Crim Law & Pro Flashcards
Fourth Amend
The 4A, which is applicable to the state through he DP clause of the 14A, broadly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And under the Supreme Court’s exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional provision usually may not be used in evidence against the person whose rights were violated.
4A requires searches to be reasonable, and to be reasonable searches often must be pursuant to a warrant based on probably cause that evidence will be found in the place searched.
Plain View Doctrine
Exception to warrant requirement
police officer may make warrantless seizure of evidence if the officer is (i) in a place he lawfully is allowed to be and (ii) sees in plain view items that he has (iii) immediate probable cause to believe are (iiii) contraband or evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime
Automobile exception
Exception to warrant requirement
if a police officer has probable cause to believe that an automobile contains seizable items (fruits, instrumentalities or evidence of a crime), the officer may search the automobile w/o a warrant under the exception
Miranda warnings
In order to protect the 5A privilege against self incrimination, which is also applicable to the state through the DP clause, a person in police custody must be given certain warnings (the Miranda warnings) before an officer may conduct a custodial interrogation.
Any statement, question, or conduct by the police designed to elicit an incriminating response will be considered interrogation. A person will be considered in custody if his freedom of action is limited in a significant way. The more the situation resembles a traditional arrest, the more likely custody will be found.
Miranda Waiver: A valid Miranda waiver must be knowing and voluntary. Courts will look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether this standard was met, but it is prob sufficient if the suspect received Miranda warning and then chose to answer questions. Also, if the Miranda warnings are given, a voluntary confession will be admissible even if the police fail to inform the detainee that his lawyer is attempting to see him, so long as adversary judicial proceedings have not commenced.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Under the doctrine, the exclusionary effect is applied not only to the unconstitutionally obtained evidence, but also to evidence derived form the unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
Doesn’t apply to Miranda violation. Supreme court has indicated that if police obtain an unwarned confession form a suspect, warn the suspect, and then re-question the suspect in a question first, warn later scheme to get around the Miranda requirements, confessions obtained during both interrogations should be suppressed. But if the unwarned questioning and the warned questioning do not appear to be part of such scheme, incriminating statements obtained during the warned questioning session need not be suppressed.
Right to counsel
Under Miranda, if a suspect clearly and unambiguously requests counsel, all questioning must stop until the suspect meets w/ an attorney. However, this rule applies only if the request is clear and unambiguous. Moreover, the police have no duty to seek a clarification of an ambiguous request.
6A right to counsel
The 6A, which applies to the states through the 14A, provides that in all criminal prosecutions the D has a right to the assistance of counsel during all critical stages of a criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun. The right is also offense specific; if a D’s 6A right to counsel has attached regarding one charge, he may be questioned w/o counsel on an unrelated charge. In addition, police officers’ failure to inform a suspect that his lawyer is attempting to see him does not violate the 6A, except w/ regard to charges for which judicial proceedings have commenced.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Criminal Negligence
A person commits IM when he causes a death by criminal negligence. A person has a mens rea of criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and this failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.
Alternately, some states use a recklessness standard for IM and require that the person consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Accomplice Liability
An accomplice is a person who (i) w/ the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the crime (ii) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime. When the substantive offense has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea, most jxs hold that the intent is satisfied if the accomplice (i) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime, and (ii) acted w/ recklessness or negligence (whichever is required)
