Crim Law/Pro Flashcards
Searches
Under the Fourth Amendment, a person is granted protection from unreasonable government searches. A search occurs when government conduct violates a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. A warrantless search performed by the government that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy is unlawful.
Places where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy
homes, hotel rooms, offices, backyard of home, luggage
Places where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy
public streets, open fields, garbage on the street, abandoned property, anything visible from public airspace, anything that can be seen inside one’s home from public space
Warrant exceptions
Someone ESCAPES from the warrant requirement:
(1) exigent circumstances
(2) search incident to lawful arrest
(3) consent
(4) automobiles
(5) plain view
(6) evidence obtained from administrative searches
(7) Stop and frisk
OR CHEAP ASS
consent, hot pursuit, evanescent evidence, plain view, automobile, search incident to lawful arrest, and stop and frisk!
Warrant requirements
(1) issued by a neutral magistrate; (2) based on probable cause; (3) describes the place and property to be searched with particularity
**if warrant fails these requirements, warrant is invalid and the recovered items will be excluded from the prosecutor’s case-in-chief
Exigent Circumstanes
Law enforcement officers may conduct a search without warrant if: (1) the officers are in “hot pursuit” or immediate danger; OR (2) the evidence would spoil or disappear in the time it would take to obtain a warrant
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest
Law enforcement officers may conduct a search without a warrant if the search occurs at the time that a lawful arrest is made. The scope of the search is limited to objects within the reach of the arrestee.
Consent
Can conduct a search without a warrant if a person consents to a search; officers do NOT have to inform the subject that she has the right to refuse to consent to the search.
A third party with apparent authority can consent to search. However, officers cannot search over a present occupant’s objection.
Automobiles
May conduct a search without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband or evidence of a crime. They can search the parts of the vehicle and containers inside, which could reasonably contain the items for which there is probable cause.
Plain View
May seize evidence without a warrant if: (1) officers are legally on the premises; (2) evidence is observed in plain view; AND (3) there is probable cause to believe the items are evidence of a crime or contraband
Evidence Obtained from Administrative Searches
Law enforcement officers do NOT need search warrants to conduct administrative searches if the search is both: (1) reasonable; and (2) conducted pursuant to established police agency procedures that are designed to meet legitimate objectives while limiting the discretion of the officer (e.g. airplane boarding, borders, etc.)
Stop and Frisk Terry
can stop an individual when the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts to believe that the subject is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
During a Terry stop, an officer can frisk for weapons but is limited to plain feel. If frisk for weapons reveals objects whose shape makes identity obvious, officer may seize those objects.
In order to arrest a person
officer needs probable cause (witnesses commission or a person tells him). Individual may be arrested with or without an arrest warrant, but the warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter a home to arrest the individual.
5th Amendment
Provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Custodial Interrogations
Under Miranda, any incriminating statement obtained as a result of custodial interrogation may NOT be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial UNLESS the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights.
Custodial
A person in custody when he reasonably believes that he is NOT free to leave
Interrogation
A person is subject to an interrogation when the police know or should know that their words or actions are likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Miranda does NOT protect against volunteered statements that are not the product of interrogation
Miranda waiver
A defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. The burden is on the government to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntraily
Invocation of Right to remain silent
Party being questioned affirmatively invokes her right to remain silent OR after a substantial period of time, police can go back to the suspect, give Miranda warnings again, and seek to interrogate her further
Invocation of right to counsel
The interrogation cannot resume until the lawyer is present, the suspect reinitiates the interrogation, or 14 days have passed since the suspect was released from custody
Miranda violations
A statement obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, BUT can be admitted to impeach the defendant. Evidence obtained from a voluntary statement taken in violation of Miranda is admissible.
When do you not have to give Miranda warnings?
(1) when the public’s safety is at risk; (2) when the suspect being questioned is not aware that the interrogator is a police officer; OR (3) if the questioning is biographical for routine booking purposes.
Harmless Error Rule
If evidence in violation of Miranda is admitted at trial, a guilty verdict will be upheld if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless because the defendant would have been convicted even without the tainted evidence.
Voluntary nature of confession?
5th Amendment protects against government compulsion of involuntary statements. Statements are involuntary only if the police coerced the defendant into making the statements. Totality of the circumstances include: (1) length of interrogation; (2) time and location where it took place; (3) police tactics used; and (4) the character of the person being interrogated (experience, state of health, education level, etc.).
Consequence of involuntarily obtained statement?
An involuntarily obtained statement is NOT admissible against a defendant for substantive purposes or for impeachment purposes. Evidence obtained from an involuntary statement is fruit of the poisonous tree and is presumptively inadmissible.
6th Amendment Right to Counsel
Guarantees a criminal defendant “the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Right automatically attaches once formal adversarial judicial proceedings have commenced.
One right has attached, any attempts to deliberately elicit a statement from him in the absence of his attorney violates 6A. 6A right to counsel is offense-specific, meaning that it only applies to the offense that the defendant has been formally charged with. The police are free to question the defendant about unrelated offenses without his attorney present.
6A right to counsel is in effect once it automatically attaches UNLESS the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives the right. Defendant must understand the nature of the right being waived and the consequences of waiving it.
Photo Arrays
Neither the defendant nor his attorney has the right to be present, but the police must turn over the photo array to the defendant
Pre-Indictment Lineups
Defendant does NOT have a 6A right to have counsel present during a pre-indictment lineup.
Post-Indictment Lineup
The defendant has a 6A right to have counsel present during a post-indictment lineup. If that right is violated, then evidence that the witness identified the defendant at the lineup MUST be excluded
LIneup impermissibly suggestive?
Court can exclude the evidence of it. However, the witness is permitted to identify the defendant in court if the prosecution can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the witness would have identified the defendant even without a suggestive lineup.
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence obtained in violation of defendant’s 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights is inadmissible in a criminal case. All evidence obtained as a result of the constitutional violation is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Do not apply to Miranda violations, only to 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment violations
Exclusionary Rule does not apply
(1) police had an independent source for the evidence that was distinct from the original illegal source;
(2) discovery of the evidence was inevitable;
(3) there is attenuation in the causal chain, such that intervening events and the passage of time can remove the taint; OR
(4) the police relied in good faith on either: (i) existing law that was later declared unconstitutional; OR (ii) a warrant that, while facially valid, is later found to be defective
Guilty plea
A guilty plea waives the various trial rights that a defendant would otherwise have
Guilty plea to be valid
(1) inform the defendant of his rights (including jury trial) and ensures the defendant understands those rights; (2) inform the defendant of possible sentences (3) make sure there is a factual basis for the plea; (4) determine that the plea did not result from force, threats, or improper promises; AND (5) make sure that defendant understands the immigration consequences of pleading guilty
Burden of proof
The prosecution MUST prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain conviction of the defendant. However, the government can shift the burden of proof to the defendant in regard to affirmative defenses argued by the defendant
Double jeopardy
Ensures that the defendant is protected against: (1) prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense.
Two distinct crimes do NOT constitute the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes if each crime requires proof of a fact which the other does not.
