criminal procedure final

the 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"

1. search warrant required

2. was there probable cause for the search

3. 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

1. officer must be on premises without violated the 4th amendment

2. officer must see the object and be sure of what it is and that it is illegal

3. 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