cp exam
CJ 2090 -CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OUTLINE AND STUDY GUIDE - FALL
2025 - BATCH
Outline (you already know the blue bold highlights real well)
1. Expectation of Privacy
2. Probable Cause
3. Reasonable Suspicion
4. ESCAPES
5. Exclusionary Rule
6. Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule
7. Miranda
8. Stop and Frisk
9. Privileges Against Self-Incrimination
10. Initial Appearance
11. Grand Jury
12. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel
13. Pretrial Motions
14. Courtroom Evidence (and 6 common objections)
15. Rape Shied Laws
16. Jury (voir dire and venire - cross section of
community)
17. Trial Procedure
18. Jury Deliberation
19. Sentencing and Appeal
20. Collateral Court Proceeding
21. 4rth, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Criminal Procedure
Relevance
22. Eleven Cool Crim Pro Cases
1EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY: THE “PRIVACY ZONE” DOCTRINE
1. Introduction
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable
searches and seizures. The key threshold question is
whether the individual had a constitutionally protected
expectation of privacy (EOP) in the place searched or thing
seized.
2. Katz Test (Two-Prong Standard)
From Katz v. United States (1967):
1. Subjective Expectation – The person must exhibit an
expectation of privacy (closing a door, stepping into a
phone booth, etc.).
2. Objective Expectation – Society must recognize that
expectation as reasonable.
Both prongs must be met.
3. Areas With Strong Expectation of Privacy
a. Home (highest protection)
●
Includes all rooms, attached structures, closets, and
basements.
●
Requires warrant for entry unless an exception applies.
2●
Thermal imaging or through-wall technology requires a
warrant (Kyllo v. U.S.).
b. Curtilage
The immediate area around the home used for private
activities:
●
Backyards
●
Fenced gardens
●
Porches and decks
Tests from U.S. v. Dunn:
1. Proximity to home
2. Enclosure
3. Nature of use
4. Steps taken to protect privacy
c. Personal containers
●
Backpacks, purses, briefcases
●
Locked luggage
Police must obtain warrants unless an exception
applies (search incident, automobile, consent, plain
view).
d. Cell phones & digital data
3●
Riley v. California (2014): Police must obtain a
warrant to search digital contents of a cellphone.
●
Modern doctrine recognizes an elevated privacy
expectation in digital data (location history, texts,
cloud content).
4. Areas With Limited or No EOP
a. Open Fields
●
Oliver v. United States: No privacy in large rural land
beyond curtilage, even if posted “No Trespassing.”
b. Garbage at the curb
●
California v. Greenwood: No privacy because the public
and trash workers may access it.
c. Public places
●
Streets, parks, sidewalks
●
What is exposed to public view is fair game.
d. Prison cells
No EOP because custody eliminates privacy rights.
e. Aerial surveillance
●
Florida v. Riley: Helicopter at legal altitude = no
EOP, as long as the view was not enhanced by
extraordinary tech.
4II. PROBABLE CAUSE
1. Definition
A fair probability that:
●
A crime has been committed, about to be committed or
●
Evidence of a crime is present in a particular place.
Probable cause is fact-based and must be individualized.
2. Sources of Probable Cause
a. Officer Observations
●
Smell (marijuana, alcohol, accelerants)
●
Sight (bulge consistent with a weapon)
●
Sound (screams, gunshots)
●
Behavior (flight, furtive movements)
b. Informant Tips
Under Illinois v. Gates:
●
Use totality of circumstances (credibility + basis of
knowledge + police corroboration).
c. Victim/Witness Statements
5Usually presumed reliable.
d. Evidence in plain view
If officers are lawfully present and see contraband, that
may establish PC.
e. Admissions or confessions
f. Patterns known to experienced officers
Courts give deference to officer training (e.g., drug
courier profiles).
ESCAPES TO A WARRANT (WARRANT EXCEPTIONS)
1. Consent
Must be voluntary
Person must have authority
No probable cause needed
2. Search Incident to Arrest
Immediate area within arrestee’s control
Includes protective sweep for dangerous persons
Cannot search cell phone without warrant
3. Automobile Exception
Car readily mobile
Probable cause required
6Entire vehicle may be searched (containers
included)
4. Plain View
Lawful vantage point
Immediately apparent criminal nature
No manipulation
5. Exigent Circumstances
Hot pursuit
Destruction of evidence
Emergency aid
Public safety threats
Preventing escape
6. Inventory Searches
Standardized procedures
Not investigatory
Applies to impounded vehicles
7. Terry Stop & Frisk
Limited pat-down, not full search
78. Special Needs / Administrative Searches
DUI checkpoints
TSA airport screening
Government workplaces
Probation/parole searches
Border searches (extensive authority)
9. Community Caretaking Function
Officers acting to protect life/property (not to
investigate crime)
10. Protective Sweeps
●
Quick visual check during arrest if reasonable belief
others present and dangerous
III. REASONABLE SUSPICION
1. Definition
A particularized and objective basis for suspecting
criminal activity.
Less than probable cause but more than mere speculation.
2. Sources
●
High-crime area + unusual behavior (Wardlow)
●
Hands concealed
●
Nervousness
Matching suspect description
8●
●
Prior knowledge about the suspect
Suspicious movements (e.g., “blading” the body)
3. Duration
Stop must be:
●
●
Brief
Related in scope to the reason for the stop
A stop becomes a de facto arrest if it lasts too long
or is too intrusive.
IV. EXCLUSIONARY RULE
1. Purpose
To deter unconstitutional searches. Not a personal right
but a judicial deterrent remedy.
2. When Applied
●
●
●
●
4th Amendment violations
Miranda violations (limited to statements)
Some right-to-counsel violations
Some due process violations
3. When Not Applied
●
●
●
●
Civil cases
Grand jury proceedings
Habeas corpus (unless structural error)
Fourth Amendment violations by private citizens (not
acting as agents of police)
9V. FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE
1. Definition
Secondary evidence derived from an unconstitutional act is
inadmissible:
●
Leads
●
Witnesses discovered from illegal search
●
Confessions following illegal arrest (unless
attenuated)
VI. EXCEPTIONS TO THE Exclusionary Rule
1. Independent Source
Evidence is obtained by lawful means wholly
independent of the illegality.
2. Inevitable Discovery
Evidence would have been found anyway (e.g., organized
search parties).
3. Attenuation
Intervening events purge the taint (e.g., a suspect
voluntarily returns to confess after illegal arrest).
4. Good Faith
Police rely reasonably on defective warrant (Leon).
5. Impeachment
Illegally obtained evidence can impeach the
defendant’s testimony.
10VII. MIRANDA AND ITS EFFECTS
1. What triggers Miranda
Miranda applies when both:
●
Custody: reasonable person feels not free to leave
●
Interrogation: questions likely to elicit incriminating
responses
2. Waivers
Must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary.
3. Invocation
Must be unequivocal:
●
“I want a lawyer” = invocation
●
“Maybe I should talk to someone” = not enough
4. Consequences of Violation
●
Statements suppressed
●
Physical fruits usually admitted unless coercion used
●
Derivative violations limited (unlike 4th Amendment)
VIII. STOP AND FRISK (TERRY)
111. Terry Stop
Brief detention to investigate reasonable suspicion:
●
Officer must articulate criminal suspicion
●
Cannot be a fishing expedition
2. Terry Frisk
Pat-down limited to weapons ONLY.
3. Expansion
If officer feels an object whose criminal nature is
immediately apparent, it may be seized (“plain feel”).
IX. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. Applies to
●
Testimonial evidence
●
Custodial interrogation
●
Court testimony
2. Does not apply to
●
Blood
●
DNA
●
Voice exemplars
12●
Breath tests
●
Fingernails
●
Handwriting
X. INITIAL APPEARANCE
1. Purpose
●
Advise charges
●
Explain rights
●
Set bail
●
Appoint counsel
●
Determine probable cause (Gerstein review)
Must occur “without unnecessary delay.”
XI. GRAND JURY
1. Purpose
Determine probable cause for indictment.
2. Characteristics
●
Secret
13●
No judge present
●
Prosecutor runs proceedings
●
Defendant has no right to testify
●
Not adversarial
XII. SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL
1. When It Attaches
●
After formal charges (indictment, arraignment,
information)
●
Applies at all “critical stages”
2. Massiah Rule
Once charged, police cannot deliberately elicit statements
without counsel present.
3. Strickland Standard
Ineffective assistance requires:
1. Deficient performance
2. Prejudice
XIII. PRETRIAL MOTIONS
14Typical motions
●
●
●
●
●
Motion to suppress
Motion to dismiss
Discovery motion
Motion in limine
Change of venue
XIV. COURTROOM EVIDENCE
1. Relevance (Rule 401/403)
Must:
●
●
Make fact more or less likely
Not be substantially prejudicial
2. Foundation
Evidence must be authenticated.
3. Expert Testimony
Daubert standard:
●
●
●
Scientific validity
Peer review
Known error rates
Acceptance in scientific community
4. Six common objections: Leading question on direct;
relevance; speculation; hearsay; argumentative; ask and
answered (badgering)
15XV. RAPE SHIELD LAWS (RULE 412)
Purpose
Prevent humiliation by excluding:
●
Prior sexual behavior
●
●
Sexual predisposition
Reputation evidence
Exceptions
●
●
●
Prior sexual relationship with defendant
Source of semen/DNA
Constitutional (6th Amendment Confrontation Clause)
XVI. JURY
1. Requirements
●
Impartial
●
Representative cross-section
●
No systematic exclusion
2. Challenges
●
For cause
●
Peremptory
16XVII. TRIAL PROCEDURE
1. Jury selection
2. Opening statements
3. Prosecution case
4. Defense case
5. Rebuttal
6. Closings
7. Jury instructions
8. Deliberation
9. Verdict
XVIII. JURY DELIBERATION AND VERDICT
1. Unanimity Requirement
●
Ramos v. Louisiana mandates unanimous verdicts for
state felony trials.
2. Jury Nullification
Jury may acquit despite evidence; courts cannot instruct or
encourage it.
17XIX. SENTENCING AND APPEAL
1. Sentencing -
DEFINITE SENTENCING
A fixed term of imprisonment with no range and no parole board
discretion.
Definition
A sentencing system where the judge imposes a specific, exact
length of time, and the defendant must serve that period (minus
statutory good time).
Examples
●
“You are sentenced to exactly 5 years in prison.
No minimum, no maximum.
”
●
Federal sentencing post-1984 Sentencing Reform Act (not
fully definite, but close):
“Defendant receives 41 months under the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines.
”
●
Mandatory minimum sentence:
“Trafficking 100 grams of heroin = 10 years. Period.
(No variation; judge has no discretion.)
”
2. INDEFINITE SENTENCING
A sentence expressed as a range, but with no statutory upper
bound or only a very loose one.
Definition
18A sentencing structure in which the judge imposes a range,
often extremely broad, and the parole board decides release
based on “rehabilitation.
”
Examples
●
“Five years to life.
”
This is an indefinite sentence: incarceration could end
at 5 years or continue indefinitely.
●
Common in older death penalty states:
Murder might carry:
“20 years to life.
”
●
Juvenile indeterminate holds sometimes fall under this
category:
“Held until the age of 21.
”
Example
●
Prior to sentencing reforms, states like California used
wide open ends:
“Any term of years to life.
”
3. INDETERMINATE SENTENCING
A sentence expressed as a specific minimum and specific
maximum—the most common form in modern states.
Definition
Judge imposes a range such as 3–7 years, and the parole board
determines actual release date within that range.
Examples
●
“Minimum 3 years, maximum 7 years.
”
19●
“1 year to 3 years in state prison.
”
●
“20-year max, with a 5-year minimum parole eligibility.
”
Example
●
Many New England states use indeterminate structures:
“Robbery: 3–10 years, eligible for parole after 3.
”
Sentencing
●
PSI report
●
Guidelines (federal)
●
Mandatory minimums
●
Aggravators/mitigators
●
8th Amendment limits
2. Appeals
Focus on:
●
●
●
●
Legal errors
Constitutional errors
Evidentiary mistakes
Sentencing errors
Standard of review:
●
●
De novo
Abuse of discretion
20●
Harmless vs. reversible error
XX. COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS & WRITS
1. Habeas Corpus
Federal review of constitutional violations after direct
appeal.
2. Mandamus
Compels an official to act.
3. Extradition - Intra-state and International.
XXI. RELEVANCE OF 4TH, 5TH, 6th, 8th, 14th AMENDMENTS
Fourth Amendment
●
●
●
Searches, seizures
Warrants
Exclusionary rule
Fifth Amendment
●
●
●
●
●
Self-incrimination
Double jeopardy
Grand jury
Due process
Miranda
Sixth Amendment
21●
●
Counsel
Speedy trial
●
●
●
●
Public trial
Confrontation
Cross-examination
Jury trial
Eighth Amendment
●
●
●
●
Bail
Fines
Cruel and unusual punishment
Proportionality
Fourteenth Amendment
●
●
Incorporation of fundamental rights
Equal protection
Due process
XXII. ELEVEN COOL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES
(including Noem v. Perdomo)
1. Weeks v. United States (1914)
Foundational case for the Exclusionary Rule (federal
level).
●
Established that evidence obtained by federal officers
through an unconstitutional search or seizure must be
excluded at trial.
22●
Created the original Exclusionary Rule as a judicial
remedy to enforce the Fourth Amendment.
●
Did not apply to the states at this point — that came
later through Mapp v. Ohio.
Importance: This is the origin point for modern Fourth
Amendment suppression doctrine.
2. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Incorporated the Exclusionary Rule to the states via the
14th Amendment.
●
Overruled Wolf v. Colorado.
●
States must exclude evidence obtained in violation of
the Fourth Amendment.
●
Cemented the Exclusionary Rule as a fundamental part of
criminal procedure.
Importance: Without Mapp, the 4th Amendment would be nearly
unenforceable in state courts.
3. Katz v. United States (1967)
Created the “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” test.
●
Shifted the Fourth Amendment from property-based to
privacy-based protections.
23●
“The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”
●
Established the two-part Katz test (subjective
expectation + objective reasonableness).
Importance: Defines the boundaries of privacy for nearly
all modern search-and-seizure cases.
4. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Established Stop-and-Frisk and “Reasonable Suspicion.”
●
Officers may briefly detain a person on reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity.
●
May conduct a limited pat-down for weapons if they
believe the suspect is armed and dangerous.
●
Created the modern framework for street encounters and
investigatory stops.
Importance: This is the cornerstone of modern policing
doctrine.
5. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Guaranteed the right to counsel for indigent defendants in
felony cases.
●
Held that states must appoint attorneys for defendants
who cannot afford them.
24●
Rooted in the 6th Amendment and applied through the
14th Amendment.
●
Fundamentally changed state criminal justice systems
and public defender offices.
Importance: Ensures fairness and legitimacy in criminal
trials.
6. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Created the Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation.
●
Must advise suspects of the right to remain silent and
right to attorney.
●
Protects against compelled self-incrimination under the
5th Amendment.
●
Statements obtained without warnings are generally
inadmissible.
Importance: The most widely known procedural safeguard in
American law.
7. Illinois v. Gates (1983)
Replaced the rigid Aguilar-Spinelli test with
Totality-of-the-Circumstances.
●
Lowered the threshold for using informant tips to
establish probable cause.
25●
Probable cause now based on flexible, common-sense
evaluation of all factors.
Importance: Defines how police establish probable cause in
warrant applications.
8. United States v. Leon (1984)
Created the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
●
Evidence is admissible if officers reasonably relied on
a warrant later found defective.
●
Major limitation on Mapp/Weeks.
Importance: Balances police errors with deterrence goals;
huge practical impact in suppression hearings.
9. Riley v. California (2014)
Held that police must obtain a warrant to search a cell
phone.
●
Recognized the massive privacy held in digital data.
●
Prevents warrantless searches of cell phone contents
during arrests.
Importance: Landmark digital-era privacy case.
10. North Carolina v. Ramos (Ramos v. Louisiana)
(2020)
Held that state felony convictions must be unanimous.
●
Struck down Oregon and Louisiana’s non-unanimous jury
systems.
●
Reinforced the 6th Amendment jury trial guarantee.
Importance: Strengthened jury legitimacy and rectified a
system with discriminatory origins.
11. Noem v. Perdomo (2025)
On its emergency “shadow docket,” the Supreme Court granted
the federal government’s request to stay a district court
injunction that had blocked ICE agents in seven Southern
California counties (including Los Angeles) from using any
combination of four factors to justify investigative
“roving” stops:
(1) apparent race or ethnicity,
(2) speaking Spanish or accented English,
(3) presence at locations where undocumented immigrants
are known to gather (e.g., bus stops, day-labor sites,
car washes, farms), and
(4) working certain jobs such as landscaping or
construction.
By lifting the injunction, the Court allowed ICE to
resume using those factors as part of “reasonable
suspicion” for detentive stops while the case proceeds,
signaling strong deference to federal immigration
27enforcement and effectively permitting race, language,
and occupation to function as permissible components in
the reasonable-suspicion calculus for immigration
raids. The unsigned order drew a 6–3 split, with
Justice Kavanaugh concurring and Justice Sotomayor
dissenting (joined by Kagan and Jackson), warning that
the ruling normalizes racial profiling in violation of
the spirit of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments