Chapter 10 - Criminal Procedure - Concepts Flashcards
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
Another term for stop-and-frisk is (1). In (2), the SC upheld that police may stop and pat down people if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
- investigatory detention
2. Terry v. Ohio
The Supreme Court has upheld the controversial use of (1) to detain suspected drug couriers as valid with consideration of the totality if circumstances.
- drug courier profiles
Many states have taken steps to curtailing the use of (1) as a primary factor in traffic stops. In (2) SB1070 was brought under question when a federal appeals court issued an injunction to bar the its provisions, but the SC upheld it pending a trial by district court.
- race
2. Arizona v. United States
In (1) the SC held that before interrogating suspects in custody, police must warn them of their right to remain silent. This came under fire when a (2) was invoked in the (3) basing admissibility of confession on whether it is voluntary. The SC disagreed that (4) could legislate against what had become a (5).
- Miranda v. Arizona
- federal statute
- US Court of Appeals
- Congress
- constitutional right
In (1), the Court clarified the meaning of Miranda rights to extend only to those who specifically invoke them, rather than simply remaining silent. In (2) it was ruled that if a suspect asks for an attorney, the interrogation must cease.
- Berghuis v, Thompkins
2. Maryland v. Shatzer
In the (1) evidence derived from inadmissible evidence is likewise inadmissible. In other words, the (2) is tainted. Even among a tainted case, however, the (3) holds that lawfully obtained information can exempt a piece of evidence from the poisonous tree.
- fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
- derivative evidence
- independent source doctrine
Two exceptions to the Miranda rule
- public safety exceptions (incriminating statement made alongside location of weapons, etc.) (set out in New York v. Quarles)
- “spontaneous declarations” before reasonable time to read rights
A suspect has a right to (1) at line-ups and they should not be (2). Physical identifying evidence is not subject to the 5th Amendment rule against self-incrimination, but (3) and (4) may apply.
- counsel
- unnecessarily suggestive
- due process rights
- warrant rules
The right to counsel is a (1) right. In (2) it was applied to states too via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
- 6th Amendment
2. Gideon v. Wainwright
The Gideon case also established that the 14th Amendment requires states to (1) in all felony cases. This at first applied only to (2) but was later extended to (3). Some states have established successful public defender offices; others rely on (4).
- provide counsel to indigent defendants
- felonies
- misdemeanors
- ad hoc appointments
A defendant who chooses to represent herself does not have to demonstrate (1), but a trial court must hold a hearing to determined that (2). A defendant does not have a right to (3) from a trial judge, and sometimes (4) will be appointed by judges.
- knowledge of law
- the right has been exercised intelligently
- receive personal instruction
- standby counsel
Minor misdemeanors are often disposed by (1), in which the accused is summoned to court, issued a (2), and can waive court appearance by (3). If found guilty in court, they usually (4).
- summary justice
- citation
- paying a fine
- pay a fine
People placed under arrest must promptly be taken before a judge or magistrate; this (1) is usually 24-48 hours within arrest.
- initial appearance
3 functions of the initial appearance
- charges read so accused is formally notified
- accused is informed of relevant constitutional rights (silent, counsel)
- determination made of whether accused should be released pending trial or remain in custody