Crim Pro Flashcards
Arrests
An arrest occurs when police take an individual into custody for purposes of criminal prosecution or interrogation – Probable cause (PC) is always required for any valid arrest
- Warrants are rarely required for arrests except for non-emergency home arrests, which require a warrant and reasonable belief suspect is at home
Probable Cause
trustworthy facts/knowledge sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed or is planning to commit a crime
Detentions
A governmental seizure of a person that is less than a full custodial arrest
Automobile stop – requires reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated
— Pretextual stops – ulterior motive for a stop OK if police have PC of a traffic violation
—Accompanying searches – police may search passengers and passenger compartment (but not the trunk) if officer reasonably believes weapons may be present
Police checkpoints – Must stop cars using a neutral, articulable standard; and serve purposes related to automobiles and their mobility
Stationhouse detention – PC req to compel a person to enter govt location for fingerprints/questions.
4th A issues
(1) Does D have standing? D must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing or place to be searched > determined by the totality of the circumstances
(2) Is there a valid search warrant?
– (1) Based on PC – usually a police affidavit demonstrating PC that the search or seizure will produce evidence
– (2) Must describe with reasonable precision, the place to be searched and/or items to be seized
– (3) Issued by a neutral and detached magistrate
(3) If there is no valid search warrant, was there a valid exception to the search warrant requirement?
Warrant exceptions - Search incident to arrest
Police may search a lawfully arrested person and his immediate surrounding area without a warrant - limited to area within suspect’s reach or movement
– Police may sweep an area for officer safety/reasonable belief that accomplices may be present, and search arrestee’s belongings/seized property when jailing an arrestee
– After arresting occupant, police may search the vehicle’s interior if arrestee is unsecured and may access the vehicle interior, or they reasonably believe evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made may be found in vehicle
Warrant exceptions - plain view
Police may search from any place where they are legitimately present when viewing evidence they have PC to believe is contraband or relates to crime
Warrant exceptions - Automobile search
If PC exists before the search begins, police may search an entire vehicle (trunk!) and containers inside that may contain the evidence they are searching for
Warrant exceptions - Exigent circumstances
- Hot pursuit – while actively pursuing a fleeing felon, police can search for anything relating to the pursuit or can search for their own protection
- Evanescent evidence – police can search or seize evidence that could disappear if police were required to secure a warrant
- Emergency – warrantless searches are justified for emergencies that threaten health or safety if not immediately acted upon
Exclusionary rule
Prohibits the introduction of evid obtained in violation of D’s constitutional rights in crim trial.
The exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings, civil proceedings, parole hearings, or administrative cases.
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine – evidence derived/obtained from illegal govt. conduct is excludable BUT illegally obtained evidence is admissible if govt. can “break the chain” between the illegal govt. conduct and the seized evidence through independent source, inevitable discovery or attenuation
Remedy – harmless error review
Privilege against compelled incrimination
Any person in any proceeding (civil or criminal) may refuse to answer a question if her response might incriminate herself
– Privilege only available for compelled testimonial or communicative evidence.
– Exceptions – privilege does not apply if the govt grants immunity from prosecution for self-incriminating testimony, if incrimination is not possible, or if D waives the privilege
Miranda rights
Those in custodial interrogation must be informed of Miranda rights prior to interrogation; otherwise subsequent statements are inadmissible
- An accused may terminate an interrogation at any time by:
— Invoking right to silence – police must cease all questions, but may resume after a significant period concerning unrelated crimes (and D must be re-warned)
— Invoking 5th Amend. right to counsel – must be requested unambiguously, police must cease all questions on any topic.
Waiving Miranda rights – must be (1) knowingly and (2) voluntarily made (PoE)
Double jeopardy
A D cannot be retried for the same offense once jeopardy has attached
–Same offense – offenses are different if conviction for one offense requires proof of an element not included in the other offense
–Lesser included offense – once jeopardy attaches for the greater offense, D cannot be charged for a lesser included offense (unless new evidence for greater offense becomes available or D is tried for battery and subsequently tried for homicide if the victim later dies from the battery)
–Jeopardy attaches by start of trial > for jury trial, attaches once jury is sworn in. for bench trials, it attaches once first witness is sworn in. For pleas, it attaches once court accepts a plea agreement
6th Amendment right to counsel
Once 6th Amend. right to counsel attaches, police may not elicit incriminating statements outside the presence of D’s counsel.
–Right attaches once charges have been filed – automatic
–Right is offense-specific; police can question D about any other crime without violating D’s 6th Amend. Rights
–D can attack pretrial ID procedures as a denial of DP rights if the identification is unnecessarily suggestive; and there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification (ToC)
To establish ineffective assistance on appeal, D must show there is a reasonable probability that his trial’s outcome would have been different absent counsel’s deficient performance
Co-defendant confessions
A co-D’s confession implicating D is inadmissible against D at a joint jury trial (OK at bench trial). Confession of a co-D is admissible if either:
–Confessing co-D testifies subject to cross-examination
–Ds have separate trials
–Confession is redacted so that all portions referring to the co-D are eliminated, or
–Co-D’s confession is used to rebut D’s claim that his confession was obtained coercively
Bail
Cannot be higher than necessary to ensure D will appear at trial. For denial of bail, govt. must show either that D poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.
