Ch 3-4 Quiz Flashcards
What is Level of Proof
the degree of certainty required by the law for an act by government agents to be legal
What is Man of Reasonable Caution
refers to the average man or women on the street. It doesn’t refer to a person with training in the law
Probable Cause Legal Definition
more than bare suspicion; it exists when the “facts circumstances within the officers knowledge of which they had reasonably trustworthy info are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed”
Probable Cause Practical Definition
exists when it is more likely than not (more than 50% certainty) that the suspect committed an offense or that the items sought can be found in a certain place
Reasonable Suspicion
the quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent or cautious person in similar circumstances to believing criminal activity is occurring
Brinegar v. United States (1949)
probable cause is more than bare suspicion, it exists when the facts and circumstances within the officers knowledge of which they had reasonably trustworthy info are sufficient in themselves to justify a “man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed
Spinelli v. United States (1969)
“innocent seeming activity” and a “bad and illuminating assertion of suspicion “in an affidavit are not to be given weight in a magistrates determination of probable cause. An officer may use credible hearsay to establish probable cause, but an affidavit based on an informants tip must satisfy the 2-pronged Agrilar test
Michigan v. Summers (1981)
the general rule is that every arrest, as well as every seizure having the essential attribute of a formal arrest, is unreasonable unless supported by probable cause
Alabama v. White (1990)
reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause. It can be established with info different in quantity or content from that required to establish probable cause
Maryland v. Pringle (2003)
in determining probable cause, the term “man of reasonable caution” is best interpreted using the standard of an “objectively reasonable police officer”
examine events leading up to arrest
test whether or not there is p.c. to believe that the passengers committed the crime solely or jointly
Caroll v. United States (1925)
where the officers would have facts and circumstances available to them as would “Warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that an offense has been committed or is being committed
vehicles - mobility: cars can leave; visibility: windows reduce expectation of privacy
What is the Legal Standard for Arrests
Probable Cause
there has to be a person who did it, attach crime to act and act to specific person
bad guy bad act
What are the Sources of Probable Cause
Collection that builds towards conviction
-Officer Observation -Officer idk -Witnesses -Victims
-Record Checks -Title 3 -137s (informants) -Suspect Testimony
What are the steps for the Reasonableness Cause
1) Limited Detention - get answer to question of whats going on, if reasonable answer no pat down
2) Limited Search- once red flag appears you can pat down, to be hands on, one reason only: fear of officer safety (fear is the trigger)
What does the Terry Stop include
3 guys casing store, pat down and found unlawfully carried weapons
What was the crime? Hadn’t happened yet, no probable cause yet
Reasonable Suspicion: we don’t want cops to have to wait for crime, we want them to be proactive
possible bad guy, possible bad act
Guilt/Suspicion Graph
15%-25%: hunch/guess
25%-50%: reasonable suspicion
50%-85%: probable cause
49%-84%: preponderance
85%-100%: beyond a reasonable doubt
Probable Cause 4 Important Areas of Police Work
- Arrests with a Warrant
- Arrests without a Warrant
- searches and seizures of property with a warrant
- Searches and seizures of property without a warrant
United States v. Ortiz (1975)
ruled that “officers are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from these facts in light of their knowledge of the area and their prior experience
Illinois v. Gates (1983)
the 2 prongs for determining informants should be treated as relevant considerations in the totality of circumstances
Whiteley v. Warden (1971)
info not included in the affidavit cannot be used to determine p.c. even if the p.o. knew about that info at the time the affidavit was submitted
3 Ways to Establish P.C.
1) through a p.o.’s own knowledge of particular facts and circumstances
2) through info given by a reliable 3rd person informant
3) though info given by an informant plus corroboration by the p.o.
Aguilar v. Texas (1964)
2 prongs: reliability of the informant and reliability of the informants info
both must be present
United States v. Arizona (2002)
r.s. is to be determined based on the totally of circumstances
Exclusionary Rule
evidence obtained by the gov in violation of the 4th Amend guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure in not admissible in a criminal prosecution to prove guilt
Judge Made Rule
rule crafted by judges not provided for in the Constitution
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
once the primary evidence is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary and derived from it is also inadmissible
Good Faith Doctrine
Evidence obtained by the police is admissible even if there was an error or mistake, as long as the error or mistake was not committed by the police, or, if committed by the police, it was honest and reasonable
Harmless Error
the evidence erroneously admitted by the trial court didn’t contribute to the conviction and there is other evidence to support the verdict
Inevitable Discovery Exception
evidence is admissible if the police can prove that they would inevitably have discovered the evidence anyway by lawful means
Independent Source Exception
evidence obtained is admissible if the police can prove that it was obtained from an independent source not connected with the illegal search or seizure
Purged Taint Exception
Evidence obtained is admissible if the defendant’s subsequent voluntary act dissipates the taint of the initial illegality
Silver Platter Doctrine
permitted federal courts to admit evidence illegally seized by state L.E. and hand over to Fed officers for use in Fed cases
standing
a legal concept that determines whether a person can legally file a lawsuit or submit a petition to the court
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S. (1920)
once the primary evidence (the “tree”) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence (the “fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible.
This case enunciated the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Elkins v. U.S. (1968)
the 4th Amend prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in federal or state officers.
This case eliminated the silver platter doctrine
Mapp v.Ohio (1961)
the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure, is applicable to state criminal proceedings
United States v. Leon (1984)
the 4th Amends exclusionary rule should not be applied to bar the prosecution from using evidence that has been obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is issued by a detached neutral magistrate but is ultimately found to be invalid
Herring v. U.S. (2009)
evidence obtained by the police from unlawful searches is admissible as long. as the police mistakes that led to unlawful search are merely the result of isolated negligence not the product of systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional rights
Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
exclusionary rule applied to fed agents only
Exclusionary Rule Primary Purpose
deter police misconduct
Wolf v. Co (1949)
warned states that they needed to do something about illegally obtained evidence
Won Sung Case
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and doctrine of attenuation
derivative evidence
tainted secondary evidence from fruit of the poisonous tree
Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984)
good faith doctrine
When does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply
1) police violations of the knock-and-announce rule
2) in searches and seizures by private persons
3) grand jury investigations
4) as part of the sentencing determination
5) arrests based on p.c. that violate state law
6) violations of agency rules
7) noncriminal proceedings
8) parole revocation hearings
Habeas Corpus Proceedings
a proceeding that seeks the defendant’s release from jail or prison because their constitutional rights were allegedly violated before or during trial
Minnesota v. Carter (1998)
general rule on standing is that the exclusionary rule may be used only by the person whose 4th Amend rights have been violated, meaning the person whose reasonable expectation of privacy was breached by the police
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
1) good faith
2) inevitable discovery
3) purged taint exception
4) independent source exception
