Studied by 1 personthe exclusionary rule applies to evidence found both indirectly and directly found in an unconstitutional arrest
true
indirectly found evidence
hypothetical- list of names found in illegal search was followed up on and resulted in a confession later.. confession considered inadmissible because indirectly obtained in unconstitutional search
hadari case
in case of hot pursuit the defendant is only under arrest once stopped or yielding to the orders of law enforcement
when is individual under arrest
when reasonable person would believe because of the polices conduct that the person was not allowed to leave the presence of the officer or law enforcement
all arrests require an arrest warrant
false
what two interests are balanced when the courts are determining if there are 4th amendment rights are protected
state interest (fighting crimes) and individual interest (privacy and liberty)
4th amendment issue
right that has been incorporated into the states through the incorporation doctrine (wolf v Ohio 1949)
search
a government intrusion into a persons reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy
4th amendment
protects a persons home, papers, and personal affects by unreasonable searches and seizures by the government
two threshold questions before the question of unconstitutional arrests or searches
-was there government conduct: private institutions do not fall under government contact.. if no government conduct is found we do not move to second question
-was there an expectation of privacy... standing, takes place after suppression hearing
Katz v United States
expectation of privacy... look at the totality of circumstances
expectation of privacy
expects there to be a sense of privacy.. inside bookbag, house, phone.. if you take out of book bag and set it in public space there's no expectation of this
curtilage
home.. developed to be included in fourth amendment protections
open field doctrine
does to get fourth amendment protection.. if something does not have constitutional protection then there was no expectation of privacy
-law enforcement officers may make warrantless search of area outside of curtilage of persons home without violating 4th amendment
automatic standing
when state gives automatic ability or "standing" to contest evidence in an alleged illegal arrest or search.. pa is an automatic standing state, federal govt is not
prisoner setting
prisoners have no expectation of privacy anywhere
was the search "reasonable"
search warrant required
was there probable cause for the search
preciseness requirement
serach probable cause
exists when police have sufficient information coming from a reasonably trustworthy source that would cause a reasonable person to believe that evidence or contraband would be found on the person or place to be searched
-illinois v gates: probable cause to search
preciseness requirement
a search warrant cannot be overly vague when it comes to the place to be searched or the items to be searched for
search in context of fourth amendment
-a government intrusion into a persons reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy
who has standing to challenge a police search on constitutional grounds?
there must have been government conduct/state action and there must have been intrusion of an expectation of privacy
what is meant by the government conduct requirement?
in order to decide if there was an unconstitutional search, one must decide whether there was government conduct. this is when whether an official branch or affiliate of the federal government or someone funded or working hand in hand with federal government was involved in the search
what items may be subject to a search and seizure
a persons house, papers, and effects (items or personal property that are typically worn or carried)
search
government intrusion into a persons reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy
government conduct required
must have been government conduct/state action and there must have been an intrusion of an expectation of privacy
announcement requirement
law enforcement must "knock and announce" when coming to a search or arrest at a persons home or residence
shock the conscience
a method that could place suspect in physical danger.. unreasonable
Hudson v Michigan
ruled that violation of announcement rule are not subject to the exclusionary rule (federal cases only)
automobile exception
Caroll v united states
-probable cause+ mobility+ lesser expectation
Terry frisk
if reasonable suspicion person is armed and dangerous.. can do pat down, cannot go in pockets or bags
-Terry v Ohio
consent
search is always constitutional when person being searched gives consent without coercion or force
emanecient evidence
evidence that will disappear or dissipate over a certain amount of time (totality of circumstances not a set rule)
administrative/regulatory searches
government searches for safety and well being of public
-airport searches
-workplace
-health department
public school searches
-no probable cause or search warrant required... reasonable grounds needed (New Jersey v TLO)
-individualized search cannot be excessively intrusive considering age and sex of student and nature of infraction
5th amendment
privilege against self incrimination
-no person compelled in criminal case to be witness against himself
-ordinary person has no duty to speak or report criminal activity to law enforcement
subpoena
citizen must testify when placed under this.. have to answer all questions asked, unless answers will self incriminate -plead fifth
compelled, incriminating testimony
-a person does not have to admit any testimony that is incriminating and compelled by the government
what is testimony
-the privilege against self-incrimination does not protect physical evidence
-spoken words
-someone is subpoenaed
compelled testimony
must be against will of suspect
compelled testimony that is incriminating
-testimony must be incriminating
-hoffman v United States: any testimony that might furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute is incriminating
using immunity
government cannot use witnesses' testimony to prosecute the witness, but if the government has other independent evidence, they can still prosecute the witness for that crime
transaction immunity
says when it is given a person cannot be prosecuted for crime that their testimony implicates them for
miranda rule
a person who is subject to custodial interrogation, must be first advised of certain constitutional rights
custodial interrogation
a situation in which suspects freedom of movement is restrained, even if they are not under arrest
-it is up to subject to ask for Miranda rights.. not police to give it to you
three elements must be satisfied to seize in plain view doctrine
officer must be on premises without violated the 4th amendment
officer must see the object and be sure of what it is and that it is illegal
officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself
what two interests are balanced by the court when applying the 4th amendment?
individual liberty and privacy and states interest of crime control
why is it important to understand the law pertaining to arrests
the fruit of the poisonous tree
what are the three expectations to an arrest warrant
-if its a felony
-if the arrest takes place in public area
-misdemeanor is taken place in a police officers presence
police officers need a search warrant even if they have an arrest warrant if they are going into third parties homes
true
all arrests with or without warrants require probable cause
true
taking a person against his will to the police station merely for interrogation does not require probable cause
false
probable cause for a search warrant cannot be based solely on the information of a single informant
false.. so long as informant is reliable
a man is in an airport and leaves a container with drugs in it with no intention of returning and police search it is that a proper search
yes- no expectation of privacy
Leon v United States
good faith doctrine
barron v Baltimore
bill of rights only applies to states
mapp v Ohio
extended exclusionary rule to states
booking
where police make official record of the arrest, finger print, and photo.. without unreasonable delay
initial appearance
the first time the defendant is brought before a judicial officer, notice of charges against defendant, advise of right to counsel, bail
bail
some form of property that is deposited or pledged/promised to the court in order to persuade the judge to allow the defendant to be released from custody, granted with the promise that the defendant will appear at all court trials.. doesn't have to be cash
preventative detention
when judicial official decides that the defendant is untrustworthy to meet conditions, so they are placed in preventative detention
8th amendment
revised that excessive bail shall not be required
factors courts take into account when setting bail
-seriousness of offense
-prior criminal charges
-record of missing court appearances
grand jury indictments
under constitution a person can only be charged with a felony when a grand jury hands down an indictment (5th amendment) only applicable to federal law. states do have to follow this 5th amendment permission
criminal information
an indictment that comes from the prosecutor rather than a grand jury
right to counsel
6th amendment
adversarial
when this police identification takes place
-Supreme Court held that an identification producer is adversarial after formal charges have been brought
-states vary
confrontational
the suspect is present or part of the identification procedure
show up
police hold suspect at scene of crime and bring witness to the scene and ask witness if they can identify this individual
due process
was identification procedure inherently unreliable
-unduly suggested
-stovall v demmo
6th amendment
right to speedy trial
-barker v wings
governments duty to disclose evidence
based on due process
Note
Flashcard