Crim Law/Pro Flashcards
ACTUS REUS?
guilty act
- voluntary act that causes an unlawful result,
- omission to act where ∆ under duty to act, or
- vicarious liability
IMPOSED DUTIES: (1) Statutory, (2) Contractual, (3) Relationship, (4) Voluntary undertaking to rescue that is abandoned & (5) Failing to help after creating the risk of peril
MENS REA?
guilty mind; ∆‘s state of mind at time of commission of the crime; Concurrence in time b/w act & requisite mental state: is necessary, but mental state should also actuate, or put into a action, the act or omission.
- PURPOSELY: conscious objective to engage in conduct or cause result
- KNOWINGLY: knows nature &/or result of his conduct
- INTENTIONALLY: desires/sub’l certain acts cause criminal results
- WILLFULLY: encompasses concepts “intentionally” & “purposely,” & used to imply evil purpose in crimes involving moral turpitude
- CRIMINAL RECKLESSNESS: consciously disregards subs’l & unjustifiable risk mat’l element exists or will result from conduct
- CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: ∆’s conduct creates create high degree of risk or death or serious injury beyond tort standard of ordinary negligence
Specific intent?
desires his conduct result in a particular outcome [unless result is inherently impossible] OR expects (substantially certainty) that purposeful act result in a particular act, even though he does not necessarily want a particular result
- Attempt
- Solicitation
- Conspiracy
- Larceny
- False pretense
- Embezzlement
- Forgery
- Burglary
- Assault
- Robbery
- Intent to kill murder
- Voluntary manslaughter
General intent?
commission of an unlawful act [negligence/ recklessness]
- Battery
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- False imprisonment
- Involuntary manslaughter
- Depraved hard murder
Malice?
acts intentionally/reckless disregard of an obvious or known risk that the particular harmful result will occur
- Common law murderArson
- Arson
Strict liability crimes?
culpability imposed for committing a prohibited act
- Regulatory offense
- Public welfare offenses
- Morality crimes
- Selling liquor to minors
Homicide?
killing of a human being caused by another human being
Murder?
unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
Mens rea for murder falls into what 4 distinct types of malice?
- Intent to kill: “Deadly weapons doctrine”: inference of intent to kill raised through intent’l use of an instrument, judging from manner of use, is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury.
- Intent to cause serious bodily harm: significant but non-fatal injury. [often 2nd-degree murder]
- Depraved heart murder: extreme recklessness murder; unintentional killing resulting from conduct involving a wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury
- Felony-murder: killing proximately caused during commission or attempted commission of a serious or inherently dangerous felony. Felony ends: when felon has reached a place of temporary safety [not in process of fleeing]
First-degree murder?
intent to kill murder committed with premeditation & deliberation, felony murder and murder accomplished by lying in wait, poison, terrorism or torture
- PREMEDITATED: reasonable time for premeditation & some evidence of reflection in order to distinguish first-degree murders from “spur-of-the-moment-killings”
- DELIBERATE: undisturbed by hot blood
- If murderer does any reflection or premeditation, even if REFLECTION CURSORY & BRIEF, may be guilty of 1st-degree murder.
- VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION – but still sober enough to form intent to kill – may be able to avoid liability for 1st-degree murder by proof that intoxication precluded him from acting w/ premeditation or deliberation.
Second-degree murder?
murder that does not meet the requisite elements of 1st-degree murder [often just intent to kill w/o req. felony]
Voluntary Manslaughter?
intentional killing mitigated by adequate provocation or other circumstances negating malice aforethought. [HEAT-OF-PASSION KILLING]
- Adequate provocation - such that a RPP would lose self-control
- Time b/w heat-of-passion & fatal act must not allow a RPP for cool reflection, if so then its not voluntary manslaughter.
Involuntary Manslaughter?
unintentional killing resulting w/o malice /aforethought caused either by recklessness or criminal negligence or during commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act
- Criminal negligence: e.g., mishandling loaded weapon or dangerous operation of a vehicle, including driving while intoxicated
- Misdemeanor-manslaughter: unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor that is malum is se or of a felony that is not of the inherently dangerous type required for felony murder is classified as involuntarty manslaughter under the M.M. rule.
Battery?
intentional or reckless unlawful application of force to the person of the victim
- General intent crime: 1) recklessly, 2) negligently or 3) w/ knowledge that his act (omission) will result in criminal liability
- Battery elevated to aggravated status, when:
(1) ∆ causing victim serious bodily injury; (2) ∆ using deadly weapon to commit the battery; or (3) ∆ battering a woman, child, or law enforcement officer.
* Defenses: (1) consent, (2) self-defense or (3) to prevent someone from committing crime
Assault
attempting to commit a battery; OR
intentionaly causing victim to fear immediate battery
- Aggravated: (1) ∆ commits an assault w/ a dangerous weapon; (2) ∆ acts w/ intent to rape or murder victim; or (3) special types of particularly vulnerable victims.
- Not defense: lack ability to follow through [unloaded gun] or that victim was unaware
- Conditional threat: generally insufficient, unless accompanied by an overt act to accomplish threat
- Reasonable Apprehension - RPP would expect imminent bodily harm & victim MUST BE AWARE.
Mayhem
intent to maim or do bodily injury accompanied by an act that either:
- Dismembers
- Disables his use of some bodily part that was useful in fighting
- Disfigures
False Imprisonment
intentional, unlawful confinement of one person by another
- fully confined; do not need to search for escape routes
Kidnapping
unlawful
restraint of a person’s liberty
by force or show of force
so as to send victim to another location or conceal him
- Aggravated: ransom, children, to further other felonies
Rape
act of unlawful sexual intercourse by a male person with a female person w/o her consent.
[general intent]
- only penetration required, not emission
- Mere threats may constitute rape, b/c force is not required
- modern trend is to require actual consent of the victim; however, consent is determined objectively from the observable circumstances. A victim’s subjective lack of consent will not suffice if the objective circumstances suggest that consent existed.
Bigamy
Incest
- Bigamy: marriage by one individual to more than one other person
- Incest: sexual relations b/w individuals who are closely related to one another. The degree of relationship required varies by state
Receiving Stolen Property?
FENCE?
receiving of stolen property known to be stolen with the intent to permanently deprive the owner
a party that deals in stolen property.
Larceny
[specific intent]
- taking and
- carrying away
- tangible personal property
- of another
- w/ intent to permanently deprive owner thereof
- abandoned property cannot be taken away, but lost or mislaid can
- No intent: If, at time of taking, ∆ intends to return property to victim UNCONDITIONALLY & W/IN A REASONABLE TIME [may be proven w/ pawn slip]
- DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING TRESPASS: one who takes property of another intending to use it temporarily before restoring it unconditionally to its owner may nevertheless be guilty of larceny if he later changes his mind & decides not to return property after all
- ∆ intends to replace or pay for property at later time: such intent may negate intent to permanently deprive if PROPERTY IS EASILY REPLACEABLE
- ∆ at time of taking has GF BELIEF that ∆ entitled to possession: there is no intent to permanently deprive, even if belief is incorrect & unreasonable
Embezzlement?
- fraudulent conversion or misappropriation
- of the property of another
- of one who is already in lawful possession
- Conversion: action toward property that seriously interferes w/ rights of owner
- Specific fraudulent intent required may be negated by a claim of right
- ∆ who converts property but intends to later substitute it for equivalent property: is still guilty
- not getting if received by mis-delivery
- will not overlap with larceny cause already in lawful possession
Larceny by Trick?
∆ obtains possession of personal property of another by means of a representation or promise that he knows is false at time he takes possession
- ∆’s fraud is used to cause the victim to convey possession, not title, as in false pretenses.
- Doctrine of “continuing trespass”: applicable
Obtaining Property by False Pretenses
- a false representation of a present or past material fact by ∆
- which causes the victim to pass title to his property
- to the ∆
- who knows the representation is false
- and intends thereby to defraud.
Bad Checks?
Credit Card Fraud?
-
BC: ∆’s knowledge of no-account or insufficient funds checks given w/ the intent to defraud
- obtains title by stolen or unauthorized credit card
-
CCF: Obtaining property by means of stolen or unauthorized credit card use [statutory crime]
- obtains title by stolen or unauthorized credit card
Robbery
felony consisting of all elements of larceny, & 2 additional elements:
- Taking must be from: person or presence of person [area w/in their control]
- Accomplished by:
- force or violence (use of force must be: contemporaneous w/ taking) OR
- intimidation or the threat of violence (threat must actually cause fear in victim at time of taking)
Extortion
[blackmail] - obtaining the property of another by use of threats of future harm to the victim or his property
Forgery?
fraudulent making [or alteration] of a false writing with an apparent legal significance w/ the intent to make wrongful use of the forged document
- Alteration must be material (change legal meaning or effect of doc) to qualify the action as an element of forgery.
Burglary
-
Breaking AND
- slightest enlarging of an opening
- Constructive Breaking: via fraud, deception or threat of force
-
Entering
- Breaking to exit: insufficient
- Any portion of body inside structure
- Insertion of a tool is insufficient to facilitate the entering, it must be part of a person
- Of the dwelling house of another (any structure)
- With the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein.
Arson
malicious burning of any structure of another
- burning: Mere blackening not enough, but charring is sufficient
INCHOATE CRIMES:
Attempt
- Specific intent to bring about a criminal result, and
- Significant overt act in furtherance of that intent
- must go beyond mere act in preparation & go toward perpetration, such as a “proximity” test: how close in time & physical distance ∆ was to carrying out actual event. Crimes endangering others more distance allowed.
- “Equivocality” test: actions could have no other purpose
- Defenses:
- Abandonment: voluntary [true change of heart, not quitting b/c difficult] & completely [∆ not merely postponing]
- Legal impossibility: ∆’s actions do not constitute a crime
- Factual impossibility: not defense to attempt [shooting into an empty house]
INCHOATE CRIMES:
Solicitation
enticing, advising, inciting, inducing, urging, or otherwise encouraging another to commit a crime
- Must intend solicitee perform criminal acts [specific intent].
- Offense complete at the time: solicitation is made
- Solicitation charge will merge into the completed offense and will likely merge into the conspiracy
- Defenses: voluntary intoxication & unreasonable mistake of facts [Don’t have to be able to do crime solicited (impossibility) merely need ∆ to believe its possible.
INCHOATE CRIMES:
Conspiracy
an agreement b/w 2+ persons to commit a crime
-
Must be an actual agreement to commit a crime
- not feigned agreement [like w/ an under cover cop]
-
Overt act [act in furtherance of agreement]
- Need not be criminal/unlawful & only 1 party to conspiracy need to commit it for them all to be liable
* Defenses: (1) Withdrawal, but must timely communicate it to all other co-conspirators and affirmative act to thwart conspiracy – if he doesn’t thwart it but gives notice it cuts his liability for further crimes; OR (2) impossibility: is not a defense
* Only 2 conspirators, acquittal of 1 conspirator: results in acquittal of other co-conspirator [bc takes at least 2 ppl & only 1 left]
- Need not be criminal/unlawful & only 1 party to conspiracy need to commit it for them all to be liable
INCHOATE CRIMES:
Wharton Rule
crimes where 2+ people are necessary for commission of the offense, then can’t have conspiracy. Unless it involves an additional person not essential to the crime. [statutory rape, gambling, adultery]
INCHOATE CRIMES:
Pinkerton Doctrine
each co-conspirator is liable for the crimes of all the other co-conspirators where the crimes were both:
- foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy, and
- committed in furtherance of the conspiratorial goal
INCHOATE CRIMES:
single vs. multiple conspiracies
- CHAIN relationship: several crimes committed under one large scheme where each member generally knows of other parties’ participation & community of interest exists, 1 single conspiracy.
- WHEEL-AND-SPOKE relationship: one common member enters into agreements to commit a series of independent crimes w/ different individuals, multiples conspiracies exist.
Accomplice
person who actively participates in commission of a crime, even if they take no part in actual criminal offense
- Must act with the INTENT of assisting the principal to commit the crime
- Bystanders, even approving ones, are not accomplices
- Liable for both the planned crime and any other crimes that occur in the course of the criminal act, as long as they are foreseeable
- Ex: A bunch of people sees a bar fight and they are applauding, laughing, and yelling, “Go for it!” These people may be liable as accomplices.
Principal in the First Degree
vs.
Principal in the Second Degree
- actual perpetrator who performs the criminal act w/ the requisite mental state. (May be more than one person)
- one present at the scene of the felony & aids, abets, or encourages commission of the crime w/ requisite intent.
punished to same extent as the perpetrator
Accessory Before the Fact
vs.
Accessory After the Fact
one who aids, abets, counsels or other wise encourages the commission of a felony but is not present at the scene; May be punished same degree as principal w/in scope of conspiracy
vs.
- Completed felony must have been committed;
- Knew of commission of the felony; &
- Given aid to the felon to hinder felon’s apprehension, conviction, or punishment.
DEFENSES:
Insanity?
4 tests for insanity?
∆ insane at time of his criminal act,
no criminal liability will be imposed
- M’Naghten test
- Irresistible impulse test
- Durham (New Hampshire/Product) Rule
- Model Penal Code test
DEFENSES:
Insanity:
M’Naghten test
∆ relieved of criminal responsibility if at time of the commission of act he was laboring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature & quality of his act
- Disease of mind: all mental abnormalities, but psychopathic
DEFENSES:
Insanity:
Irresistible impulse test
∆ not criminally responsible if he had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct
DEFENSES:
Insanity:
Durham (New Hampshire/Product) Rule
∆ not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was product of mental disease or defect (meaning it would not have been committed “but for” the defect or disease).
DEFENSES:
Insanity:
Model Penal Code test
∆ not criminally responsible if at time of conduct,
as a result of mental disease or defect,
he lacked substantial capacity
to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness)
of his conduct or
to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
DEFENSES:
Intoxication:
Voluntary vs. Involuntary
- Voluntary: possible defense to only specific intent crime, if it negates requisite mental state
- Involuntary: Can be a valid defense to general intent, specific intent, and malice crimes when it negates the mens rea necessary for those crimes.
DEFENSES:
Justification
if justified, no crime has been committed, notwithstanding what might otherwise be a criminal result
DEFENSES:
Justification:
Self-Defense
∆ has actual reasonable belief he’s in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, he may use reasonably necessary [proportional] force to prevent the harm. [Inapplicable to an INITIAL AGGRESSOR]
- Deadly force [threatens death or serious bodily harm] only in response to an attack that threatens death or great bodily injury
- Require retreat if feasible before use of DF, if:
- (1) it can be done safely
- (2) ∆ not in his own home, auto or workplace
- Require retreat if feasible before use of DF, if:
- Aggressor [one creates reasonable threat of harm or commits crime against victim] may regain right to self-defense, if:
- upon complete withdrawal perceived by other party, OR
- escalation of force by the victim of the initial aggression
DEFENSES:
Justification:
Defense of 3rd Person
DF lawful if 3rd party would have be justified in using such force
Based on reasonableness of ∆ ‘s belief that 3rd person was being unlawfully attacked
DEFENSES:
Justification:
Defense of Property
Reasonable non-deadly force justified in defending one’s property from: theft, destruction or trespass where ∆ has reasonable belief that property is in immediate danger & no greater force than necessary is used
- DF may never be used to merely defend property. Unless, ∆ reasonably believes entry made or attempted in his dwelling by one intending to commit a felony therein.
DEFENSES:
Justification:
Necessity
to avoid imminent injury resulting from natural (non-human) forces
or
where an individual reasonably believes that his criminal conduct is necessary to avoid greater harm that would result from compliance with the law
Not applicable where ∆ created the perilous situation.
DEFENSES:
Justification:
Duress
justifies criminal conduct where ∆ reasonably believe that the only way to avoid unlawful bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct. (caused by human forces rather than nature)
- Duress, or coercion, is not available as a defense to murder
Criminal Procedure:
4th Amendment
protects people and their papers, houses, and effects from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, and requires particularized, as opposed to general, warrants that are supported by probable cause
- Analysis
- Was there a search/seizure?
- Was it reasonable? (probable cause or reasonable suspicion or exception)
- Remedy –Exclusionary Rule
Criminal Procedure:
5th Amendment
requires that no person be denied their life, liberty, or property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and nor shall any person be subject for same offense BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY of life or limb; grants each person a privilege AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION.
Criminal Procedure:
6th Amendment
requires, in relevant part, that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO ASSIST IN HIS/HER DEFENSE.
Exclusionary Rule
All evidence seized, whether directly or indirectly, in violation of 4th amendment is inadmissible/excluded in a criminal proceeding; thus, it’s fruit of the poisonous tree
Exclusionary Rule Exception
- INDEPENDENT SOURCE: evidence obtained from a source independent of illegality
- INEVITABLE DISCOVERY: evidence would have been discovered regardless of illegality
- Inapplicable to MIRANDA VIOLATIONS
- Inapplicable to evidence for use of IMPEACHMENT
- Evidence obtained pursuant to invalid warrant & reasonable well trained officer would have believed [GOOD FAITH] said warrant was valid [facially valid] [single act of negligence, but not gross or systematic negligence]
∆ must have ________ to raise a 4th Amendment claim.
standing [victim of search/seizure]
4th Amendment applies only to ________ conduct
government
- If an actor must be an agent of the federal, state, or local gov’t OR acting pursuant to an official gov’t policy, then 4th amendment is applicable
Probable Cause
Reasonably trustworthy info.
w/in officer’s knowledge
sufficient to warrant a reasonable man to believe
that “a crime has been or is being committed.”
- Authority to arrest/custody, conduct personal/prop search & use of deadly force[needs both PC & Necessity]
Seizure
totality of the circumstances
leave a reasonable person believing he was not free to leave the situation.
- Stop (RS )
- Custody/Arrest (PC}
- unlawful ARREST result in lawsuits or fruit of poisonous tree, not dismissal of charges
Warrant
judicial authorization for police action supported by sworn affidavits or testimony based on up to date testimony
- PC; and
- shall particularly describe/state:
- (i) persons, places, or things to be searched or seized;
- (ii) What evidence is expected to be found.
- Scope of search is limited to: named persons or named places
- Arrest warrant not required before making an arrest in a public place, but is if arresting someone in their own home
- Search warrant for a premises carries with it: implicit authority to detain occupants on premises during search, but not to search the persons of people on the premises
- May only destroy prop if reasonably necessary to execute warrant
- Improper to issue a warrant, even if PC, if intrusion is unreasonable.
Police may seize these at anytime without a warrant?
- Contraband
- Fruits of a crime
- Instrumentality of a crime
- Elements of a crime
Warrant based on an informant’s tip, relevant factors:
- credible information
- reliable informant
- police corroboration
- declaration against interest
An informant generally need not reveal his identity.
∆ may challenge the affidavit upon which a warrant was issued by:
- substantial showing that affidavit contained false statements;
- statements were made intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard for the truth; and
- magistrate’s finding of probable cause would not have been made w/o the false statements.
If ∆ cannot prove conditions: warrant will be upheld if there was a substantial basis to issue the warrant in the first place
Arrest
- valid arrest may occur w/ or w/o a warrant.
- Generally, no warrant is required, just PC.
- Officer personally witnesses crime
- PC obtained indirectly through an informant:
- 1) Informant’s tip contained specific details
- 2) Reliability of both details and informant being confirmed prior to the moment of arrest [corroborating evidence …more than what your wearing but evidence of crime]
- Arresting officers must: knock & announce their identity before making an arrest, but failure does not trigger exclusion of evidence.
- Police may not legally search for subject of arrest warrant in 3rd party’s home, absent exigent circumstances/consent w/o 1st obtaining search warrant
Reasonable Suspicion
“specific articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot” based on the totality of the circumstances
Reasonable Suspicion:
STOP
- Officer by means of physical force,
- or show of authority,
- has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.
This seizure occurs in Fed’l law once suspect “submits” to show of authority or physical force.
Temporary and last no longer than necessary to effectuate purpose of stop.
Reasonable Suspicion:
Stop & Frisk
Stop is a Seizure &
Frisk is a Search w/in 4th Amendment
- Scope: pat down of outer clothes b/c RS person armed & dangerous
Reasonable Suspicion:
Pretextual Stops
a police officer stopping a driver for a traffic violation, minor or otherwise, to allow the officer to then investigate a separate and unrelated, suspected criminal offense
If officer has valid reason for a stop,
his subjective intent is inconsequential.
Flight is not enough for _____, but is enough for _____.
Probable Cause
Reasonable Suspicion
Expectation of Privacy:
Curtilage
area that “harbors the intimate activity associated with sanctity of a man’s home and privacies of life” to which intimate activities of home extend, which provides a reasonable expectation of privacy like the home. Items w/in curtilage are protected, such as trash cans.
Factors to consider:
- proximity to residence,
- enclosures,
- activity for which it’s used,
- measures taken to secure it from observation by passersby, etc.
Expectation of Privacy:
Search (w/in meaning of 4th)
[Katz] Entrance into a place where:
- person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; &
- society recognizes expectation as (objectively) reasonable.
Expectation of Privacy:
Standing for 4th Amendment Challenge
- ownership or possessory interest in premises is sufficient for standing for a 4th amend. challenge
-
passenger in automobile:
- standing to challenge a police stop of an automobile, BUT
- lacks standings to challenge validity of search of vehicle
- ∆ overnight guest in another’s home: has standing to challenge a search, but those not staying over night have no standing
Expectation of Privacy:
No Expectation of Privacy:
- Open Field;
- Trash (abandoned);
- naked eye observations of your property from air;
- aerial photography of a fenced in complex;
- handwriting exemplar;
- voice exemplar;
- bank records;
- pen registers (record telephone #s dialed); &
- private conversations that include eaves droppers.
Warrant Exceptions:
Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest
purpose of protecting arresting officers &
preventing destruction of evidence
- Scope: area in suspect’s possession or under his control for weapons & evidence (“grab area” or “wingspan area”)
- Issue is PC to arrest, search is a right after that point
- Issuance of a traffic citation alone does not justify a search
Warrant Exceptions:
Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest:
PROTECTIVE SWEEP
cursory search of premises incident to an arrest & conducted to protect safety of police officer or others [w/in a dwelling]
- RS that area swept harbors individual posing possible danger
- Scope: limited to places where people might be hiding nearby [not entire home]
Warrant Exceptions:
Automobile Exception
lesser expectation of privacy exists in: an automobile, boat or airplane than in one’s home, due primarily to its inherent mobility
- If PC exists to search moving or temporarily stopped vehicle, then may seize it & search even if had time to acquire warrant
- Not applicable if (1) arrested, (2) handcuffed, and (3) removed from scene
- Size of an item can affect if and how police may search for it.
- Police have PC to search a container even when they don’t have PC to search the whole car.
Warrant Exceptions:
Automobile Exception:
Parked Car
Parked vehicles require warrants,
b/c of decreased threat of mobility
Warrant Exceptions:
Automobile Exception:
K9 UNIT
Dog sniffing for contraband is not considered a search
Lawful stop based on RS of a criminal violation can ripen into?
PC sufficient for a warrantless search or
spoil and provide no grounds for further search
Warrant Exceptions:
Inventory Search
police lawfully impound vehicle, which justifies routine inventory search. [Formal impoundment procedures must be followed] B/c purpose not criminal investigation, do not need PC/warrant to justify search
- Impoundment of the vehicle was necessary;
- Inventory of the vehicles contents necessary;
- Reasonable in its scope; &
- Not done as a ruse to get evidence
Warrant Exceptions:
Administrative Searches & the Balancing Justification [Checkpoints]
Conducted for purposes other than traditional criminal law enforcement; thus, a legitimate administrative or regulatory purpose
Warrant Exceptions:
Administrative Searches & the Balancing Justification [Checkpoints]:
Administrative warrant
generally required for administrative inspectors to search private homes or businesses, with some exceptions:
- searches of businesses traditionally subject to extensive regulation & affect important public interests,
- search of locked storeroom of firearms warehouse during reasonable hour, &
- search for highly contaminated food
Warrant Exceptions:
Administrative Searches & the Balancing Justification [Checkpoints]:
Checkpoints
police may stop traffic to check the vehicle registration, drivers’ licenses, or sobriety of automobile drivers, if:
- random, and
- based on fixed formula, [e.g., every or every other]
Checkpoints to search for information on recent local crimes are Constitutional, search for evidence of illegal drugs violates 4th amend.
Warrant Exceptions:
Administrative Searches & the Balancing Justification [Checkpoints]:
Border Crossings
incident of nat’l sovereignty, customs & immigration searches, when conducted by gov’t agents in a routine manner & not particularized for a specific person or specific property: not invasion of privacy & doesnot require PC
- Vehicles at a border crossing may be stopped w/o cause for questioning, but PC is required: to fully search the vehicle
- Where a suspect refuses to submit to an X-ray by customs agents at the border: & reasonable justification for detention initially exists, the detention may continue until a bowel movement occurs
Warrant Exceptions:
Plain View
officer may seize illegal property that’s clearly visible w/o a warrant
- Requirements:
- police are lawfully positioned &
- it’s immediately apparent that the evidence is incriminating
Warrant Exceptions:
Plain View:
Plain Feel
RS needed same as S&F, & immediately apparent that item is evidence of a crime or contraband [Cannot manipulate the item]
Stop & Frisk:
- Stop is a Seizure & Frisk is s Search w/in 4th Amend.
- Scope: pat down of outer clothes b/c RS person armed & dangerous
Warrant Exceptions:
Consent
- an individual may waive her 4th Amendment rights*
1. Voluntary & intelligent (Voluntariness: based on totality of the circumstances) AND
2. Made by a person w/ authority - Scope of consent: You articulate your own consent. [You can say yes, then no. Where or what can be searched]
Warrant Exceptions:
Consent:
Common authority
“mutual use of property by person generally having joint access or control for most purposes”
- 3rd-Party Consent: Requires actual or apparent authority to consent and may only search area of common authority
- 3P consent invalid if person against whom evidence is later admitted is present & expressly objects to search
Warrant Exceptions:
Hot Pursuit
police in actual hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect to prevent imminent escape or destruction of evidence [not applicable to minor crimes]
- May enter & search private dwelling in reasonable pursuit of fleeing suspect, May conduct protective cursory sweep of house to look for other suspects
- Suspect must be aware that he is being pursued
Warrant Exceptions:
Exigent Circumstances
PC that following protocol would gravely endanger lives or evidence would be lost or destroyed before a warrant could be obtained
Four BASES TO EXCLUDE STATEMENTS AND CONFESSIONS?
- Voluntariness—statement must be voluntarily made based on totality of circumstances. [Due process clause of 5th & 14th]
- Right to Counsel—Statements made during any “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding inadmissible unless defendant afforded right to counsel [6th amendment right to counsel]
- Miranda—Statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible in absence of Miranda warnings [5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination]
- Fruits of Illegal Conduct—Even voluntary statements obtained as fruits of prior illegal searches and seizures are inadmissible. [5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination]
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
Inadmissible Statements:
INVOLUNTARY
made or coerced as a result of direct or implied promises [we’ll let you go] or threats of violence
- Inadmissible Statements - Statement are inadmissible if involuntary under Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
- W**ill overborne & capacity for self determination critically impaired?
- Trickery: does not equate to coercion [we got you on tape]
- Involuntary may NOT be introduced for prosecution’s case or impeachment
- If admitted at trial gov’t must prove beyond reasonable doubt that statement did not contribute to guilty plea
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
6th Right to Counsel
Statements made during any “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding are inadmissible,
unless ∆ is afforded the right to counsel
- Request must be unambiguous at which time interrogation must cease & counsel musts be present at all questioning unless he waives right
- OFFENSE-SPECIFIC: may ? re: other offenses [even if factually related]
- INDIRECT & SURREPTITIOUS INTERROGATIONS: ∆ must demonstrate that police/informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks.
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
Miranda Standard
absolute prerequisite to “custodial interrogation,” bars use of statement in case & chief but not impeachment
- 1) right remain silent, & 2) anything said can be used in court; 3) right consult w/ atty & have atty present during questioning, & 4) if indigent, atty provided at no cost. (need all parts, not words)
- State’s burden of proving waiver voluntary, knowing, & intelligent
- Public safety Exception – real public safety issue then may forgo
- After rights are read, what happens then: (1) Invoke right to remain silent OR (2) have attorney present; OR (3) Waive rights and make a statement
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
Miranda Standard:
SUBSEQUENT MIRANDA warnings
- Do not cure previous miranda-less statement, but new statements admissible.
- However, cannot use miranda-less statement to coerce new statements
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
Miranda Standard:
CUSTODIAL POLICE INTERROGATION
- questioning initiated by police
- after in custody or deprived of freedom of action in any significant way &
- [interrogation] Any words/action on by police should know [∆’s susceptibility] are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response from ∆.
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
5th amend. right against self-incrimination
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Elements: (1) Compulsion by state; (2) witness against oneself; & (3) ultimate use in a criminal trial
- Not just answers statement supporting conviction under fed’l criminal statute, but if would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute claimant for fed’l crime
- Content of communications/Testimonial in nature/Capable of true/false, not production of pre-request produced docs or physical evidence
- Judge’s discretion, but if ∆ takes stand waives privilege
- Non-∆ cannot refuse to take to take stand, must take stand & invoke privilege after each question asked.
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
5th amend. right against self-incrimination:
Immunity
used to force testimony
- Transactional - (“blanket” or “total”) completely protects witness from future prosecution for crimes related to his or her testimony.
-
Use/derivative use - only prevents prosecution from using witness’s own testimony or evidence derived from testimony, against him.
- If evidence substantiating supposed crime is acquired independent of witness’s testimony—the witness may be prosecuted for same.
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
5th Amendment right to counsel
Right to have atty present during interrogation,
once invoked no more questioning about ANY crimes, interrogation must cease until atty present
- Once counsel retained to represent ∆, gov’t can’t deny atty reasonable access to client, nor ignore request to confer w/ client prior to, if not during, interrogation. [Interest: desire to deal with police only through counsel]
- NOT OFFENSE SPECIFIC
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
5th Amendment right to silence
- Once invoked, all questions cease & right must be scrupulously honored.
- OFFENSE-SPECIFIC
- Significant amt time passed, then may ask again about same crime, after a fresh set of Miranda warnings
- After 2-week period: ∆ released from custody or returned to real life/gen’l population may give fresh warnings and try again
- Merely remaining silent does not invoke this right
- Repeated Miranda warnings only needed for significant break
STATEMENTS and CONFESSIONS:
Fruit of an illegal arrest or search
exclude even a voluntary statement or confession.
GUARANTEES OF A FAIR TRIAL:
The right to counsel at trial
assistance of effective council. [presumed]
∆ must prove both:
- counsel was ineffective; &
- reasonable probability that verdict would have been not guilty had counsel been effective
- ∆ may not be imprisoned/incarcerated for an offense w/o effective council, but can be convicted
- Ex: Assistance of counsel is still effective even if atty fails to present mitigating evidence, fails to mount a case for life imprisonment, & waives final argument during sentencing of death penalty case
GUARANTEES OF A FAIR TRIAL:
Jury Trial
attaches in any criminal trial where the ∆ faces a sentence of longer than 6 months
- Makeup of the Jury - ∆ right to jury selected from cross-section of community where trial taking place
- Violates equal protection to exclude prospective jurors based on race or gender
DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
5th amend. right preventing undue harassment & expense by eliminating the risk of a ∆ being punished twice for the same offense
-
JEOPARDY ATTACHES:
- Non-jury trial: when 1st witness sworn & court begins to hear evidence
- Jury trial: when jury is impaneled & sworn
- Grand jury indictment does not attach jeopardy
- SAME OFFENSE: 2 crimes same if one set of facts proves both crimes OR second offense contains all elements of the 1st offense, plus additional elements, the 1st offense is a lesser-included offense of the 2nd
DOUBLE JEOPARDY:
Separate Sovereignties Doctrine
double jeopardy prohibition does not prevent dual prosecution by separate sovereigns (State & Feds)
PRE-TRIAL RIGHTS:
Right to a Speedy Trial
if violated then the remedy is dismissal
- Right attaches: once ∆ is “accused,” such as upon arrest or filing of charges
- Right waived: ∆ willfully delays trial by filing pretrial motions, seeking a suppression hearing, or ∆’s absence.
- Court judges violations of right to speedy trial by balancing:
- (1) length of delay;
- (2) reason for delay, &
- (3) prejudice to ∆
PRE-TRIAL RIGHTS:
Exculpatory Information
Upon request by defense, the prosecution must disclose evidence:
- favorable to the accused
- or there’s reasonable probability that it is favorable to the accused
- However, the prosecution is not required to disclose this info. to a criminal ∆ prior to entering into a plea agreement w/ him
PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES: CHRONOLOGY FROM ARREST TO TRIAL
5th amend. right to Grand Jury Indictment
jury determination of whether there’s enough evidence for a trial.
- Charge involves “capital or infamous crimes” [req. if punishable by life/death]
- Post indictment can only reveal statutory irregularities or perjuring testimony
- ∆ may not confront witnesses or introduce evidence, Miranda not needed & can only talk to atty outside grand jury room
PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES: CHRONOLOGY FROM ARREST TO TRIAL
Bail Hearing
∆ entitled to an individualized hearing to determine whether bail should be granted or denied [Not a critical stage]
PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES: CHRONOLOGY FROM ARREST TO TRIAL
Plea Bargaining
If ∆ pleads guilty and thus waives a jury trial to which judge must determine if plea was voluntarily & intelligently made. [Boykinize]
Identifications of a ∆
- Pre-Indictment I.D.: Due Process Standard - Any lineup, showup, or photo identification will be inadmissible as violating due process when: I.D. is unnecessarily suggestive & likely to produce an irreparable mistaken I.D.
- Factors: degree of suggestiveness, opp. To view, degree of attention, accuracy of description, level of certainty, time b/w the crime and I.D.
- If out-of-court I.D. excluded for suggestiveness/unreliability, then subsequent in-court I.D. will not be allowed, UNLESS: prosecution can clearly & convincingly show subsequent I.D. stemmed from independent, “purging” source
- Right to Counsel in Post-Indictment Lineups - attaches upon the start of adversary proceedings, to which an indictment would qualify.
United States has the power to criminalize and to prosecute crimes that occur?
- Anywhere in US territory;
- On ships and planes; and
- By United States nationals abroad
By contrast, the states can only punish crimes having some connection to the state.
- Whole crime or part of the crime occurred inside the state
- Conduct outside the state that involved an attempt to commit a crime inside the state
- A conspiracy to commit a crime and an overt act occurred within the
state
4 categories of crimes that are specific intent crimes under the common law:
FIAT
- First-degree murder: On the MBE, the question will expressly state if a defendant is charged with first-degree murder
- Inchoate crimes: “CATS”—conspiracy, attempt, and solicitation
- Assault with attempt to commit a battery
- Theft offenses: e.g., larceny, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, and robbery
- Ex: The main reason to memorize the FIAT crimes is that there are some defenses – most notably voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact – that are available only for specific-intent crimes.
Mens Rea: The Common Law States of Mind:
Malice
The defendant acted in a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm occurring.
- 2 malice crimes:
- MURDER &
- ARSON
- Ex: Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Paul is holding a Fourth of July cookout at his house. He invites his friend Lynn to the cookout. Paul is going to throw off fireworks at the party. Some of the fireworks seem to be duds, so Lynn tosses them all onto the gas grill. Some explode and catch Paul’s house on fire. Lynn is charged with arson. At trial, she argues that she didn’t want to cause Paul’s house to burn down.
- Ex: A person throws a bunch of bowling balls off an overpass to see if it’ll dent the cars below. One of the bowling balls hits a driver and kills him. That is considered a malice crime.
Mens Rea: The Common Law States of Mind:
MERGER
Def can be convicted of more than one crime arising out of the same act. However, a Def cannot be convicted of Q crimes when the 2 crimes merge into 1. In that case, Def can only be convicted of one of the crimes.
Two categories of merger:
- lesser-included offenses (offense in which each of its elements appears in another offense, but other offense has something additional); &
- merger of an inchoate & a completed offense
- EXCEPTION: conspiracy
DEFENSES:
Mistakes of Law vs. Mistakes of Fact
Mistake negates mens rea
- MoL: Claims by Def that he cannot be convicted b/c he thought act was lawful; however, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
- MoF: A defense for specific intent crimes; general intent (if belief reasonable); not a defense to strict liability crim
Withdrawal from a Conspiracy:
- At common law, it’s impossible to withdraw from a conspiracy, bc crime is completed the moment the agreement is made.
- Under the federal rule, a conspirator can withdraw prior to the commission of any overt act by communicating her intention to withdraw to all other conspirators OR by informing law enforcement
- Under the MPC rule, a conspirator who helps to thwart the success of a conspiracy can raise a withdrawal defense even after an overt act has occurred.
- Although a defendant who tries to withdraw may remain liable for conspiracy (e.g., because notification was not timely), that defendant will not be liable for any substantive crimes committed after his withdrawal.
Searches Incident to Arrest?
- Permits contemporaneous search of person arrested & immediate area surrounding the person to: 1) Protect officer & public’s safety; & prevent destruction of evidence
- Arrest on the street: Can search the suspect and his wingspan
- Arrest at home: Can search suspect & his immediate arrest area.
-
Arrest in a car: May search passenger’s compartment of a vehicle as long as the person/ suspect still has access to the vehicle at the time
- Cannot arrest a suspect, cuff him, and put him in the back of a squad car and then go back and search through the car (because the suspect is not a danger to the officers anymore; he cannot access a weapon from the car; and/or evidence from the crime is likely not in the car)
- Inventory searches: When police arrest a driver and impound his car, it may be searched for inventory purposes.
