Crim Pro

Question 1

Lisenba v California

Answer 1

Coercion is determined by the totality of the circumstances considering threats promises or violence among other factors

Question 2

Duncan v Louisiana

Answer 2

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all state criminal cases that would be eligible for trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment if tried in federal court. (Battery – LA only had jury if capital punishment)

Question 3

Wong Sun v US

Answer 3

Birth of poisonous tree – exclusionary rule bars from trial material and evidence or statements obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion, however – granting establishment of initial illegality, evidence gained independent of that illegality or my means sign. Distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint is admissible - 532/533

Question 4

Steagald v United States

Answer 4

CS – absent consent or exigent circ, police may not enter home of third party to arrest or search 3rd parties home for search or seizure without a warrant as to the 3rd party under 4th amendment – extension of payton to protect 3rd parties

Question 5

Rhode Island v Innis

Answer 5

Miranda Warnings must be given whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent

Question 6

Payton v New York

Answer 6

Absent exigent circ or consent – police may not make a warrantless arrest of a person inside their home, warrantless seizures or searches inside a person’s home are presumptively unreasonable under the 4th amendment

Question 7

Brown

Answer 7

Confessions extorted by state officers torture of us citizen violate due process clause of 14th amendment and will result in the reversal of a conviction

Question 8

Smith v Maryland

Answer 8

A person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information that the person voluntarily turns over to third parties.
No reasonable expectation of privacy – voluntarily given to 3rd parties, in info unwittingly given to snitches, dog sniffs conducted in public places/government property, in open fields surrounding own home, curtilage, aierel surveillance, garbage,

Question 9

Brown v Mississippi

Answer 9

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that state action be consistent with fundamental principles of liberty and justice. (Beating for confession not consistent

Question 10

Weeks v US

Answer 10

Items taken by a federal official from an individual’s home when no warrant has been issued are seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and must be excluded from evidence. (Gambling through the mail) Exclusionary rule – federal cases

Question 11

Murray v United States

Answer 11

Evidence though initially discovered in a unlawful search, but then later learned and obtained in untainted search warrant is admissible under 4th amendment

Question 12

Patterson v Illinois

Answer 12

Confession ought not be suppressed where a mirandized defendant unrepresented by counsel voluntarily speaks to law enforcement post-indictment

Question 13

California v Acevedo

Answer 13

The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless searches of containers found in automobiles provided the police have probable cause that the container contains contraband. However, their search must be limited to that specific container

Question 14

Hudson v Michigan

Answer 14

The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock and announce rule

Question 15

North Carolina v Butler

Answer 15

An express written or oral statement of a Miranda waiver is strong but neither necessary nor sufficient to establish waiver, the q is still whether the D knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights

Question 16

Chambers v Maroney

Answer 16

A warrantless search of a car made at a police station is constitutional so long as there is probable cause to believe that the car contains items that the officers are entitled to seize.

Question 17

Berkemer v McCarty

Answer 17

While a person in custody who is suspected of a misdemeanor traffic offense must be read hisMirandawarnings, a motorist temporarily detained on the side of the road after being pulled over by an officer is not “in custody” for the purpose ofMiranda.

Question 18

Florida v Jardines

Answer 18

Accordingly, in this case, the detective’s use of the drug-sniffing dog to detect marijuana constituted a warrantless search of Jardines’s porch—the curtilage of his home—in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The detective obtained information by physically intruding on Jardines’s property, so there is no need to determine whether Jardines’s expectation of privacy was intruded upon underKatz.
Katz “does not subtract anything from the [Fourth] Amendment’s protections when the Government [engages] in a physical intrusion of a constitutionally protected area.”

Question 19

Illinois v Rodriguez

Answer 19

Under the Fourth Amendment, the police may enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe the person who consents to their presence has the authority to do so. Do cops have to know cotenant information may be faulty? – no.
- Objective standard

Question 20

Massiah v US

Answer 20

A post-indictment surreptitiously transmitted conversation that is testified to at trial against a defendant using a codefendant who is acting at direction of law enforcement is a violation of 6th amendment right to counsel

Question 21

Minnesota v Carter

Answer 21

Someone temporarily in another’s home, and present to conduct a business transaction, does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the house.

Question 22

Arizona v Gant

Answer 22

2 justifications for recent occupant of vehicle
o Police safety
o Preservation of evidence
4th amend forbids a vehicle search incident to an occupants arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle, however circumstances unique to a vehicle justify search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of the arrest will be found in the vehicle

Question 23

Maryland v Buie

Answer 23

Incident to an arrest, the police may conduct a protective sweep of a premises based on reasonable suspicion that other people who pose a threat are in the building, provided the search is limited to those areas where a person may be hiding.

Question 24

Hector v State

Answer 24

Whether a confession is made freely and voluntarily is a matter of law to be decided by the court, not the jury

Question 25

Brewer v Williams

Answer 25

Once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual he has a right to legal representation when government interrogates him where both defendant and his counsel request advice of counsel

Question 26

Spano v New York

Answer 26

Under 14th amendment the court must reverse a state conviction of a defendant who confessed after his will was overborne

Question 27

Missouri v Seibert

Answer 27

Midstream recessitation of Miranda warnings after interrogation after interrogation and warning violates Miranda

Question 28

Powell v Alabama

Answer 28

Due process of 14th requires that criminal defendants have the right to counsel both at trial and in the time leading up to trial when consultation and preparation take place. (8 Blacks v 2 Whites in Train – false accusations)

Question 29

Arizona v Hicks

Answer 29

For a warrantless search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the plain view doctrine can only be invoked to search or seize evidence if the police have probable cause of the evidence’s incriminating character.
Shooting through the floor – found suspicious speaker in apartment below while looking for bullet.

Question 30

Oregon v Elstad

Answer 30

A suspect can make a statement that is admissible in court after being read hisMirandawarnings, even when he previously made an unwarned statement, because the initial failure to read a suspect hisMiranda warnings does not taint later voluntary statements

Question 31

Kentucky v King

Answer 31

The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to an officer-created exigency if the exigency does not arise from the officer’s unreasonable or unconstitutional conduct.
Wrong apartment weed bust
Under the exigent circumstances doctrine, officers may enter a home without a warrant to deliver emergency aid to an individual, pursue a fleeing suspect, or to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.

Question 32

Edwards v Arizona

Answer 32

Law enforcement must terminate custodial interrogation when an accused has invoked right to counsel and police may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel

Question 33

Katz v US

Answer 33

The Fourth Amendment protects a person against unlawful government intrusion; it is not intended to provide constitutional protection to a specific place.Telephone booth. Katz was justified in assuming that his phone conversation would remain private, even though the phone booth is at all other times for public use. Unwarranted recording of his phone conversation constitutes a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
1. Citizen needs to demonstrate subjective expectation of privacy 2. That expectation needs to be reasonable

Question 34

Rakas v Illinois

Answer 34

A passenger in a car belonging to someone else does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car or in items found in the car that do not belong to him and thus may not challenge the search of the car or seizure of the items as unconstitutional.

Question 35

Georgia v Randolph

Answer 35

The police may not enter a home without a warrant to search for evidence where they obtain consent from an occupant but a co-occupant is present and objects to the search. Co-occupant

Question 36

California v Carney

Answer 36

There is a reduced level of privacy in an automobile which, coupled with the exigency that the vehicle may be quickly moved, justifies a warrantless police search when probable cause exists.
Auto exception based on mobility
Auto exception on public highway – less expectation of privacy
Privacy – comes from pervasive government regulation

Question 37

Silverthorne Lumber Company v United States

Answer 37

Exception to exclusionary rule – independent source. However, if, after violating the constitution, the government can acquire the information through another, independent and legal method, it becomes admissible.

Question 38

Michigan v Sitz

Answer 38

Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the police can establish checkpoints if the state interest outweighs the intrusion into people’s privacy interests and the checkpoint is proven to be an effective means of achieving the state’s goal.

Question 39

Riley v California

Answer 39

Under the Fourth Amendment, the government may not conduct a warrantless search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest absent exigent circumstances.
The government may not conduct a warrantless search of cell phone incident to arrest; rather, the government must secure a warrant or demonstrate exigent circumstances.

Question 40

Montego v Louisiana

Answer 40

Law enforcement is not barred under all circumstances from initiating interrogation of a represented defendant post indictment - Michigan v Jackson is overruled

Question 41

US v White

Answer 41

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures does not protect people from their misplaced expectations of trust and therefore there is no Fourth Amendment search and seizure when the person the defendant is speaking with is secretly a government agent or an informant wearing a wire and recording what is being said.
Here, unlike inKatz, the defendants assume the risk when they confide in others about their illegal activities.

Question 42

New York v Quarles

Answer 42

Exception to Miranda – public safety

Question 43

Illinois v Gates

Answer 43

A warrant application satisfies the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement so long as it establishes a substantial basis for concluding that a search will uncover evidence of wrongdoing.
a totality of the circumstances test
provided a totality of evidence test for probable cause under 4th amend focusing on governments most basic function to provide for the security of the individual and his property

Question 44

Alabama v White

Answer 44

To determine whether an informant’s tip provides reasonable suspicion, the totality of the circumstances must be analyzed, with attention given to the veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge of an informant.

• Illinois v Gates test but for reasonable suspicion
• Tipster – veracity, reliability, basis of knowledge

Question 45

New York v Belton

Answer 45

Incident to a lawful arrest, the police may search the area within the arrestee’s immediate control.
The passenger area of the car is under the immediate control of a recent occupant now under arrest, and is subject to lawful search by the arresting officer

Question 46

Berghuis v Thompkins

Answer 46

A suspect who has received and understood her Miranda warnings and has not invoked Miranda rights may implicitly waive the right to remain silent by making an un-coerced statement to the police

Question 47

US v Jones

Answer 47

The warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of an individual’s vehicle in order to track the person’s movements on public streets constitutes an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Thus, the government’s installation of a GPS device on Jones’s vehicle constitutes a “search.”

Question 48

Miranda v Arizona

Answer 48

Constitution requires a custodial questioning to be proceeded by a 4-part warning regarding silence, evidence, counsel and indigent access to counsel. 4 keys – right to remain silent, evidentiary notice that any statement can and will be used against in court, 3 right to counsel and 4 right to appointed counsel for indigent persons

Question 49

Schneckloth v Bustamonte

Answer 49

The court must look at the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether consent to a warrantless search absent probable cause was freely and voluntarily given. If officers conduct a warrantless search of a subject not in custody, the prosecution can meet its burden of proving that consent to the search was freely and voluntarily given by looking at the totality of the circumstances. Although knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent is one factor of many to consider, it is not a prerequisite to proving that consent was given voluntarily.

Question 50

Dunaway v New York

Answer 50

In order to lawfully bring a suspect into formal police custody and interrogate him at the police station, the police must have probable cause. The rule inTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1969), that the police may stop and search a citizen on the street based on reasonable suspicion, does not extend to situations where the suspect is brought into the police station.

• 4th amendment still mattered in arrest cases – limit to Terry
• PC still required for custodial arrest and interrogation under the 4th amendment

Question 51

US v Karo

Answer 51

A party unknowingly receiving a container containing a tracking device does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure. A seizure occurs if the government meaningfully interferes in a person’s possessory interest in the person’s property. In this case, while the placement of the tracking device can constitute a technical trespass, Karo’s possessory interest in the containers was not infringed upon. The continued monitoring of a tracking device inside multiple private places constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. A search occurs if an expectation of privacy that society considers as reasonable is infringed.

Question 52

Horton v California

Answer 52

Under the Fourth Amendment the police can seize an item that is in plain view without a warrant, even if finding the item was not inadvertent, so long as the police have the legal right to be where the item is found.
My case - Robbery – looking for money – found gun – justifies warrantless seizure

Question 53

US v Leon

Answer 53

Exception to exclusionary rule. Reasonable reliance on search warrant with probable cause by neutral and detached magistrate in Good faith

Question 54

Richards v Wisconsin

Answer 54

The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement incorporates the common law rule that police entering a home must knock and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry, unless exigent circumstances exist and to do so would undermine law enforcement interest.
Hotel maid police

Question 55

Mapp v Ohio

Answer 55

Evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. Weeks rule now applies to the states thru 14th amendment due process clause

Question 56

When v US

Answer 56

Officers subjective motive does not invalidate objectively justifiable police action under 4th amendment – temp detaining of motorist even if prompted by racial profiling does not violate 4th if probable cause – subjective intent irrelevant to 4th amend analysis

Question 57

Illinois v Wardlow

Answer 57

The flight of a suspect in a high crime area can amount to reasonable suspicion and justify a lawful stop and frisk by the police.

Question 58

Bram v US

Answer 58

Question of voluntariness in criminal trials controlled by 5th amendment

Question 59

Lo-Ji Sales v New York

Answer 59

A warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, based upon probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and it must describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. Particularity.
Porn Store Case
- No fill in the blank search warrants
- Warrant by state attorney general Is not valid – not judicial branch
- Judge cant be paid for issuing a warrant – no neutrality

Question 60

Davis v US

Answer 60

A search conducted in objectively reasonable reliance upon binding appellate precedent that has since been overruled is not subject to the exclusionary rule

Question 61

Herring v US

Answer 61

Where police personnel act negligently, but not recklessly, and lead an officer to reasonably believe an arrest warrant exists, the evidence obtained pursuant to that unlawful arrest remains admissible.

Question 62

California v Hodari

Answer 62

A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs where the police exercise physical force over a subject or where a subject submits to an officer’s show of authority.
Took off running from police

Question 63

Terry v Ohio

Answer 63

Reasonable and articulable suspicion but not PC is required for an investigative stop and frisk of outer clothing under 4th amendment where law enforcement reasonably conclude that criminal activity is afoot and persons are armed and presently dangerous

Question 64

Chimel v California

Answer 64

Incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search of the area in possession and control of the person under arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Searched entire house in coin robbery suspect while he was detained – not in his possession and control.

Question 65

McNeil v Wisconsin

Answer 65

6th amendment right to counsel is offense specific it cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions. Invoking one’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel for an offense where formal charges have been brought, does not automatically invoke one’s Miranda rights for other offenses where charges have not yet been formally brought.

Question 66

US v Mendenhall

Answer 66

The test for determining whether a seizure has occurred under the Fourth Amendment is whether, in light of the surrounding circumstances, “a reasonable person would believe he was free to leave.” Airport search

Question 67

Dickerson v US

Answer 67

Miranda is a constitutional decision of US SC which governs admissibility of statements evidence made during custodial of both federal and state courts and which may not be overruled by act of congress

Question 68

Kyllo v US

Answer 68

Law enforcement’s use of sense-enhancing technology to see details of a private home that would not be discoverable without physically entering the home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

• Thermal imaging marijuana
• Using a device that is not publicly available to see details of a private home that would be undiscoverable without physically entering the home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

Question 69

Knowles v Iowa

Answer 69

Where law officer already possess evidence necessary to prove violation, and no danger to officers, cannot search