Crim Law/Pro

Question 1

Exceptions to the Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Answer 1

1) Inevitable Discovery
2) Independent Source
3) Attenuation
4) Good faith reliance on facially valid warrant later found to be invalid
5) Isolated police negligence
6) Knock and announce (failure to do so does not trigger exclusionary rule)
7) In court-ID

Question 2

Warrant authorizing Wire Tap

Answer 2

1) Limited Period of Time
2) PC that a specific crime has been or is about to be committed
3) Identify persons and describe particular conversations to be tapped
4) When to terminate tapping
5) Reveal intercepted conversation to court

Question 3

Fourth Amendment Analysis Steps

Answer 3

1) Fourth Amendment Rule
2) Exclusionary Rule
3) Government Action
4) Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
5) Warrant
6) Exceptions

Question 4

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

Answer 4

1) SILA
2) Exigent Circumstances
3) Terry Stop
4) Automobile Exception
5) Plain View Doctrine
6) Consent

Question 5

Request for Information v. Stop and Inquire v. Stop and Frisk

Answer 5

Request for Info: Police may request for info anytime except on whim or caprice

Stop and Inquire: if cop has 1) reasonably articulable suspicion; 2) that criminal activity is afoot. Must be brief.

Stop and Frisk: if cop 1) has reasonable articulable suspicion 2) that criminal activity is afoot; and 3) that person has a weapon. Subject to plain feel doctrine (cop can only seize what they reasonably believe to be contraband during the frisk)

Question 6

Government Use of sensory Enhancement Tech

Answer 6

The use of sensory enhancement technology is deemed a search if 1) tech is not in the general public use; and 2) police obtain information about activities inside the home.

Drug dogs ok if sniffing around car but not around home

Mere use of sensory enhancement technology to conduct surveillance of activity occurring in public place is not deemed a 4th amendment search.

Question 7

Limitations to Miranda Violation Exclusions

Answer 7

Limit 1: Does not require suppression of physical evidence found because of statement in violation of miranda

Limit 2: Subsequent statements made after miranda admissible UNLESS non-mirandized statement obtained through inherently coercive police tactics offensive to due process

Limit 3: Statements obtained in-violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief BUT they may be used to impeach D on cross.

Fruit of Poisonous tree does not apply to Miranda violations

Coerced statements made by suspect are never admissible for any purpose