Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Crim Pro > Crim Pro; ENTIRE COURSE > Flashcards

Crim Pro; ENTIRE COURSE Flashcards

1
Q

Community Caretaker Doctrine; BALANCING TEST

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Community Caretaker Doctrine; REASONABLENESS TEST

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Community Caretaker Doctrine; EXCEPTIONS

A
  • The emergency aid exception
  • The automobile impoundment/inventory
  • OR *
  • The public servant exception
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Community Caretaking Functions

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What law governs stops?

A
  • Federal K
  • State K
  • Statutes
  • Judicial Opinion
  • Police Policy
  • Social Expectations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Katz v. US (1967)

A
  • Movement away from K protected physical spaces toward individual privacy
  • Reasonable expectation of privacy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

A

The target of the search expects privacy and the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

US v. Jones (2012)

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Trespass Test

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Search; REASONABLENESS FACTORS

A
  • Privacy interest of the person subject to search
  • Government’s interest in conducting the search
  • AND *
  • Degree of intrusion from the search
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Search; PLAIN VIEW

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

3rd Party Consent; APPARENT AUTHORITY

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

WARRANT REQUIREMENTS; Confidential Informant Requirements

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

WARRANT EXECUTION; “No-Knock” Requirements

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Two-Part Aguilar-Spinelli Test

A

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
17
Q

Affidavit from a CI

A

There MUST BE a FACTUAL BASIS AND RELIABILITY in order for an affidavit from a CI have probably cause

18
Q

PROBABLY CAUSE

A

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

19
Q

PROBABLE CAUSE: Standards

A

There MUST BE a FACTUAL BASIS AND RELIABILITY in order for an affidavit from a CI have probably cause

20
Q

Stop and Frisk: STOP

A

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.
21
Q

Stop and Frisk: FRISK

A

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.

22
Q

Stop and Frisk: SPECIAL NOTE

A

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.

23
Q

Stop and Frisk: When has a STOP occurred?

A

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.
24
Q

Stop and Frisk: Detention Time

A

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).
25
Q

Searches and Seizures: 4th A.

A

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.”

26
Q

Searches and Seizures: Someone OTHER THAN LE

A

if a private citizen is acting under the direction of the police, his acts will be considered Fourth Amendment searches.

27
Q

Searches and Seizures: Curtilage

A

As defined by the Supreme Court, “curtilage” consists of those buildings and surrounding areas in close proximity to a dwelling which are habitually used for family purposes.

  • Only police searches affecting a residence and its curtilage require Fourth Amendment protection. Police observation of things or activities outside the curtilage cannot constitute a Fourth Amendment search.
  • -> Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
28
Q

Curtilage Factors

A

The Court has announced four factors:
* How physically close the area claimed as curtilage is to the residence itself (i.e., “proximity”) (the closer, the more likely it is to be curtilage);
* Whether the area claimed to be curtilage is included in an enclosure around the residence, such as a fence (enclosure makes curtilage more likely);
* The uses the area is put to (use for household or family purposes makes curtilage much more likely)
* AND *
* Whether the resident has taken steps to prevent observation of the area, such as high fencing (such steps make curtilage more likely).
Cf. U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

29
Q

Searches and Seizures: Wiretap

A

Constitutes a search under the 4th A b/c it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy

30
Q

EXCEPTIONS TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT: Wiretaps

A
  • One of the parties to the conversation has consented to it (e.g., he’s consented to have a tap put on his phone line)
  • OR *
  • The speaker doesn’t attempt to keep the conversation private (e.g., the speaker talks loudly on a cellphone in a public place, so that a wiretap or bug located in the public place records only the speaker’s side of the conversation, and doesn’t record anything more than the strangers who are actually present in the public space could have heard).
31
Q

REASONABLE SUSPICION: Flight

A

“Unprovoked, headlong flight, when coupled with other factors, can constitute Terry-level suspicion justifying a seizure.”

  • Flight contributes to reasonable suspicion, but isn’t enough standing alone
32
Q

Whren v. U.S.

A

The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.
◦ The legality of the stop is not tied to the officer’s primary motivation in making the stop.
◦ The Whren Court rejected the “a reasonable officer would have made the traffic stop” approach in favor of the “could have” approach.

33
Q

Administrative Stops: CHECKPOINTS

A

Courts will consider:

  • Public interest involved,
  • How the interest is advanced,
  • The level of the intrusion,
  • Minimal discretion of officers,
  • AND *
  • Whether the checkpoint is effective.
34
Q

Search and Seizure: SEIZURE

A

A seizure only occurs when LE terminates movement through means intentionally applied.
* A person is only seized if LE use physical force or a display of authority to restrain a person’s liberty.

35
Q

Searches in Recurring Contexts; CALIFORNIA v. ACEVEDO

A

LE may search WITHOUT a warrant if their search IS SUPPORTED by PC
* However, PC to believe that a container placed in the trunk of a vehicle contains contraband or E does NOT JUSTIFY a search of the entire vehicle

36
Q

Inventory Search

A

The state must satisfy three requirements for a warrantless inventory search:
(1) The original impoundment was lawful
(2) The purpose of the search was to protect the property or protect LE from claims of loss and to guard LE from danger
AND
(3) The search was conducted in good faith pursuant to reasonable standardized procedures
→ The procedures should also address the proper treatment of containers

37
Q

DOG SNIFF; Stops

A

If the purpose of a traffic stop has concluded, then LE would be impermissibly extending the stop by allowing the sniff

  • If the traffic stop is happening while the dog walks around the car, that is OK as long as LE is not delaying the traffic stop in order to conduct the sniff
  • COULD HAVE standard, not would have
  • -> Could it have taken that long to write the ticket, or could they have taken a while to write out multiple tickets
  • -> Asking for consent AFTER the ticket is an UNLAWFUL EXTENSION
38
Q

De Facto Arrest

A

Must ordinarily coalesce to constitute a legal arrest:

(1) an intent to arrest
(2) under a real or pretended authority
(3) accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person
* AND *
(4) which would have been understood by a reasonable person being arrested in the same situation.

39
Q

Use of DEADLY FORCE

A

via Garner

  • TN statute permitted “all necessary means to effect an arrest”
  • LE may NOT use deadly force unless necessary to prevent escape and LE has PC to believe the suspect poses a significant threat to LE and others
  • Use of deadly force to prevent escape alone is NOT ENOUGH
  • Apprehension by force is subject to reasonableness
  • Balance to public interest in crime prevention and the intrusion on privacy

Crim Pro (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions