Crim Pro; ENTIRE COURSE Flashcards
Community Caretaker Doctrine; BALANCING TEST
via COMMONWEALTH v. LIVINGSTONE (2017)
- (1) intrusion on freedom of movement and privacy (consider display of authority and length of seizure)
- AND *
- (2) degree of public interest and urgency of situation
Community Caretaker Doctrine; REASONABLENESS TEST
via COMMONWEALTH v. LIVINGSTONE (2017)
- Objective, specific, and articulable facts
- Independent of crime detection
- The PO MAY have a subjective belief that they may detect crime, in addition to the community caretaker doctrine
- When it’s close, the objective will stand above the subjective
- Officer may render aid or assistance
- Once peril is mitigates, any additional actions constitute a seizure
- Must be limited to actions necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop, UNLESS PARTICULARIZED SUSPICION OR PROBABLE CAUSE DEVELOPS
Community Caretaker Doctrine; EXCEPTIONS
- The emergency aid exception
- The automobile impoundment/inventory
- OR *
- The public servant exception
Community Caretaking Functions
via Oregon Revised Statutes
- A lawful acts that are inherent in the duty of the peace officer to serve and protect the public
- Can remain on premises if it REASONABLY appears to be NECESSARY
- Can assist with traffic when such action REASONABLY appears to be NECESSARY
What law governs stops?
- Federal K
- State K
- Statutes
- Judicial Opinion
- Police Policy
- Social Expectations
Katz v. US (1967)
- Movement away from K protected physical spaces toward individual privacy
- Reasonable expectation of privacy
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
The target of the search expects privacy and the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
US v. Jones (2012)
- GPS tracking of suspect’s vehicle on public streets over a 4 week period w/o a warrant = search
- “Such a physical intrusion is considered a search w/in the meaning of the 4th A”
- The majority reintroduces the trespass test
Trespass Test
via US v. Jones (2012)
- Did the suspect have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search
- AND *
- Did LE physically intrude on a protected interest
- Person, house, papers, effects
Search; REASONABLENESS FACTORS
- Privacy interest of the person subject to search
- Government’s interest in conducting the search
- AND *
- Degree of intrusion from the search
Search; PLAIN VIEW
- LE observes the items from a place where they have A RIGHT TO BE
- LE cannot trespass on a protected area w/ the intent to gather information
- Lawful presence + plain view = NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
3rd Party Consent; APPARENT AUTHORITY
Courts will uphold searches based on 3rd party consent SO LONG AS the officer had a REASONABLE BELIEF that the 3rd party had authority to consent
* Via Commonwealth v. Porter
WARRANT REQUIREMENTS
No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing:
- The place to be searched
- AND *
- The persons or things to be seized
- -> Neutral and detached magistrate
- -> Drafting requirements
* Particularity
* Oath requirements
* Writing requirements
WARRANT REQUIREMENTS; Confidential Informant Requirements
Affidavit supporting PC should have been to establish the CI as credibility and reliability either by:
- Previous times the CI had provided reliable information
- The informant is a citizen informant
- -> A local do-gooder
- -> Acts openly in the aid of LE
- The CI has made a statement that is against his or her penal interest
- OR *
- A POs independent investigation establishes the informant’s reliability or the reliability
- -> Corroboration
WARRANT EXECUTION; “No-Knock” Requirements
To justify a no knock entry, LE must have:
- A reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile
- OR *
- That it would inhibit effective investigation of the crime by allows the destruction of E
Two-Part Aguilar-Spinelli Test
Issuing judge must be informed of:
- Basis of knowledge
- -> Some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the CI in concluding that the facts are as he claims they are
- AND *
- Veracity/Reliability
- -> Some of the underlying circumstances for which the PO seeking the warrant concluded
* That the informant was credible
* OR *
* That the information is reliable
Affidavit from a CI
There MUST BE a FACTUAL BASIS AND RELIABILITY in order for an affidavit from a CI have probably cause
PROBABLY CAUSE
Exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed
PROBABLE CAUSE: Standards
There MUST BE a FACTUAL BASIS AND RELIABILITY in order for an affidavit from a CI have probably cause
Stop and Frisk: STOP
A “stop” takes place when an officer accosts a person and briefly restrains his freedom to walk away. Terry v. Ohio, 391 U.S. 1 (1968).
- Constitutionally permissible even if the officer does not have probable cause to make an arrest;
- -> LE must merely have a reasonable suspicion, based on SPECIFIC and ARTICUABLE facts, that person being accosted is involved in some criminal activity. Id.
Stop and Frisk: FRISK
After making a stop, the officer can make a brief protective search of the accosted person’s body for weapons—a “frisk”—if the officer has REASONABLE grounds to suspect that the person may be ARMED AND DANGEROUS. Terry.
Stop and Frisk: SPECIAL NOTE
If an officer has probable cause for arrest, and makes the arrest, the officer doesn’t need to consider the validity of an ensuing frisk at all, because a full body search incident to a valid arrest is always valid.
Stop and Frisk: When has a STOP occurred?
A stop occurs when a person is detained, in circumstances such that a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe he is not free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter.
–> Florida v. Royer, 466 U.S. 210 (1984); U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).
Some of the factors that may indicate the officer’s intent to detain are:
- The officer’s words or tone of voice, if they indicate that compliance with the officer’s requests might be compelled
- The threatening presence of several officers
- An officer’s display of a weapon
- OR *
- The officer’s physical touching of the suspect.
Stop and Frisk: Detention Time
No longer than the circumstances justifying the search require.
- Also, the search should be no more intrusive than necessary to verify or dispel the officer’s suspicions.
- The Court has approved even a 20-minute detention as a stop, where the Court found that the police exercised diligence in expediting the transaction, and didn’t unreasonably fail to recognize or pursue less-intrusive alternatives.
- -> U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985).
