Chapter 10 - Criminal Procedure - Concepts Flashcards
(95 cards)
Criminal procedure consists of the processes by which crimes are (1), (2), and (3).
- investigated
- prosecuted
- punished
5 things that set requirements for criminal procedure
- federal constitutions
- state const.
- federal statutes
- state statutes
- court rules of criminal procedure
Most search/seizure requires a (1), and all require a standard of reasonableness–set out by (2), and the less strict standard of (3) for limited searches such as pat downs.
- warrant
- probable cause
- reasonable suspicion
In 1949 the search and seizure protection was (1) in states via the (2) of the 14th Amendment. While the 4th Amendment sets a minimum standard, many (3) provide greater levels of protection.
- incorporated
- Due Process Clause
- state courts
3 exceptions to unreasonable search and seizure limitations
- private individuals (unless acting under direction of police)
- US agents outside US territory
- border searches
4 things protected under unreasonable search and seizure
- person (person and clothes)
- house (houses, offices, stores)
- papers
- effects (property)
An exception to protections on property/house search is (1).
- abandoned premises/property (including trash)
Police are not required to inform suspects of their right to refuse to (1), including whether motorists are (2) before allowing a search. Consent must be (3) and not coerced. A (4) cannot consent to search of a lessee’s dwelling, and neither can a (5). Only one (6) is needed to prevent search of common areas.
- consent to a search
- “free to go”
- truly voluntary
- landlord
- roommate
Seizure refers to taking into custody (1), (2) or a (3). But what constitutes a (4) is less clear.
- physical evidence
- property
- person
- search
Originally (1) and (2) were immune to unreasonable search, but in (3), which involved a suspected bookie using a wiretapped phone booth, the new standard was that an intrusion occurs if it violates a (4).
- wiretapping
- electronic eavesdropping
- Katz v. United States
- reasonable expectation of privacy
In (1), the SC ruled that surveillance evidence obtained GPS placed on a car parked on private property was inadmissible as evidence, in part because of the (2) standard.
- United States v. Jones
2. reasonable expectation of privacy
5 cases where expectations of privacy are considered diminished
- prison inmates (strip searches, sweeps)
- parolees (routine person searches)
- electronic communication in the workplace
- most “safety-sensitive” government jobs (drug testing of railway operators)
- airline travel
Case in which two officers sending sexually explicit texts over company phones were not protected by SC ruling (diminished expectation of privacy)
- City of Ontario v. Quon
The SC has upheld brief, warrantless search of passenger compartments at (1), but this does not extend to (2), like drug possession.
- sobriety checkpoints
2. ordinary lawbreaking
The requirement of a warrant allows interposition of a (1) between citizens and state. Probable cause requires (2) police officers to have (3) leading them to believe that (4) may be obtained through a specific search. The SC has said the courts should view probably cause in light of (5) of a given case.
- judges/magistrates
- prudent
- trustworthy
- evidence of a crime
- totality of circumstances
In requesting issuance of a search warrant, a police office usually submits an (1) that contains a description of the (2) or (3) to be searched and the things to be seized, and must be specific as to the (4). The information must also be (5).
- affidavit
- place
- person
4, facts of probably cause - fresh
A magistrate’s finding of probable cause may be based on (1). This permits obtaining tips from (2). Recently, the rules on (3) were relaxed by the Supreme Court, though some states still apply more rigorous standards.`
- hearsay evidence
- confidential informants
- anonymous tips
8 exigent circumstances in which warrantless searches may be exercised because of presumed probable cause
- Evidence in plain view (such as airplane surveillance, but not infrared)
- emergency searches (bombs, etc.)
- preservation of evidence (in case of evanescent evidence–has extended to intoxicated blood sample)
- Roadside searches of motor vehicles previously pulled over on reasonable suspicion of crime (if smell of drugs emitting, etc.)
- Canine searches (drug-sniffing dogs)
- Search incident to lawful arrest (person and area within person’s control)
- Hot pursuit (fleeing = probable cause)
- Inventory searches (eg, impounded vehicles)
3 standards to apply to “plain view” doctrine
- officer has a legal justification to be in constitutionally-protected area
- evidence seized is in plain view of the officer
- it is apparent the object is evidence of a crime
3 situations in which search rights are held to a lesser standard of “reasonable suspicion” instead of “probable cause”
- Stop-and-frisk
- School searches
- Drug testing (public employees, public school athletes)
The (1) prohibits use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal prosecution. This was upheld in (2), in which cops found sexually explicit material while searching for a bombing suspect. When the exclusionary rule came under attack, the (3) was added that still accepted evidence even if the warrant was later held to be invalid.
- exclusionary rule
- Mapp v. Ohio
- good-faith exception
An (1) is routine in cases where an arrest is to be made based on an indictment by a grand jury. When a prosecutor files an (2), a (3) is issued by the court directing arrest.
- arrest warrant
- information
- capias
2 cases in which warrantless arrests are approved by SC
- crime committed in plain view of officer
2. probably cause to make arrest + exigent circumstances
Force used by police in making arrests is often challenged in (1). The courts have said police officers may use such force as is (2) and to (3). A famous case was (4), in which the initial acquittal of the officers sparked riots.
- civil cases
- necessary to effect the arrest
- prevent escape of the suspect
- Rodney King beatings