Crim Pro Flashcards
Exclusionary Rule
(ER): Evidence obtained in violation of Δ’s constitutional rights is inadmissible against Δ in trial
a. State action: 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th Amendments protect against governmental conduct, e.g., by police, gov’t agents
b. Fruit of the poisonous tree: All derivative evidence obtained via inadmissible evidence is also excluded
c. While evidence can be suppressed, violation does not entitle Δ to have indictment or prosecution dismissed
EXCEPTIONS to ER
EXCEPTIONS to ER: Taint of derivative “fruit” may be dissipated even if traceable to an initial violation of rights
i. Grand jury
ii. Good faith reliance on warrant
iii. Knock and announce violations do not automatically trigger ER; exclusion is not a remedy
iv. Independent source of derivative evidence
v. Inevitable discovery:
vi. Intervening act of free will by Δ (attenuation, e.g., subsequent confession after release after illegal arrest)
vii. Impeachment of Δ’s testimony only
ix. Miranda violation is not a poisonous tree
Grand Jury exception to ER
A grand jury may hear and use any piece of evidence regardless of its admissibility
Good faith reliance on warrant
reasonably well-trained PO would have believed W was valid (e.g., clerical error)
Independent source of derivative evidence
source being separate from original illegality. May “rediscover”
initially illegal evidence under valid W if police would have applied for and received W anyway
Evidence of an entirely unrelated crime is untainted and admissible (despite original illegality)
Inevitable Discovery
PO would have discovered the evidence regardless of illegality or unconstitutional police conduct (e.g., via systematic search)
Impeachment of Defendant’s Testimony
(1) Confession taken in violation of Miranda and
(2) real or physical evidence seized from illegal search are still admissible to impeach Δ’s trial testimony
Attenuation
Evidence with a “but for” link to a poison tree may be so distant from the initial illegality that the taint of poison is purged and the evidence is admissible
Miranda Violations and ER
Can admit evidence seized via statements obtained from failure to give Miranda warnings, although a confession itself is not admissible if obtained in violation of Miranda
4th Amendment
protects against violation of constitutionally protected privacy
The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the gov’t or its agents
Standing to 4th Amendment
To have standing, Δ must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in the place searched—subjectively + objectively (society is prepared to accept the expectation of privacy as reasonable)
i. Standing (to object to search) is proper if Δ had possessory right of the place searched or item seized
Reasonable expectation of Privacy also exists if Δ lived in (e.g., home) or stayed overnight at the premises searched
Mere ownership, as opposed to privacy or possessory interest in place or item, is insufficient
No REP where held out to public, e.g., knowingly exposed to public, open fields beyond home/curtilage, smell of luggage, misplaced trust in false friend, sense-enhancing tech available for public use, car in public
Warrants
A search/seizure must be made with a valid W, which must be (1) issued by neutral, detached magistrate, (2) based on probable cause, and (3) described with particularity the place to be searched or item/person to be seized
Probable cause (PC)
A fair probability that would warrant a reasonable person to conclude that evidence of a crime can be found at a particular place or that a particular Δ committed a crime
1. PC can be based on an informant’s tip, which must meet the totality of the circumstances (TOTC) test: practical, common-sense considerations showing probability of criminal activity based on informant’s veracity, basis of informant’s knowledge, and corroboration from police investigation predictive information showing insider knowledge. May be based on an anonymous tip
2. PO must show recent facts, not hunches or “known for.” To attack inaccuracies in a facially valid warrant, Δ must show material false statements made intentionally or recklessly (negligently OK)
Scope of Warrant
Reasonably necessary to discover items. Must be executed w/o unreasonable delay while PC exists
Search of premises/car excludes the people present (mere presence doctrine), unless PC to arrest (search incident), PC that item on person, reas. suspicion (RS) of danger (frisk), or identified in W
Knock and announce rule
Police must give notice and wait a reasonable time before entering to execute W, except when there is RS that announcing will lead to destruction of evidence, endanger officers, or be futile
Good faith EXCEPTION to invalid W
Evidence or person seized via a facially valid (particular) but defective W is admissible if a reasonably well-trained PO acted in good faith thinking that the W was valid
EXCEPTIONS to warrants generally
(CHAMPED) – where PC alone enough to justify a search or seizure w/o W
i. Community caretaking
ii. Hot pursuit of fleeing felon suspects (where speed and safety are essential)
iii. Automobile
iv. Minor intrusion into body in reasonable manner (e.g., breathalyzer test tube)
v. Plain view
vi. Exigency or Destruction of evidence
Community caretaking
Going into home to make sure there isn’t further injury (based on objective TOTC)
Hot pursuit of fleeing felon suspects (where speed and safety are essential)
PO may make warrantless search/seizure related to pursuit, or enter anyone’s home w/o W. Evidence in plain view will be admissible
Automobile exception
Any vehicle/car capable of moving is covered (incl. a mobile home not fixed to the ground)
1. To stop car, needs RS of violation of law (can ripen to PC) or PC to believe crim evidence is in car
2. If PC to believe criminal evidence is in a car, can search w/o W: the whole car, closed containers (size limited to where evidence could be), and its contents, including passenger luggage
3. If PC to believe evidence is in a container in the car, search of car limited to that container (and where that container could be); once package is found, search is limited to the package
4. If PC to believe automobile itself is contraband, can seize it without W
iv. Minor intrusion into body in reasonable manner (e.g., breathalyzer test tube)
Plain View
Police officer (PO) is lawfully present and positioned + “immediately apparent” that item is subject to seizure + PC to believe evidence is associated with crime (can’t move item for a better view)