Constitutional Law Final Flashcards
Stop / Detainer is
a limited intrusion in to a person’s freedom to acquire info for investigatory purposes
Arrest is
restraint on a person’s liberty which includes summons, desk appearance ticket or traffic ticket
Search is unconstitutional or unreasonable if
- it requires a warrant
- without probable cause
- made using excessive force
Probable cause is
Sufficient evidence to show that a crime was committed and that defendant committed crime
3 layers of encounters
1 Investigatory (lowest) 2 Detainer (articulable objective reason to stop) 3 Arrest (entitles officer stop from leaving, deprive of liberty and search)
A frisk can be conducted if
there is a reasonable belief that person is armed. must be obvious with first touch
Terry vs. OH
held that they did not need probable cause with articulable facts
MN vs Dickerson
expanded Terry Stop to include contraband
Roadblocks are constitutional if
1: must have defined purpose
2: carried out according to published guidelines
3: must be done with minimum inconvenience
3 requirements for warrant
1: probable cause
2: oath or affirmation
3: particularization
Entry on to private property
Must have a warrant which gives authorization to enter private home
Exceptions to arrest without warrant
1 Exigent circumstances, ( flight of defendant, destruction of evidence, danger to defendant, police or 3rd party)
2 Consent
3 Hot pursuit
Use of force acceptable when
1 Police must defend themselves
2 use of force equal to what is being used
3 to overcome resistance
NY promptness standard
can be held 5 days (felony) or 6 if over weekend
Traffic stop is valid if
1 on public highway
2 probable cause for traffic infraction
3 may issue a summons or warning
4 to search vehicle, must have probable cause
TN vs Garner
shot unarmed burglar to prevent from fleeing.
1: did suspect pose immediate threat to pd or others?
2: was deadly force necessary for escape or could be done other way?
3: did pd give some warning of intention to use deadly force?
Scott vs. Harris
using deadly force with his car
Payton rule
warrant needed to search home
A search is
Government intrusion into person’s privacy interest
A seizure is
Government intrusion into person’s possession interest
4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches of
persons, papers and effects
No 4th amendment challenge if
no reasonable expectation of privacy
No privacy interest in
1 Place you do not live
2 In person
3 Property already exposed to public
Wire tap cases
Olmstead vs. US (tap down street)
Katz vs US (bookie and phone booth)
4 subjects constitutionally protected
1 Person and areas of body not exposed to public
2 In Homes (where you live/offices/transient lodgings)
3 In your papers (mail/hard drive/audio tape)
4 Your effects (personal property/wallet/phone)
2 types of searches
1 Warrant required: probable cause, facts must show particulars
2 Without warrant: probable cause
4 categories subject to search warrant
1: fruits of a crime
2: instrumentality of crime
3: contraband
4: mere evidence
Case defining particularization
Steele vs US (whiskey)
2 Prong Test for warrant issued based upon CI informant
Aguilar Spinelli test: credibility of CI and reliability of info
Case regarding CI info and totality of circumstances
IL vs. Gates
NY state court vs federal court follows what for CI
state: Aguilar Spinelli
federal: IL vs. Gates
No warrant is needed exceptions:
1: Consent
2: Search Incident to arrest
3: Exigent Circumstances
4: Inventory Search
5: Plain view
6: Terry stop frisk
7: Automobile Search
8: Abandoned property
Consent
Must be knowing, voluntary, of free will and by someone who has the authority to give
Search incident to arrest
Pursuant to lawful arrest
Limited to person and grabbable are
Exigent circumstances
1: need for immediate action (threat to safety of officer or general public)
2: threat of evidence being lost or destroyed
3: Hot pursuit
Hot pursuit case
Brigham City UT vs. Stewart
Plain view requirements
1: suspect must have demonstrated some kind of connection to property
2: must show reasonable expectation of privacy
3: how was evidence observed or perceived
When plain view requirement exist, items may be seized without a warrant if
1: officer must be lawfully present
2: must have unobstructed view of object
3: illegal nature of object must be readily apparent
if any missing must get warrant
Automobile stop
where vehicle stopped because of probable cause involved in a crime or because may contain contraband
Police may search entire care, bumper to bumper and any closed container if
Police believe car was involved in crime, would need probable cause to search occupants if they believe occupant was involved in crime
Abandoned property
must show that defendant intended to disassociate themselves from property. Abandonment must be initiated by defendant
Abandoned property case
People vs. Harris (police reason they discarded)
Exclusionary rule
Remedy for constitutional violations
- Prevents use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained
1: Restores defendant to position they would have been in without evidence
2: deters police from further violations
Exclusionary rule case
Weeks vs. US (gambling)
Map vs. OH
Fruit of poison tree
evidence found from illegal search
Fruit of poison tree case
Wong Sun vs. US
Exceptions to exclusionary rule
1: evidence would been found eventually
2: Good faith rule
Good faith rule case
AZ vs. Evans
US vs. leon
Use of illegal seized evidence
cannot be used as evidence of guilt but can be used for impeachment purposes (to show unbelievable)
Forest Service Surveillance Camera Case
US vs. McGyver
3rd Party Wire Tap Case
Hoffa vs. US
Challenges to legality of evidence obtained by surveillance
- Does it occur in public
- Is activity / info exposed to a third party
- Does activity take place in a home
Thermal imaging enhanced surveillance case
Kyllo vs. US
Arial surveillance case
Dow Chem vs. US
Tracking device case (GPS)
US vs. Jones
Surveillance in home case (ether)
Carro vs. US
Video surveillance case (hotel room)
US vs Lee
Devices that only detect contraband
- Chemical testing
2. Drug sniffing dog
Drug sniffing dog case
IL vs. Cabbaales
Wiretap Act
Prohibits interception of protected communication without special court order called wiretap order
Type of protected communications
- Wire Communications
- Oral communications
3, Electronic Communications
Interception is:
Acquisition of contents of a protected communication during the transmission of communication
Wire Communication is:
- Transfer made in hole ro part by some facility for the communication by aid of wire, cable connection between point of inception and completion
- transfer of voice a-b using wire
- thru use of interstate communications facility
Oral Communications is:
- uttered from 1 to another while exhibiting expectation of privacy
- live face to face
- expects not to be intercepted
- reasonable not to be intercepted
Electronic Communication is
transmitted from point a-b, not voice and by means of wired device
Requirement of Interception
- Protected communication
- acquire contents of communication during transmission
- by means of a device meant for that purpose (bug)
Requirements of Wiretap
- Participating in a crime
- must be necessity
- Must have authorization from Attorney General
- Probable Cause
- Must designate duration of wiretap
- Contains access to premises
- Provision for minimization
- Disclosure of tap prohibited
Exceptions to Wiretap rule
- Exigent circumstances - confronted with emergency of death or injury, conspiring to threaten US or conspiracy with organized crime
- must have objective belief that had there been time wiretap would have been approved.
- must make formal request within 48 hours
Communication not regulated
- Conversation naturally overheard
- Lacking reasonable expectation of privacy
- Interception where one party consents
Graveside wiretap case
kee vs. Rowlett
Recorded conversation in squad car case
US. vs. Turner
Stored communications act
allows for acquisition of conversations that have terminated
Time limits on disclosing stored communications
- if less than 180 days, need search warrant
2. if older than 180 days, subpoena needed
Amendments that protect us when gathering statements
- 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches
- 5th Amendment prohibits self incrimination allows due process
- 6th Amendment affords right to counsel
- 14th Amendment states’ requirement to provide due process and 5th, 4th and 6th protections
Statements gathered and used at trial must have been made:
Voluntarily
Involuntary Statement Cases:
Beecher vs AL (gun to def’s head)
Brown vs. MS (whipping of def)
When physical force is used to coerce statement, statement is deemed to be
Per se involuntary
Types of undue influence or coercion
mental, sociological, emotional, familial, promises of immunity
Types of coercive atmosphere
room temp, how many police in room, handcuffed?, no contact with others, how long without food, water, sleep
The burden to prove that the statement made was voluntary is on:
the prosecutor
Federal requirement to show voluntariness
voluntary by preponderance of evidence
NY State requirement to show voluntariness
voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt
Wong Sun Fruit of the poison tree SCOTUS holding to determine if statement was voluntary (3)
- what time passed between violation and obtaining of evidence?
- were there any intervening circumstances that broke the chain between 1st violation and confession?
- how bad was the violation?
Federal prompt arraignment ruling case
McNabb vs. US (confession in violation if fed prompt arraignment rule is subject to suppression)
Mallery vs. US (reaffirmed)
Omnibus Crime Central Act (now not auto suppressed)
Definition of confession
Statement where defendant admits to each element of a crime
Definition of admission
Statement by defendant that is contrary to his interest (i.e. admits to being at same place/time)
Voluntariness
Constitutional safeguards from 5th Amendment - cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Only after knowingly gives up their rights can they use statements against them
Rights / Statement Case
Miranda vs. US (rape case. never advised he had right to attorney, signed statement in English but only spoke Spanish)
Miranda Rights
- You have the right to remain silent
- Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
- You have the right to an attorney and to have one present while you are being questioned
- If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided without cost to you
A defendant can re-invoke their rights at any time and conversation must
Cease
Waiver of Miranda must be:
- Voluntary
- Knowingly and explicit
- aware of ramifications
- aware of their rights
Custody
Being under arrest, having freedom of movement foreclosed, when not able to leave.
Would a reasonable person believe that they were not able to leave?
Examples of custody
in isolation, display of weapons, number of police, handcuffed, in a cell, accusatory questioning
Interrogation
- Any act by police which is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant
- Questioning
- Need to specifically address an individual (speaking around them)
Spontaneous / Gratuitous Statement Case
RI vs. Iness (I hope kids don’t find that gun…def confessed to location)
Brewer vs. Williams (played on Christian beliefs to get confession without lawyer present)
Miranda Rights not needed if no:
Custodial Interrogation
Public Safety Exception Case
NY vs. Quarles (chased id’d rape suspect, where is gun?)
Mesiah vs. US (used wire on def that was ROR to obtain info, still had right to counsel)
Inadmissible Confession
If not used to prove guilt, can be used (impeach credibility)
Inadmissible Confession Cases
Harris vs. NY (used to impeach credibility)
Mincey vs. AZ (coerced statement can never be used for any purpose)
