Criminal Flashcards
4A
Under the Fourth Amendment, citizens have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by government actors. The Fourth Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. A search or seizure is unreasonable if government actors have no probable warrant to search property to which citizens’ have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The search or seizure also must not fall into one of the warrantless search exceptions. A warrant is valid if officers’ have probable cause.
Warrantless search exceptions
A warrantless search is valid if made incidental to a lawful arrest.
Under the plain view doctrine, if an item is in plain view of an officer from where he is legally permitted to be, it may be seized without a warrant because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for such an item.
Police are not required to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause that it contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity.
Standing for 4A
The right may only be asserted on behalf of yourself, not others. A defendant cannot successfully challenge governmental conduct as a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures unless the defendant themselves was seized or had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard the the place searched. Overnight guests may have standing to assert the right, but most often one does not have a right to privacy in a third party’s home. As such, it is not enough that the evidence is incriminating.
6A
The Sixth amendment is applied to states through the 14th Amendmnent. The Amendmnet provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right to the assistance of counsel during all critical states of a criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun.
The right is offense specific. If the right to counsel attaches for one charge, he may be questioned without counsel for another. A failure to inform a defendant their lawyer is attempting to see him does not violate the 6th Amendment, other than charges for which judicial proceedings have commenced.
5A
The Fifth Amendment, applied to the states through the 14th Amendmnet, provides that no person may be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. The Supreme Court has helf that to protect this privilege against self incrimination, a person in custody must be given Miranda warnings before a police officer may conduct a custodial interrogation. For the purpose of a Miranda warning, a person is in custody if their freedom of movement is significantly limited and an interrogation is occurring if a government agent’s statement is intended to elicit an incriminating response. A person under arrest is, by definition, in custody. Questioning of a suspect subsequent to an arrest must be preceded by Miranda warnings.
At any point prior or during interrogation, the detainee may invoke Miranda right to counsel. If a detainee invokes this right, all questioning must cease until the detainee is provided with an attorney or initiates questioning themself. The police have no duty to seek clarification in the event of an ambiguous request.
Miranda waiver
A valid Miranda waiver must be knowing and voluntary. Courts look to the totality of the circumstances, but it is probably sufficient if a defendant received Miranda warnings and chose to answer questions. If Miranda warnings are given, a voluntary confession will be admissible even if the police fail to inform the detainee that his lawyer is attempting to see him, so long as adversarial proceedings have not commenced.
2x jeopardy
The Fifth Amendment, applied through the 14th, provides the right to be free of double jeopardy and multiple punishments for the same offense. Two crimes do not constitute the same offense if each crime requires proof of an additional element that the other crime does not, even if some of the facts are necessary to both claims. The clause generally bars successive prosecutions for grater and lesser included offenses.
Err in jury instruction on BoP
The DP of 14A requires in all criminal cases that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A mandatory presumption regarding an element violates the due process clause. This may include ether a conclusive presumption that relieves the prosecution’s burden of proving an element or a rebuttable mandatory presumption that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant violates the 14A requirement that the state prove eveyr element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right to jury
Any fact other than prior conviction used to increase a sentence beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a hury, and established beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant’s right to trial by jury is violated if the judge makes this decision. Failure to abide by this violates a def.’s due process rights under 5A and 6A rights to notice and a jury trial, both incorporated via 14A.
A fact is an element of a crime opposed to a sentencing enhancement when it increases the max sentenc eimposed.
A court should only grant an acquittal when it finds insufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find a defendant guilty. In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears this burden.
Public safety exception
Limited interrogation without Miranda warnings–when intended to protect public safety–fits the public safety exception.
Fruit of poisonous tree as relates to Miranda
Miranda violations do not necessarily support the “fruit of poisonous tree” doctrine with respect to subsequent statements by the defendant. Isolated neglgience will not trigger the exclusionary rule, there must be a scheme to get around Miranda warnings. This is evaluated through examining the totality of the circumstances
Asserting rght to remain silent
Defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statements asserting right to remain silent. Merely remaining silent does not invoke the privilege. Officers must honor the requests. A defendant may knowingly and voluntarily waive his right. The burden is on the government to show the waiver was both knowing and voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances. A statement is involuntary if police coerce the defendant. A suspect waives his right by thus making an uncoerced statement. Once the right to remain silent is invoked, police have no obligation to inform the defendant that counsel is trying to reach him.
Miranda applicability
Miranda warnings only apply to testimonial or compelled communicative evidence by a suspect in custody under interrogation. If a custodial suspect initiates communication after invoking right to counsel, the statements may be admissible. Although comments relating to routine incidents of custody are not considered initiating, statements that clearly indicate a willingness to speak on matters relating to the investigation are treated as initiating communciation.
