researchers found using different verbs causes the mean speed estimate to go up

contacted 31.8, hit 34, bumped 38.1, collided 39.3, smashed 40.8

Lawyers take advantage of things like this this to manipulate eyewitness testimony

when eyewitness testimony was presented there was a 50% higher chance of conviction ( (18% (without eyewitness testimony) vs 72% (with) )

expert testimony vs eyewitness testimony

-someone who has knowledge or training in a specialized field on eyewitness identifications

-one of the most controversial issues in evidentiary procedures today.

eyewitness testimony: research setting- college undergrad

-Undergrad students are exposed to a staged calculator theft and subsequently asked to make eyewitness identifications from a 6 photo target present lineup

-The thief was seen by the students for a total of 2-3 minutes

-What percentage correctly identified him a few minutes later?

12.5%

T/F if a cop is undercover, Miranda rights/warnings are not read

true because the suspect is unaware he/she is talking to police

weapon focus effect --Are eyewitness identifications more or less accurate when the criminal displays a weapon?

-Whether a weapon is present or not present, you're more focused on the weapon not the face of criminal

one of the jobs of the grand jury is:

if they do not feel like there is enough evidence to convict then should not push to trial

KNOW WHETHER A CONFESSION IS OR IS NOT VOLUNTARY

-Did the police physically harm you?

-Did the police threaten a harsher sentence or promise leniency

-Did the police threaten to arrest or jail family members or make threats regarding the health and safety of the suspects children?

-Did the police fabricate tangible evidence?

-Was the interrogation unduly lengthy? Was the suspect deprived of sleep, food, or water? Was the suspects young age, low iq, lack of education, and or mental impairment exploited?

Grand jury benefit

supposed to protect against prosecutor/judge corruption, made up of your peers

Miranda Warnings:

-Rights can be waived but only if voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

-Also, a suspect can decide at any time to exercise these rights and refuse to make any statements

Berghuis v Thompkins 2010 supreme court case

-All statements made while in questioning will be admissible in court until the suspect specifically cites his right to remain silent-must invoke right to remain silent clearly -"do you pray to god to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" "yes"

RECORDING POLICE INTERROGATIONS

-About 20 states mandate the recording of police interrogations for some crimes

-In CA we do have a law mandating recordings so jury can evaluate what tactics were used. ONLY FOR JUVENILE ACCUSED OF HOMICIDE bc of vulnerabilities of juvenile and the high penalty for murder

-Bills brought to legislator and vetoed by governor that sought to expand charges in which you have to record interrogations

why might law enforcement be opposed to recording police interrogations?

-Cops don't want public to see the tactics they use, if public became more aware they would not be as susceptible to confessing, harder for police to do their jobs

-Reason why gov vetoed: to honor police interest in having their methods revealed; making them less effective