Canned Answers (CRIM) Flashcards
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Automobile Stop
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. An automobile stop is a seizure of the person under the 4th amendment. As a result, such stop must be reasonable. To be reasonable under the fourth amendment, the seizure of a person must be supported by either probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime. If the stop is not reasonable, all evidence that is a fruit of the poisonous stop must be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule.
Search incident to Lawful Arrest
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when the search conducted is a search incident to a lawful arrest. The police may conduct a warrantless search incident to arrest as long as it was made on probable cause and contemporaneously with the arrest. The police need not actually fear for their safety or believe they will find evidence of a crime as long as the suspect is placed under arrest. The search is limited to the arrestee’s wingspan – areas into which he might reasonably reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence. If police believe an accomplice is present, they may do a protective sweep beyond the D’s wingspan.
If the person arrested is the occupant of an automobile, the police may search the interior of the automobile if at the time of the search the arrestee is (1) unsecure and may still gain access or (2) the police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle. If the police have reason to believe the automobile contains evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, they may search the vehicle even after the arrestee has been placed in the squad car AND even if the arrestee was already outside of the car at the time he was arrested (as long as he was a recent occupant of car).
Search incident to arrest does not extend to the digital information of a cell phone. Rather, the police may only exam the physical attributes of a cellphone. The search of a cellphone implicates greater individual privacy interests and the search would not further the goal of the search incident to lawful arrest since data stored on a cell phone cannot be used to harm arresting officer or effectuate escape.
If arrest was made for intoxicated driving, police may administer a warrantless breath test to determine alcohol levels, but may not administer warrantless blood test.
The police may search an arrestee’s personal belongings before incarcerating him after a valid arrest. Similarly, the police may search an entire vehicle, including closed containers within the vehicle, that has been impounded.
Automobile Exception
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when the police have probable cause to believe the that a vehicle contains contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime. The officer may search the entire automobile, including its trunk and all containers within the vehicle that might contain evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits that are related to the suspected crime.
However, if the vehicle is parked within the curtilage of one’s home, the police may not search the vehicle without a warrant.
However, if the police only have probable cause to search a container recently placed in the vehicle, the search is limited to that container.
However, the search is not limited to the driver’s belongings. It may extend to containers belonging to a passenger.
Plain View Exception
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when the police (1) are legitimately on the premises; (2) they discover evidence, fruits, instrumentalities of a crime or contraband; (3) such evidence is in plain view; and (4) they have probable cause to believe, and it is immediately apparent, that the item is evidence of a crime.
Consent Exception
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when police have obtained voluntary consent to do so. The scope of the search is limited to the scope of consent. Any person with apparent authority (apparent equal right to use or occupy the property) may consent to the search and any evidence found may be used against the other occupants. The search will be valid, even if the consenting person did not have such authority, so long as the police reasonably believed that the person had the authority to consent.
However, the police may NOT act on consent when (1) a co-occupant is present (2) the co-occupant objects to the search and (3) the search is directed at the co-occupant. But, if the co-occupant has objected and is later removed for a reason unrelated to the refusal to consent, the police may act on the consent of the occupant.
Parents have the authority to consent to a search of a child’s room, even when the child is an adult, as long as the parent has access to the room. Conversely, even a relatively young child has authority to consent to a search of common areas of a home or their own room.
Stop and Frisk
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, a police officer may stop a person without probable cause for arrest if she has articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Under such circumstances, if the officer also reasonable believes that the person may be armed and presently dangerous, she may conduct a protective frisk that is limited to a pat down of the outer clothing for concealed weapons. This also includes ordering a person out of a vehicle in order to conduct a frisk. For person ordered out of car: The officer may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle even when the person has not been arrested, but the search is limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden.
However, if an officer has information that a weapon is hidden in a specific location, the officer may reach directly into that area of the suspect’s clothing even without a preliminary frisk.
Inventory Search Exception
Searches usually are invalid under the Fourth Amendment unless they are pursuant to a warrant. There is an exception for inventory searches upon booking a person. This exception would justify the seizure of Sam’s cell phone. However, the exception does not apply to searches of the electronic content of a cell phone. A warrant must be obtained to review the contents of a cell phone.
Hot Pursuit Exception
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when the police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. The scope of the search may be as broad as reasonably necessary to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping.
Exigent Circumstances Exception
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when (1) officers have reason to believe that that evidence is being destroyed and (2) the officers did not create the exigency through an actual or threatened 4th AM violation.
Emergency Aid Exception
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search. However, there is an exception to the warrant requirement when an emergency that threaten health or safety if not immediately acted upon. This includes situations where the police see someone injured or threatened with injury.
Administrative Inspections
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search of commercial buildings. The burden to obtain a warrant only requires a showing of a general and neutral enforcement plan.
However, a warrant is not required for the seizure of spoiled or contaminated food.
However, a warrant is not required for search of businesses in highly regulated industries. Businesses are deemed to have impliedly consented to warrantless searches upon entering into such industry.
Public Schools Search
In addition to seizures, the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for to conduct a search. However, a warrant nor probable cause is required for searches conducted by public school officials. Instead, there must only be reasonable grounds and a search will be considered reasonable only if: (1) it offers a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing; (2) the measures to carry out the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search; and (3) the search is not excessive intrusive in light of age and sex of student and the nature of the infraction.
Arrest
A valid arrest must be based on PROBABLE CAUSE. Probable cause is shown through trustworthy facts or knowledge sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime for which arrest is authorized by law, and is based on TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Miranda Warnings
Under Miranda v. Arizona, a statement obtained by police off thru a custodial interrogation may not be used against a suspect in a criminal trial unless the suspect waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel after being so informed by the police.
Miranda Warning (detained)
Whether a person is in custody depends on: (i) whether the person would feel he is free to terminate the interrogation and leave; and (ii) whether the situation presents the same coercive pressures as station house questioning. An ordinary traffic stop is not custodial because it is brief. However, if the accused is detained for a lengthy period of time or told he cannot leave, the stop is custodial. Interrogation includes, not only questioning, but also any other conduct that the officer should know is likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Miranda Warning (rights waived)
To establish the detainee validly waived his rights, the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. The court will look at the totality of the circumstances.
At any time, the detainee may make an explicit, unambiguous, and unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent. If the detainee does so, all questioning relating to that particular crime must stop. The police may reinstate the questioning as long as they scrupulously honor the detainee’s request.
At any time, the detainee may make an unambiguous request for counsel in dealing with the custodial interrogation. The request must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel. If the detainee invokes his right to counsel, all questioning must cease until the detainee is either provided with an attorney or reinitiates questioning himself. [cannot even ask about unrelated crime like when only invoke right to remain silent] The invocation of the right to counsel prohibits questioning the entire time the detainee is in custody for interrogation purposes AND 14 more days after the detainee returns to his normal life.
Miranda Warnings (invalid confession)
A confession obtained in violation of Miranda that is otherwise voluntary may only be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony at trial. However, if the interrogation is reasonably prompted by concern for public safety, responses to the questions may be admissible even if obtained in violation of Miranda.
Sixth Amendment: Counsel at Proceedings
The Sixth Amendment provides for a defendant a right to counsel at all critical stages of criminal prosecution after formal adversary judicial proceedings have begun – meaning formal charges have been filed. The right is violated when the police, or someone acting on behalf of the police, deliberately elicit an incriminating statement from a defendant without first obtaining a waiver of the right to have counsel present. A waiver must be knowing and voluntary.
A statement obtained in violation of the 6th AM right to counsel may only be used to impeach D’s contrary trial testimony.
If the D was entitled to a lawyer at trial, failure to provide counsel results in automatic reversal of conviction. However, at notarial proceedings, the harmless error rule applies.
Sixth AM right to counsel is offense specific. If he requests counsel for one charge, he must make another request if he is subsequently charged with a different offense. The test for different offense from Blockburger states two crimes are different if each requires proof of an additional elements that the other crime does not require.
14th Amendment: Voluntariness
For confessions to be admissible, the Due Process Clause of the 14th AM requires that they be voluntary. Voluntariness is determined by a totality of the circumstances, including: (1) suspect’s age; (2) education; (3) and mental and physical condition; along with (4) the setting; (5) duration; and (6) manner of police interrogation. Only an official compulsion will render a confession involuntary under the 14th AM. If a confession in violation of the 14th AM is admitted into evidence, the harmless error test applies and the conviction will not be overturned if the government can show that there was overwhelming evidence of guilt.
