Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Due Process > Criminal Due Process Final > Flashcards

Criminal Due Process Final Flashcards

1
Q

Standing

A

When your personal rights are violated

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

T/F; Wolf v. Colorado gave the exclusionary rule to the states

A

False

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

T/F; States cannot have a different application of the law than the USSC

A

False

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

T/F; the USSC hears every case

A

False

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

Criminal Procedure

A

Rules that govern whether a violation of criminal law has occurred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

When ratified, the Bill of Rights…

A

Only intended to limit the federal government

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

You searched my purse and turn over illegal items to the police

A

I can file MTS but will not win

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

The SJC and USSC are similar in that…

A

They both decide what cases they will hear

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

I will not win MTS for your search of my purse because…

A

You are not a government agent

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

Is there a difference between criminal law and criminal procedure?

A

Yes; criminal law defines the rights and obligations of individuals in society, criminal procedure defines individual’s rights during the criminal process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

T/F; States can have rules/laws that differ from a USSC case/ruling

A

True

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

T/F; In California v. Greenwood, garbage placed at a curbside is protected by the 4th Amendment

A

False (intended for a 3rd party)

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

T/F; Standing is automatic for anyone accused of a crim

A

False

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

You tell your best friend all your “secret” illegal activities and she tells the police and you’re arrested, is this legal?

A

This is legal, you have no 4th Amendment protections here because your friend is not a government agent

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

T/F; The exclusionary rule is the remedy for defendants who claim that their 4th Amendment right has been violated

A

True

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

Which Massachusetts court(s) is/are courts of law?

A

SJC and Appellate courts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What are the 4 factors for curtilage?

A

1) The distance from the home to the location
2) Whether the location is in an enclosure surrounding the home
3) The nature of the use to which the location is put
4) The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

T/F; The 4th Amendment only limits governmental action, not private searches and seizures

A

True

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are the sources of procedural law?

A

State constitutions, United State constitution, and the USSC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Which is the highest appellate court in MA?

A

Supreme judicial court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

T/F; Curtilage includes open fields

A

False

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

“Secure in their persons” includes…

A

A person’s body head-toe, internal body (blood, DNA, saliva, etc.), and the clothing on a person’s body

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

T/F; “No trespass” signs on a property are enough to establish curtilage

A

False

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

The 4th Amendment applies when…

A

A search occurs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

The current test(s) to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy

A

The trespass doctrine and Katz 2-part test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

4th Amendment

A

Protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Kyllo vs. United States

A
  • Agent suspects Kyllo of growing marijuana in his triplex in Oregon
  • Agent uses a thermal imager (detects infrared radiation) across the street from his car at 3 am in January
  • Detects heat needed for grow lamps
  • Uses this info plus other tips to get a warrant; searches Kyllo’s home, finds marijuana, arrests him
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Kyllo Issue

A

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street constitute a search with the meaning of the 4th A?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Kyllo Holding

A

The use of a thermal imager does constitute a search; Kyllow wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Kyllo Reasoning

A

Thermal imager is “sense enhancing technology” that cannot be obtained by the general public, therefore this info could not have been found without a physical intrusion; relies on Katz 2-part test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Katz vs. United States

A
  • Katz is suspected of transmitting gambling info over the phone in a phone booth
  • Federal agents attach a recording device to the outside of the phone booth
  • Recordings are used to indict Katz
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Katz Issue

A

Is the placement of a recording device on the outside of a phonebooth considered to be a “search” under the 4th Amendment?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Katz Holding

A

The placement of the recording device on the phone booth is considered a search; Katz wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Katz Reasoning

A
  • Katz closed the door behind him, it’s an enclosed space, so he expected to not be heard
  • The 4th Amendment extends any time a person has an expectation of privacy that is both subjective and objectively reasonable in the eyes of a majority
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What does the USSC say about Kat’s claim that the phone booth was constitutionally protected?

A

There’s no such this as a constitutionally protected area, the 4th Amendment protects people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Katz 2-Part Test

A

1) A person has to have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy
2) The expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
An AND test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Curtilage

A

The area immediately surrounding a dwelling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Criminal Law

A

A system of laws concerned with crimes and the punishment of individuals who commit crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Smith v. Maryland

A
  • McDonough is robbed by Smith and gives a description of Smith and the Monte Carlo he was driving to police
  • McDonough receives threatening phone calls from Smith
  • Police ask phone company to record the numbers dialed from the phone at Smith’s house using a pen register
  • Pen register records calls from Smith’s to McDonough’s
  • Police go to Smith’s and find a phone book with the page tabbed to McDonough’s number
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Smith Issue

A

Did the use of a pen register without a warrant violate the 4th A protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Smith Holding

A

The use of a pen register without a warrant violate did not the 4th Amendment; Smith loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Smith Reasoning

A

The numbers Smith dials are shared with a 3rd party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Wolf v. Colorado

A
  • Law enforcement breaks into Wolf’s office and copied medical records indicating he was conspiring to perform abortions
  • Wolf objected to evidence material that would be considered inadmissible in federal court
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Wolf Issue

A

Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the 4th and 14th Amendments?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Wolf Holding

A

The 4th Amendment now applies to the states; Wolf still loses because the courts do not provide him any remedy to exclude the evidence because USSC leaves it to states to decide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Wolf Reasoning

A

If this happened in the federal courts there would be no question that is was an illegal search

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Courts of Law

A

Only hear cases where an error of law is alleged; no witnesses, juries, or testimony; strictly determine of there was an error of law (Supreme Judicial Court and Appellate Court)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Trial Courts

A

Where trials are conducted and witness testimony is heard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Supreme Court

A

The highest judicial court in a country or state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Rakas v. Illinois

A
  • Robbery occurs, witnesses give a description of a car
  • Car is stopped; rifle shells and 2 rifles are found, everyone in the car is arrested
  • Rakas and other passengers claim they didn’t own car, rifles, or shells, but the evidence should still be suppressed for them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Rakas Issue

A

Did the police violate Rakas’ 4th Amendment rights by searching a car in which he was the passenger?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Rakas Holding

A

Police did not violate Rakas’ rights; Rakas Loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Rakas Reasoning

A

Rakas did not show any legal expectation of privacy in the car, with the guns, with the ammunition; no standing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Motion to Suppress

A

A way to exclude evidence that the police got illegally; defendant has to sign an affidavit that he/she states his/her expectation of privacy; information cannot be used against them later

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

MA court structure (highest to lowest)

A

Supreme Judicial Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court, District Court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

California v. Greenwood

A
  • Greenwood is suspected of selling drugs from his home
  • Police ask the trash company to set aside the garbage Greenwood leaves at the curb
  • Police find evidence of drug use in Greenwood’s trash, used to obtain a warrant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Greenwood Issue

A

Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood’s garbage violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unjustified search and seizure?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Greenwood Holding

A

The search and seizure of Greenwood’s garbage did not violate the 4th Amendment; Greenwood loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Greenwood Reasoning

A

Greenwood did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the garbage was intended for a 3rd party and the curb is not considered curtilage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Duncan v. Louisiana

A
  • Duncan, Black teen, accused of assaulting a white boy
  • Duncan request a jury trial, request is denied because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases where capital punishment OR imprisonment at hard labor is on the table
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Duncan Issue

A

Is the 6th Amendment right to jury trial applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Duncan Holding

A

The 6th Amendment’s right to jury trial is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment; Duncan wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Duncan Reasoning

A
  • If this happened in federal court this wouldn’t have even been a question/issue
  • 6th Amendment is a “fundamental bedrock” of law and inherent in the American scheme of justice, intended to protect people from the government
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

United States v. Jones

A
  • Jones is suspected of selling drugs
  • Police attach a GPS tracker to Jones’ car and use it to follow him for months
  • Use the data as evidence to convict him
  • Lower court decides to suppress the data obtained while the car was parked at Jones’ residence but allows all other data
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Jones Issue

A

Does the use of a GPS tracker attached to a vehicle and the subsequent use of that GPS to monitor a vehicle’s movements on public streets constitute a search/seizure according to the 4th Amendment?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Jones Holding?

A

The use of a GPS tracker attached to a vehicle does constitute a search; Jones wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Jones Reasoning

A

Under the common-law trespassory test, the Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Silverthorne v. United States

A
  • Silverthornes are arrested on a single charge for company tax trouble
  • Govt holds them in custody while federal law enforcement goes to their office and seize company documents and financial books without any legal authority/warrant; documents are photocopied
  • Silverthorne is released and petitions the court for the return of the illegally seized documents
  • District attorney says they found evidence of more crimes in the photocopied documents and frame a new indictment based on new knowledge
  • Court orders the return of the original documents from Silverthorne and gets rid of photocopies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Silverthorne Issue

A

Can the government use the photocopies made of the illegally seized evidence to frame a new indictment?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Silverthorne Holding

A

The government cannot use the photocopies; Silverthorne wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Silverthorne Reasoning

A

The government obtained the company papers by illegal means, therefore it could not use the knowledge gained from its wrongs to frame a new indictment and use the evidence in a prosecution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Weeks v. United States

A
  • Weeks is suspected of transporting lottery tickets in the mail
  • LOCAL police enter Weeks’ home without a warrant, search the home, and take possession of various papers and articles
  • Info and evidence gathered by local police is then turned over to US Marshal
  • Marshal goes to the home and takes more letters and envelopes found in a drawer WITHOUT A WARRANT
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Weeks Issue

A

Did the search and seizure of Weeks’ home violate the 4th Amendment and should Weeks’ papers be allowed as evidence?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Weeks Holding

A

Weeks both wins and loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Weeks Reasoning

A

Search 1 - papers are allowed as evidence because the 4th A at the time does not apply to state and local police
Search 2 - Weeks gets his papers back for the second search only because it was conducted by a federal bad actor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Mapp v. Ohio

A
  • 3 police officers arrive at Mapp’s home looking for a bomb fugitive
  • Police demand entry but Mapp denies unless they can produce a warrant, which they cannot, so they leave
  • Police return 3 hours later with 4 more officers and try to enter Mapp’s home again, still without a warrant; Mapp does not answer immediately so officers forcibly enter
  • Mapp demands to see a warrant; an officer holds up a piece of paper he claims to be a warrant; Mapp shoves the warrant down her shirt which the officer forcibly removes and then handcuffs Mapp
  • Police proceed to search pretty much everywhere; they find 4 “obscene” books and several “obscene” sketches
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Mapp Issue

A

Can illegally seized evidence be used in a STATE criminal trial?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Mapp Holding

A

Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a state criminal trial; Mapp wins (ER is now applicable to states)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Mapp Reasoning

A
  1. Maintaining judicial integrity (compelling respect for the constitution; if someone goes free it’ll be because the law says they’re free)
  2. Deterrence (deter police officers from commiting 4th A violations at the state level)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Florida v. Jardines

A
  • Police receive and unverified Crime Stoppers tip that Jardines was growing marijuana at his home; a month passes between receiving the tip and doing something about it
  • Police bring drug-sniffing dog to Jardine’s front porch where the dog gave a positive alert for narcotics
  • Police obtain a warrant for a search which revealed marijuana plants
  • Different from Place because the sniff takes place at the home vs in public
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

Jardines Issue

A

Is a dog sniff at the front porch of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog a 4th A search requiring probable cause?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

Jardines Holding

A

Yes, it is a search and requires probable cause; Jardines wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Jardines Reasoning

A
  • The dog sniffing the base of the front door gives the police information about the inside of the house that they otherwise would not have had unless they entered the house (akin to Kyllo)
  • The police and dog also physically trespassed on Jardines’ porch so it’s automatically a search (trespass doctrine)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Rodriguez v. United States

A
  • Officer stops Rodriguez for driving on highway shoulder, checks the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passengers, and issues a warning
  • Officer then asks to walk his K-9 around the vehicle; Rodriguez refuses
  • Officer detains Rodriguez until another officer arrives and retrieves his K-9 who alerts to the presence of drugs
  • 7-8 minutes elapsed between the officer issuing the warning and the dog alerting
  • Officer searches the vehicle which turns up methamphetamine
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

Rodriguez Issue

A

Is the use of a K-9 unit, after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a violation of the 4th A prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

Rodriguez Holding

A

Yes, it is a violation to use a K-9 unit after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; Rodriguez wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Rodriguez Reasoning

A
  • The mission of the stop determines its allowable duration, therefore the authority of the stop ends when the mission has been accomplished
  • A seizure unrelated to the reason for the stop is lawful only so long as it does not measurably extend the duration of the stop
  • Unduly delay in MA is an hour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

United States v. Place

A
  • Place, at an airport, alerts the suspicion of drug agents who believed he was carrying narcotics based on his behavior and discrepancies in his luggage tags
  • Place agrees to a search of his bags but his plane was about to leave so agents refuse to search; instead relay this info to agents at Place’s destination airport
  • Agents meet Place at destination and seize bags without his consent
  • Bags subjected to “sniff” test by drug dogs 90 minutes after the seizure; dog signals to presence of controlled substances
  • Agents obtain a warrant and find cocaine in one of the bags
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

Place Issue

A

Did the “sniff test” by the dog constitute a search?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

Place Holding

A

No, the “sniff test” did not constitute a search; Place loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

Place Reasoning

A
  • The investigative technique is far less intrusive than a full-on search; they didn’t open the luggage, it was less of an embarassment/public inconvenience, and it was limited in both manner and content revealed from the procedure
  • IN A PUBLIC AREA
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

Rochin v. California

A
  • Police obtain info that Rochin was selling narcotics and enter his house without a warrant
  • Rochin is in bed with his wife; swallows capsules containing morphine to dispose of evidence
  • Officers tackle Rochin and attempt to extract the capsules by force; unsuccessful, they handcuff him and take him to the hospital where doctors are instructed by police to pump Rochin’s stomach against his will
  • Capsules were obtained and used to convict Rochin
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

Rochin Issue

A

Is forcing Rochin to vomit to obtain the capsules considered a search by the 4th A, making the evidence inadmissible?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

Rochin Holding

A

Yes, this is a search and the evidence is inadmissible; Rochin wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

Rochin Reasoning

A
  • Police officers violated the defendant’s privacy, and the court found no difference between a verbal confession obtained by physical abuse and a confession taken from the defendant’s body by physical abuse
  • ER does not apply to states yet, Court instead uses the Shocks the Conscience test (determines which situations are so unjust or wrong that the court must intervene)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

Byars v. United States

A
  • Federal agents invited to execute a search warrant secured by Iowa police to search for illegal alcoholic beverages (prohibition)
  • Agent found strip stamps in Byars’ home (indicate that alcohol has been purchased)
  • Stamps admitted as evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

Byars Issue

A

Were the stamps obtained illegally according to the 4th Amendment?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

Byars Holding

A

Yes, the stamps were obtained illegally; Byars wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

Byars Reasoning

A
  • A federal agent conducted the search alongside local police, so the 4th Amendment applies
  • Local police can no longer participate in Silver Platter Doctrine
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

Silver Platter Doctrine

A

Allowed local police to be free to conduct unreasonable/illegal searches and seizures and then deliver the evidence to the federal prosecutors/police “on a silver platter” because the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to local police until Mapp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
101
Q

Exclusionary Rule

A
  • A law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial
  • The remedy for defendants who claim that their 4th Amendment right has been violated
  • Extended to states in Mapp
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
102
Q

Wong Sun v. United States

A
  • Hom Way arrested for possession of heroin → Way tells police that “Blackie Toy” sold him heroin and takes them to his laundromat
  • Police find James Wah Toy and arrest him w/ no indication of “Blackie” → Toy says he doesn’t sell but Johnny Yee does, takes police to him
  • Yee is arrested and several tubes of heroin taken → Yee says he got heroin from “Sea Dog” and Toy says he’ll take them there
  • Sun’s wife answers the door (Sun is asleep) and 6 officers come inside, handcuff Sun, search the house and find nothing
  • Toy, Yee, and Sun all arrested and released, then agents call them 3 days later to come back to station and they all go, waive all their rights, and give statements (Sun confirms accuracy but doesn’t sign)
  • Sun is convicted of heroin possession and appeals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
103
Q

Wong Sun Issue

A

Should certain pieces of evidence have been admitted against Sun?—statements made orally by Toy in his bedroom, heroin surrendered by Yee, Toy’s unsigned statement, Sun’s unsigned statement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
104
Q

Wong Sun Holding

A

Toy’s statement and the heroin surrendered by Yee cannot be used as evidence, however, Sun’s statement CAN

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
105
Q

Wong Sun Reasoning

A

Toy’s statement and the heroin are pieces of evidence obtained directly following police illegality (unjustified arrests) so they are considered fruit; Sun going back to the station and giving a statement was an act of free will so it is attenuated from the initial illegality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
106
Q

Brown v. Illinois

A

Establishes 4 factors that you must look at when deciding dissipation of the taint

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
107
Q

United States v. Ceccolini

A
  • Police conduct an unlawful search of a coat pocket and a name is found in the pocket (witness)
  • Police talk to witness and ask about Ceccolini’s crime, witness says they know about it and are willing to testify
  • Ceccolini says the witness should be excluded because their name was found in an illegal search
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
108
Q

Ceccolini Issue

A

Should the witness’s testimony be suppressed?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
109
Q

Ceccolini Holding

A

No, testimony should not be suppressed; Ceccolini loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
110
Q

Ceccolini Reasoning

A
  • There was sufficient attenuation between the officer’s unconstitutional search and the witness’s testimony
  • The cost of excluding a live witness outweighs the deterrent effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
111
Q

Herring v. United States

A
  • Herring (a frequent flyer) has his truck impounded and goes to the lot get something from it
  • Officer recognizes him and asks the county clerk to run his name through the system
  • There’s a warrant for Herring’s arrest in a neighboring county and officer asks them to fax it over
  • Later found the warrant should have been removed 5 months earlier (negligent bookkeeping error)
  • Herring is apprehended and his car is searched → police discover meth in Herring’s pocket and a gun under the front seat
  • Officer searches and arrests Herring WITH A WARRANT, but the warrant is invalid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
112
Q

Herring Issue

A

Is Herring’s arrest a violation of the 4th Amendment and if it is, does the exclusionary rule apply?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
113
Q

Herring Holding

A

Arrest is a violation but the ER does not apply; Herring loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
114
Q

Herring Reasoning

A
  • The unlawful search was the result of isolated negligence, not a systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements (the level of police misconduct is very minimal)
  • The only thing the application of ER would deter police from is running warrants before arresting; there is no appreciable deterrent in effect here
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
115
Q

Hudson v. Michigan

A
  • Police have “knock and announce” search warrant to search Hudson’s home
  • Police failed to knock and announce but entered anyway
  • Find cocaine and a gun in the home, convicted of drug and firearm possession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
116
Q

Hudson Issue

A

Does the Exclusionary Rule extend to the “knock and announce” rule?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
117
Q

Hudson Holding

A

No, it does not apply; Hudson loses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
118
Q

Hudson Reasoning

A
  • USSC is cautious extending ER that far because the police actually had a warrant
  • The cost of applying ER to knock and announce is too big of a risk
  • The deterrent benefit here would substantially outweigh the societal cost (defendants would just say police didn’t knock)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
119
Q

Aguilar v. Texas

A
  • Police submit an affidavit for a search warrant at Aguilar’s home which says they were told there’s drugs in the home (receive warrant)
  • Aguilar said the police didn’t have probable cause for the warrant
120
Q

Aguilar Issue

A

Did the affidavit given by the police officers provide sufficient basis for finding probable cause and issuing the search warrant?

121
Q

Aguilar Holding

A

No it did not; Aguilar wins

122
Q

Aguilar Reasoning

A
  • The affidavit did not provide any basis for the determination that PC existed
  • Just the police making the conclusory statement that the info they received was reliable was not enough
123
Q

Aguilar 2-Part Probable Cause Test

A
  1. The police have to provide some underlying basis of knowledge to how the informant knows the information they’re sharing
  2. The police have to show in the affidavit that the informant displays credibility, veracity, and reliability by showing that the informant has been used before and that the information has been truthful/accurate
    - Show those 2 things, you have probable cause
124
Q

Draper v. United States

A
  • Federal narcotics agent is told by a paid informant that Draper was dealing drugs in Denver
  • Informant tells agent that Draper went to Chicago to pick up heroin and would be returning on 9/8 or 9/9, and gives a detailed description of Draper and the bag he’d be carrying
  • 9/9: agent sees a person matching description exit a train from Chicago
  • Agent stops and arrests Draper and finds 2 envelopes of drugs and syringe on his person
125
Q

Draper Issue

A

Does knowledge provided by an informant give the police probable cause under the 4th Amendment to arrest and search a suspect?

126
Q

Draper Holding

A

Yes, it gives police PC; Draper loses

127
Q

Draper Reasoning

A
  • Evidence required to show PC is not to the same standard as evidence required to prove guilt in trial
  • The information the informant gave the agent would be inadmissible as hearsay at trial, but it may still be relied upon as PC for a search and arrest
128
Q

Spinelli v. United States

A
  • FBI issues a search warrant to assist in uncovering evidence of Spinelli conducting illegal gambling activities
  • Affidavit contains 4 items the Court looked at to determine PC:
    1. Police surveillance (saw Spinelli travel to and from and apartment, park his car, and enter)
    2. Phones (apartment had 2 phones with different numbers listed in the name of someone other than Spinelli)
    3. Spinelli’s reputation (known to law enforcement as a bookmaker and gambler)
    4. A reliable informant (informed the FBI that Spinelli was operating a handbook and accepting wagers and sharing wagering info via the 2 phones)
129
Q

Spinelli Issue

A

Did the affidavit included in the warrant application afford probable cause sufficient to issue the search warrant? (informant specifically)

130
Q

Spinelli Holding

A

No it did not; Spinelli wins

131
Q

Spinelli Reasoning

A
  • The police officers did not provide a basis of knowledge of how the informant knows their information OR the credibility, veracity, and reliability of their informant
  • The other 3 items in the affidavit were NOT “self-verifying” that they filled in the other deficiencies
132
Q

Probable Cause

A

Standard for arrest/search warrants where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief that a crime has been committed

133
Q

Types of situations in which probable cause is needed

A
  • Police apply for an arrest/search warrant (must be based on PC)
  • When police conduct a warrantless search or arrest (must have PC before they do so)
134
Q

Illinois v. Gates

A
  • Police receive an anonymous letter saying that the Gates are selling drugs out of their home
  • Police observe the Gates’ smuggling operation in action and obtain a warrant
  • Search the Gates’ car and home and uncover 350 lbs of marijuana, weapons, and other contraband
135
Q

Gates Issue

A

Did the search of the Gates’ home violate the 4th Amendment because the tip was unverified?

136
Q

Gates Holding

A

No, the search did not violate the 4th Amendment; Gates loses

137
Q

Gates Reasoning

A
  • Basis of knowledge and an informant’s credibility, veracity, and reliability are important in determining PC, but they should not be rigidly applied
  • Applies “Totality of Circumstances”
138
Q

Totality of Circumstances

A

PC decisions are based on all available information rather than the bright-line rule of Aguilar-Spinelli

139
Q

Atwater v. Lago Vista

A
  • Attwater driving a pickup truck without a seatbelt with her 3 y/o son and 5 y/o daughter, also without seatbelts (misdemeanor in TX punishable only by a fine)
  • Officer pulls her over and arrests her—had stopped her before for the same thing and let her go but not this time
  • Atwater said arrest violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
  • Court of Appeals said officer had probable cause
140
Q

Atwater Issue

A

Does the 4th A limit a police officer’s authority to arrest without a warrant for minor criminal offenses?

141
Q

Atwater Holding

A

No, the arrest was legal; Atwater loses

142
Q

Atwater Reasoning

A
  • If an officer has PC to believe a person has committed even a MINOR criminal offense in their presence, they may arrest the offender without a warrant
  • Atwater is a Bright Line rule
143
Q

United States v. Watson

A
  • Postal inspector received information from an informant that Watson had stolen credit cards—provided inspector with reliable information in the past
  • Postal Inspectors arrested Watson in a restaurant for stolen credit cards via a federal statute that allowed that type of arrest
  • Officers did not find cards on his person—asked to search his car, Watson gave permission; found 2 stolen cards
  • Had probable cause, did not have a warrant—Watson moved to suppress evidence because there was no warrant
144
Q

Watson Issue

A

Was the statue that allowed for Watson’s public arrest with probable cause but without an arrest warrant constitutional?

145
Q

Watson Holding

A

Yes, it was constitutional; Watson loses

146
Q

Watson Reasoning

A
  • Congress granted the power to execute an arrest without a warrant when there’s PC to several federal agencies, not just the postal service
  • Largely based on history
  • Since public arrests were permitted in common law, the rule remains intact
  • Those types of arrests were historically allowed
147
Q

Payton v. NY (1980) & Riddick v. NY (1980)

A

Payton:
- Police officers established PC against defendant in a murder case and went to defendant’s apartment to arrest him
- Officers enter without a warrant and Payton wasn’t there, but officers found incriminating evidence in plain view that was admitted at defendant’s trial
- Sought to suppress the evidence seized without a valid warrant
Riddick:
- Police officers enter the home without a warrant and find narcotics in a dresser
- Sought to suppress the evidence seized without a valid warrant

148
Q

Payton/Riddick Issue

A

Were the warrantless entries valid?

149
Q

Payton/Riddick Holding

A

No, they were not valid; Payton/Riddick win

150
Q

Payton/Riddick Reasoning

A
  • Court looks to the history of the law
  • Here, an arrest warrant was required—the 4th A prohibits non consensual entries into the home
  • Watson and Payton now provide 2 separate rules:
    1. Payton = home; didn’t have a warrant and
    home is at the top of the food chain
    2. Watson = public
151
Q

United States v. Santana

A
  • Known drug dealer agreed to sell heroin to an undercover officer
  • Officer drove the drug dealer to Santana’s home, took the money from the officer, and entered the home
  • Money “marked” so it could be tracked
  • Drug dealer returns with heroin and is arrested
  • Officers enter Santana’s home and she’s standing in the doorway holding a paper bag—officers approach and she retreated into her house where they capture her
  • In the struggle heroin falls from the paper bag and she was found to be carrying the marked money
  • MTS heroin and marked money
152
Q

Santana Issue

A

Did the warrantless arrest of Santana violate the 4th A?

153
Q

Santana Holding

A

No, it did not violate the 4th A; Santana loses

154
Q

Santana Reasoning

A
  • Santana, being in the threshold of her home, was in a public place when the police, acting on probable cause, first sought to arrest her, and such a warrantless arrest would not have violated the 4th A
  • Standing in the doorway of your home is a PUBLIC PLACE
155
Q

How does Santana impact/align with the Payton holding?

A

Creates a divide between the doorway and the rest of the home

156
Q

T/F - The exclusionary rule only applies to direct evidence of an illegal search

A

False

157
Q

T/F - There has to be probable cause even when an officer acts without a warrant

A

True

158
Q

T/F - When an officer applies for a search or arrest warrant, he must have/show probable cause

A

True

159
Q

T/F - Gates overruled Aguilar/Spinelli

A

True

160
Q

The poisonous tree

A

The illegal act(s) by the police

161
Q

Is it possible to spend time in jail for an offense you might not actually go to jail for?

A

Yes, because the Supreme Court makes no distinction

162
Q

Can you be arrested for minor criminal offenses?

A

Yes, because USSC said in Atwater (bright line rule) you can

163
Q

T/F - Courts in MA still use the Aguilar-Spinelli test

A

True

164
Q

US v. Steagald - Was the arrest/seizure of evidence legal?

A

No, because his 4th A rights were not protected

165
Q

T/F - The police cannot arrest Joe in Patty’s home without an arrest and search warrant

A

True

166
Q

Can an officer arrest someone in public place with probable cause but without a warrant

A

Yes, even if they had time to get a warrant, and according to US v. Watson

167
Q

T/F - An arrest warrant is required for an in home arrest, absent acceptions

A

True

168
Q

T/F - Your warrantless arrest in the doorway of your home, does not violate the 4th Amendment per the USSC

A

True, if an officer has probable cause

169
Q

T/F - Santana’s warrantless arrest in your doorway is also applied in MA

A

False

170
Q

The case that held the law in MA about warrantless arrests in your doorway is

A

Commonwealth v. Marquez

171
Q

T/F - Wong Sun v. US held that all evidence seized illegally is excluded

A

False

172
Q

If an arrest is invalid/illegal, what is the consequence?

A

The evidence resulting from the arrest is thrown out

173
Q

The authority under an arrest warrant is limited to

A

Where the suspect lives, if there is a reasonable belief that he/she is there

174
Q

4 requirements of search warrants

A
  1. Supported by probable cause
  2. Approved by a neutral and detached magistrate (not in 4th A)
  3. Officer swears under oath and affirmation that what he has written in his Affidavit is true
  4. Particularly describe what is to be searched and seized (particularity requirement)
175
Q

2 parts of the particularity requirement

A
  1. Place to be searched—must describe with sufficient clarity
  2. Persons or things to be seized—must describe with sufficiency so that the seizure is not left to the discretion of the officers executing the warrant
176
Q

Lo-Ji v. New York

A
  • NY state police bought and viewed 2 films from Lo-Ji Sales, Inc.’s Adult Store and brought them to Town Justice to watch as an “affidavit” and TJ determined that they violated state obscenity laws
  • TJ issued a warrant for the search of the store and seizure of other copies of the 2 films and included an open-ended clause so any items found could be added later (no particularity)
  • TJ goes as well to determine on-scene if items were “obscene”
  • During the search, store clerk arrested and TJ viewed several videos, books, and other materials and determined that they were obscene—police seized all these materials, took inventory and filled out the open ended warrant
177
Q

Lo-Ji Issue

A

Did the search of the adult bookstore with an open-ended warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?

178
Q

Lo-Ji Holding

A

Yes, the search did violate the 4th A; Lo-Ji wins

179
Q

Lo-Ji Reasoning

A
  • The warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized and left it entirely to the discretion of officials conducting the search
  • This is exactly what this clause is supposed to protect against—protects against general warrants
  • TJ was anything but neutral and detached; basically another officer
  • The 2 initial films were allowed because they were always in the affidavit
180
Q

Illinois v. McArthur

A
  • Police had reason to believe McArthur had drugs in his trailer—went there and asked permission to search, McArthur said no
  • One officer stayed at the trailer and another went to get the warrant—drugs are easily disposable, if officers left there could’ve been an exigency
  • Officer who stayed told McArthur that he couldn’t go back into the house without the officer being present
  • McArthur went back in a few times with the officer present and then the warrant came, they search and drugs were found
181
Q

McArthur Issue

A

Was the restraint on McArthur from entering his home unaccompanied by an officer while the police obtained a search warrant lawful?

182
Q

McArthur Holding

A

Yes, the restrain was lawful; McArthur loses

183
Q

McArthur Reasoning

A
  • Because of the cumulative circumstances, the police action here was reasonable
  • Police had PC to believe there was contraband there
  • Police had good reason to fear unless he was watched, McArthur would destroy the drugs
  • Police made reasonable efforts to reconcile law enforcement needs with the demands of his personal privacy
  • NOT a bright line rule
  • RULE: A temporary seizure supported by PC designed to protect the loss of evidence while police obtain a warrant for a reasonable amount of time is permissible
184
Q

Time of execution of search warrant

A

Search warrant must be executed within 7 days of issuance in MA

185
Q

US v. Banks (2004)

A
  • Police went to Banks’ house with a search warrant, knocked, announced, and waited 15-20 seconds
  • No answer—battery rammed his windows
  • Banks was in the shower
186
Q

Banks Issue

A

By only waiting 15-20 seconds before breaking open the door of defendant’s apartment, did the police officers violate defendant’s constitutional rights?

187
Q

Banks Holding

A

No, only waiting 15-20 seconds was not a violation; Banks loses

188
Q

Banks Reasoning

A
  • Close call, but police could have believed that had they not entered the drugs would have been destroyed
  • Allows for a pretty rapid entry by force after warning given if police reasonably suspect that exigent circumstances require entry—drug cases probably
    always do (drugs are easy to be destroyed quickly)
189
Q

Who can be searched when a search warrant is executed?

A

Search warrant may authorize a named individual as long as probable cause exists to search the person as well as “all persons present”—Ybarra v. IL says all persons present still have individual 4th A protection

190
Q

What do most exceptions to search warrants rely on?

A

Exigent circumstances

191
Q

General rules to exigencies and exceptions allowing for warrantless actions

A
  1. Police believe evidence will be destroyed or the
    suspect will flee
  2. Exigency limits the scope of the search
  3. The warrantless action ends when the exigency
    ends
  4. Warrantless actions still require probable cause
192
Q

Warden v. Hayden

A
  • Hayden is an armed robber that robs a cab
    company, takes $363
  • Over the radios, drivers give dispatcher a
    description of Hayden and where he went (into a
    house)—dispatcher gives info to police
  • Police didn’t know at the time that Hayden’s wife
    let him in the house—him being armed and
    entering a house creates an exigency
  • Police enter home and search for Hayden and find
    him in a 3rd floor bedroom feigning sleep
  • Hear running water in an adjoining bathroom so
    police keep searching, finding a firearm in the
    toilet tank
193
Q

Hayden Issue

A

Was the warrantless search of the home valid?

194
Q

Hayden Holding

A

Yes, the search was valid; Hayden loses

195
Q

Hayden Reasoning

A
  • Finding Hayden was not the end of the exigency,
    as he was an armed robber and they had not
    found the weapon
  • Hayden would have fled/evidence would have
    been destroyed, the scope of the search was
    justified, police stopped search once the exigency
    ended, and there was probable cause
196
Q

Search incident to lawful arrest (SILA)

A

An exception to search warrants that allows an officer who makes a lawful custodial arrest to conduct a contemporaneous* (at the same time) warrantless search of:
1. The arrestee’s person
2. The area within the arrestee’s immediate control
3. Closets and other spaces immediately adjoining
the place of arrest, if the arrest occurred in the home

197
Q

Breakdown of SILA rationale

A

Officer safety and preservation of evidence

198
Q

Chimel v. CA

A
  • Police enter Chimel’s home with an arrest warrant
    for the alleged burglary of a coin store
  • Chimel returns from work, police arrest him
  • Police then ask permission to “look around”—
    Chimel objects, police search anyways they say
    based on their warrant
  • Police search the entire house and have Chimel’s wife
    open drawers and physically remove contents so
    they could view the items
  • Police seized coins and medals, among other things, that were later used to convict Chimel of burglary
199
Q

Chimel Issue

A

Was this a valid search incident to lawful arrest by police lawful?

200
Q

Chimel Holding

A

No, it was not a valid SILA; Chimel wins

201
Q

Chimel Reasoning

A
  • The search was not just of his person, area within
    his immediate control, or area adjoining (exceeded the scope of a lawful SILA)
  • USSC says this is similar to a general warrant—
    the reason the 4th A came about in the first place
202
Q

Riley v. CA (2014) & Wurie v. Comm of MA (2014)

A

Riley:
- Riley stopped for traffic violation, police find he’s
driving with an expired license
- Car impounded and searched where firearms are
found in a hidden compartment—Riley arrested
- Officer searching Riley incident to arrest seized a
smart phone from Riley’s pants pocket
- Officer accessed info on phone and noticed
repeated use of a term associated with a street
gang
- At station 2 hours later, detective specializing in
gangs examined phone’s contents—based on
photographs and videos found Riley was charged
in connection to a shooting that had occurred a
few weeks earlier
Wurie:
- Wurie arrested after police observed him
participate in an apparent drug sale
- Officers seized a flip phone from Wurie at the
station—noticed phone was receiving multiple
calls from “my house”
- Officers opened phone, accessed call log,
determined number associated with “my house,”
and traced number to Wurie’s suspected
apartment
- Secured SW for apartment and found drugs,
firearms and ammunition, and cash

203
Q

Riley/Wurie Issue

A

Were the warrantless searches of cell phones conducted incident to a lawful arrest considered “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment?

204
Q

Riley/Wurie Holding

A

No, the searches of the cell phones were not reasonable; Riley and Wurie win

205
Q

Rile/Wurie Reasoning

A
  • The searches of the cell phones neither protected
    officer safety or preserved evidence
  • Absent exigent circumstances, police have to get
    a warrant to search your cell phone
  • Police could have preserved the evidence while
    awaiting the warrant
  • Now, police may not, without a warrant, search
    digital information on a cell phone incident to a
    lawful arrest
206
Q

Does SILA apply to cell phones based on Chimel?

A
  • No—it does not ensure officer safety or help to preserve evidence
  • Officer safety—can seize phones and run hands
    around it, take out of case to see if there’s
    something dangerous in case
  • Preserving evidence—govt argues that evidence
    could be encrypted or erased by 3rd party; USSC
    says maybe, but actions of 3rd party don’t apply to
    SILA
207
Q

NY v. Belton (1981)

A
  • Belton was a passenger in an automobile that sped by a police officer
  • Officer stopped the car, smelled marijuana, and saw an envelope on the car floor marked with a name for marijuana
  • Officer required occupants out of the vehicle and proceeded to search them
  • Opened the envelope and found marijuana
  • Searched Belton’s jacket and found cocaine
208
Q

Belton Issue

A

Were the warrantless searches of the jacket pocket and the containers in the car lawful after the occupants had exited the car and been placed under arrest based on SILA?

209
Q

Belton Holding

A

Yes, the searches of the jacket and the car containers were lawful; Belton loses

210
Q

Belton Reasoning

A
  • Although it wasn’t within their physical immediate
    control after being arrested, USSC says it is within
    their immediate control because they were
    occupants in the car
  • Belton becomes a bright line rule—applicable to all SILA in a vehicle
  • MA adopts a wingspan test of determining what
    is/isn’t within an arrestee’s immediate control (not
    literal reaching, but whether a suspect could
    reach/grab)
211
Q

AZ v. Gant

A
  • Police looking for someone at a home and Gant answers the door, people they want to arrest aren’t home
  • Police leave, run his name, and see he has a suspended license
  • Go back to same house to arrest original people—
    see Gant driving into the driveway and know he has a suspended license
  • After Gant was handcuffed and put in a squad car, his vehicle was searched—a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine were discovered in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat
212
Q

Gant Issue

A

Was the search of Gant’s jacket incident to a lawful arrest?

213
Q

Gant Holding

A

No, the search was not SILA; Gant wins

214
Q

Gant Reasoning

A
  • There was no issue of officer safety
  • The evidence they were looking for was the
    suspended license which was probably on Gant’s
    person—no need to search the car
  • The car was no longer in Gant’s immediate
    control, and he could not destroy evidence—he
    was handcuffed in the back of the cruiser
  • Gant rejects Belton for being too broad and
    returns to the traditional reasoning of Chimel—
    officer safety and preservation of evidence
  • Limits SILA created in Belton, as now the arrestee
    must be unsecured, must be in reaching distance
    of the passenger compartment, and the officer
    must have evidentiary reason to search
215
Q

Motor vehicle exception to search warrants

A
  • An officer may conduct a warrantless search of a
    car at the scene that he has probable cause to
    believe contains evidence of a crime
  • Police may also seize a car even if they have time
    to get a warrant when they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle itself constituted
    evidence (i.e., was used in the commission of a
    crime)
  • Officer may also conduct a warrantless search of
    a motor vehicle away from the scene of the crime
    BUT there is a time restriction—what is deemed
    reasonable is a case-by-case basis
  • The general rules of exigencies still apply
  • Police are limited to areas in which the item can
    reasonably be found
  • Cannot search OG trunk
216
Q

Chambers v. Maroney

A
  • Gulf service station was robbed by 2 men who
    each displayed a gun and told the attendant to put
    change in a glove
  • 2 teens had noticed their blue station wagon and
    saw it speed away around the same time they
    heard of the robbery—reported to police: 4 men in
    the station wagon, 1 wearing a green sweater
  • Gulf cashier said the 1 was wearing a green
    sweater and the other a trench coat
  • Description broadcast over police radio and within
    1hr, a light blue station wagon matching
    description and carrying 4 men was stopped by
    police ~2 miles from a service station
  • Chambers (petitioner) is in the car wearing a
    green sweater, and trench coat also in the car
  • Occupants were arrested and the car is driven to
    the police station
  • The car was searched at the station—found
    concealed compartment under the dashboard with
    2 .38-caliber revolvers, a right-hand glove
    containing change, and cards IDing an attendant at another service station who had recently been
    robbed at gunpoint
217
Q

Chambers Issue

A

Did the warrantless search of the car away from the scene of the arrest but shortly after the arrest violate the 4th Amendment?

218
Q

Chambers Holding

A

No, the search did not violate the 4th A; Chambers loses

219
Q

Chambers Reasoning

A
  • Police had PC to stop the car and search it
    immediately at the time and place of arrest in the
    first place
  • The car was readily movable at any time even
    though the people who could move it have been
    arrested
  • Like SILA (not an actual could you reach out and
    grab it), mobility is inherent—the car still has
    mobility even if the people in the car have been
    arrested and can’t go drive the car away
220
Q

Consequence of Chambers

A

The exigency that justifies a warrantless car search does not end simply because the car is unoccupied, the people are in custody, and they are unable to take the car

221
Q

Coolidge v. New Hampshire

A
  • Police investigation of the murder of a 14 y/o girl
    focused in on Edward Coolidge
  • Police questioned Coolidge who was cooperative
    at all times
  • Police felt they had sufficient evidence to arrest
    Coolidge, which they did in his home
  • 2 cars were in Coolidge’s driveway at the time of
    the arrest
  • > 2 hrs after the arrest, police came back and
    seized the 2 cars without a warrant
  • 1 car was searched and vacuumed for
    microscopic evidence 2 days later, a year later,
    and again 5 months after that
  • Had PC for all searches, but not a warrant—try to
    justify under MV exception
222
Q

Coolidge Issue

A

Did the warrantless searches of Coolidge’s car violate the 4th Amendment?
Did the MV exception apply?

223
Q

Coolidge Holding

A

The search was unconstitutional, MV exception did not apply; Coolidge wins

224
Q

Coolidge Reasoning

A
  • Police had ample time to get a warrant and always
    knew that at least 1 of the cars was involved in the crime
  • Coolidge was cooperative, he had ample time to
    get rid of the cars and flee, but he didn’t
  • Illustrates what USSC deems reasonable time to
    conduct a search of MV away from the scene
    with PC but no warrant
  • Coolidge is NOT a bright line rule
225
Q

California v. Carney

A
  • Officers received uncorroborated information that
    Carney’s motorhome was being used to
    exchange sex for marijuana
  • An officer observed Carney approach a youth and
    they went into the motorhome and closed doors
    and shades
  • Officers surveilled the motorhome while they were
    in there
  • Youth later stated he received marijuana in
    exchange for sexual contact with Carney
  • Agents asked youth to knock on the door, Carney
    came out and agents identified themselves as
    law enforcement officers and asked if they could
    search—Carney says no, they search anyways
    without a warrant or consent
  • Observed marijuana and other things
  • Carney was taken into custody and took
    possession of the motor home—subsequent
    search at the police station revealed more
    marijuana
226
Q

Carney Issue

A

Was the search of a motor home an exception to the warrant requirement?

227
Q

Carney Holding

A

Yes, the search was an exception; Carney loses

228
Q

Carney Reasoning

A

Although the motor home possessed some of the features of a home, it is clear it was a vehicle and therefore, falls within the MV exception
2 main reasons:
- A motor home is readily moveable—still has
inherent mobility
- Motor vehicles and mobile homes have a reduced expectation of privacy than a traditional home;
they’re pervasively regulated by the government
(stickers, insurance, license, etc.)

229
Q

Does an RV qualify under the motor vehicle exception?

A

Yes, because they are regulated by the government (Carney)

230
Q

Why is the particularity requirement necessary in a search warrant?

A

So the discretion of where to search is not left to officer’s discretion, so the suspect is aware of the scope of the search, and so the magistrate can review and assure the scope when reviewing a search warrant

231
Q

Plain View Prerequisites

A
  1. The officer must observe the item from a lawful vantage point
  2. The officer must have a right of physical access to the item
  3. Its nature as an incriminating object (contraband, evidence, illegal) is immediately apparent when the officer observes it
232
Q

Lawful Vantage Point

A

Officer cannot have violated the 4th Amendment in order to get to the location where the evidence is
1. During the execution of a valid search warrant
2 During an in-home arrest pursuant to a valid arrest warrant
3. During a search justified under an exception to the warrant requirement
4. During an activity that does not constitute a search, falls outside the 4th Amendment

233
Q

Right to Physical Access

A

Officer cannot violate 4th Amendment by getting/seizing the contraband/evidence

234
Q

Immediately Apparent as Illegal/Contraband

A

Officer observes the item and it is immediately apparent as illegal/evidence/contraband = NO QUESTIONS ASKED

235
Q

AZ v. Hicks

A
  • A gun is fired through the floor of Hick’s apartment and injured a man in the apartment below
  • Officers entered and searched, noticed expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place
  • Officer moved some equipment to take down the serial numbers—reported numbers and was advised that some of the equipment had been taken in an armed robbery
  • Warrant obtained to take that equipment
236
Q

Hicks Issue

A

Did the search of the stereo equipment fall under plain view?

237
Q

Hicks Holding

A

No, the serial number does not fall under plain view; Hicks wins

238
Q

Hicks Reasoning

A
  • Officer moving the equipment to get the serial numbers constituted a separate search from the search for the shooter, victims, and weapons (lawful objective of the entry)
  • Yes: observed from a lawful vantage point
  • No: officer does not have a right of physical access (flipping it over takes it out of physical access/plain view), was not immediately apparent as an incriminating object
  • Need all 3 prerequisites
239
Q

Terry v. Ohio

A
  • A detective on his beat observed 2 strangers walking alternatively back and forth along an identical route and pause to stare in the same store window (~24 times)
  • Each completion of the route was followed by the 2 talking on a corner, and during 1 conversation they were joined by a 3rd man who left quickly
  • The detective suspected them of casing a job and followed them, saw them rejoin the 3rd man a couple of blocks away in front of a store
  • The detective approached the 3, identified himself as a policeman, asked their names, and spun Terry around to pat him down—found but could not remove a pistol
  • The detective ordered the 3 into the store, removed Terry’s jacket, took out the revolver, and ordered the 3 to face the wall with hands raised
  • The detective patted down the other 2 and found 1 had another revolver
  • All 3 taken to the police station
240
Q

Terry Issue

A

Are the weapons admissible as evidence even though they were obtained under a warrantless “stop and frisk” search, which is less than probable cause?

241
Q

Terry Holding

A

Yes, the weapons are admissible as evidence; Terry loses

242
Q

Terry Reasoning

A
  • Terry was seized once the officer touched him, as he wouldn’t have felt he was free to leave
  • Then looks into 2-part inquiry
  • The officer had reasonable suspicion based on his experience, and believed that Terry was presently armed and posed a threat to him and others
  • The search of the outer clothing of Terry was properly limited in time and scope to determine if Terry was armed
  • Sole justification is the protection of officers and others
243
Q

Terry 2-Part Inquiry

A
  1. Were the officer’s actions justified at their inception based on reasonable suspicion (less than probable cause)?
  2. Was the pat-frisk reasonable in scope?
244
Q

Reasonable Suspicion

A

A lesser standard of probable cause based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts that justify the intrusion (officer has to specifically state what the person did to warrant the intrusion)

245
Q

Minnesota v. Dickerson

A
  • Dickerson left an apartment building believed to be a “crack house” and started walking towards a marked squad car with 2 officers in it
  • Dickerson made eye contact with one of the officers, abruptly halted, and walked in the opposite direction and into an alley
  • Officers pulled the car into the alley and ordered Dickerson to stop and submit to a pat-down
  • Search revealed no weapons but the officer felt a small lump in the front pocket of Dickerson’s jacket, which he later testified felt like a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane
  • Officer reached into the pocket and pulled out a small plastic bag containing 1/5th of a gram of crack cocaine
246
Q

Dickerson Issue

A

Did the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement extend to the sense of touch?

247
Q

Dickerson Holding

A

No, it does not extend to touch; Dickerson wins

248
Q

Dickerson Reasoning

A
  • The officer overstepped the bounds of the “strictly circumscribed” search for weapons allowed under Terry
  • The officer knew Dickerson did not have a weapon after the pat-down and only determined the lump was contraband after manipulating the contents of the pocket
  • The further search of the pocket was not authorized by Terry or any other 4th A exception to the warrant requirement
249
Q

United States v. Mendenhall

A
  • Mendenhall (22 y/o, Black) observed by 2 DEA agents coming off a plane from LA looking suspicious; DEA felt she fit the profile of a drug courier
  • Agents approached her, identified themselves as federal agents, and asked for ID and airline ticket; ID was in her name, ticket in another
  • Agents return her things, identify themselves as DEA, and ask her to come to their office for further questioning, which she agreed to
  • Agents asked to search her person and handbag, and informed her of her right to decline; she consented
  • Female officer explained Mendenhall would have to remove her clothing for the search of her person, and Mendenhall said she had to leave to catch her plane
  • Mendenhall took 2 packages of heroin out of her undergarments and gave them to the officer
250
Q

Mendenhall Issue

A

Was Mendenhall “seized” coming off the plane?

251
Q

Mendenhall Holding

A

No, she was not seized; Mendenhall loses

252
Q

Mendenhall Reasoning

A
  • USSC held that a person had been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if a reasonable person would have believed that she was not free to leave
  • If under a show of authority or physical force you felt you were not free to leave, only then can you invoke your constitutional rights
  • Threatening presence of several officers, no witnesses, display of weapons, use of language/tone, physical coercion
253
Q

5th Amendment

A

No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself; privilege against self-incrimination

254
Q

Miranda v. Arizona

A
  • Miranda arrested in connection with a kidnapping and rape and brought to the police station where he was questioned by officers
  • Miranda was never advised of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation
  • After 2 hours of interrogation, Miranda gave a written confession
  • Confession admitted as evidence
255
Q

Miranda Issue

A

Does the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

256
Q

Miranda Holding

A

Yes, it does extend to interrogations; Miranda wins

257
Q

Miranda Reasoning

A
  • In order for the rights to be waived, the defendant has to know about them first
  • There must be safeguards in place to protect the privilege of the 5th Amendment
258
Q

Miranda Rights

A
  1. You have the right to remain silent
  2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law
  3. You have the right to an attorney
  4. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you
259
Q

When are Miranda warnings required?

A

When a person is in custody and subject to an interrogation

260
Q

Berkemer v. McCarty

A
  • Officer sees a vehicle swerving and initiates a traffic stop, asks the driver to get out of the car, and notices he has trouble standing
  • Officer charged McCarty with a traffic offense and he was no longer free to leave
  • Officer asked if the McCarty had been using intoxicants—he says yes
  • McCarty arrested, asked again about the use of intoxicants, says yes again
  • At the county jail, a breathalyzer detected no alcohol in McCarty’s system
  • The officer resumed questioning—asked if McCarty was under the influence of alcohol and if the marijuana had been treated with any chemicals
    “I guess, barely”; “no”
  • McCarty was never advised of his constitutional rights
261
Q

McCarty Issue

A
  1. Did the highway patrol fail to give Miranda warnings to McCarty before he made incriminating statements at the station house?
  2. Did the highway patrol fail to give a Miranda warning to McCarty when he was detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop?
262
Q

McCarty Holding

A
  1. Yes, prior to the station house
  2. No, detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop
263
Q

McCarty Reasoning

A
  • McCarty was in custody as of the moment he was formally placed under arrest
  • Statements before arrest are allowed, statements after are not
  • Arrestees in custody and under suspicion for a misdemeanor traffic offense must be informed of their constitutional rights or subsequent statements are inadmissible
264
Q

Oregon v. Mathiason

A
  • Victim of a burglary suspected Mathiason
  • Officer left his card at Mathiason’s apartment asking him to call so they could discuss something; Mathiason called and the officer suggested they meet at the state patrol office
  • Mathiason arrives, officer takes him to a room, told him he was not under arrest, closed the door, and told Mathiason he suspected him of the burglary
  • Officer falsely stated that Mathiason’s fingerprints were found at the scene
  • Mathiason confessed
  • The officer advised Mathiason of his Miranda rights and took a taped confession
  • After (~1.5 hrs after he arrived), Mathiason was told he was not arrested but the case was being referred to the district attorney, and Mathiason left the station
265
Q

Mathiason Issue

A

Did the interrogation of Mathiason violate his Miranda rights?

266
Q

Mathiason Holding

A

No, the interrogation did not violate Miranda rights; Mathiason loses

267
Q

Mathiason Reasoning

A
  • Mathiason had come to the station voluntarily, he was seated at a desk, he was told he was free to go, and he did leave after the 30-minute interview
  • Not a custodial situation just because it happened at the police station
  • Miranda only applied in those situations where the person was in custody
  • The Court further stated that police officers were not required to administer Miranda warnings to every person that they questioned, nor to everyone who came to the station house for an interview
268
Q

Rhode Island v. Innis

A
  • Cab driver identified Innis as the person who robbed him using a sawed-off shotgun
  • RI patrolman spotted Innis on the street (unarmed), arrested him, and advised him of his Miranda rights
  • More officers arrived and Innis was advised of Miranda rights 2 more times and stated he understood his rights and wanted to speak to a lawyer
  • Innis was placed in a police car to be driven to the station in the company of 3 officers who were told not to question or intimidate Innis in any way
  • Officers engaged in conversation among themselves about the missing shotgun, said they hoped no handicapped children in the area found the shotgun
  • Innis interrupted the conversation and said they should turn the car around so he could show them where the gun was
  • Returned to the scene of arrest and Innis was again informed of his Miranda rights—said he understood the rights but “wanted to get the gun out of the way because of the kids in the area in the school,” and led the police to the shotgun
269
Q

Innis Issue

A

Was Innis interrogated within the meaning of Miranda when the police officers voiced safety concerns about children finding the weapon from the crime?

270
Q

Innis Holding

A

No, he was not interrogated; Innis loses

271
Q

Innis Reasoning

A
  • Court held that the term “interrogation” under Miranda referred not only to (1) express questioning, but also to (2) any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect
  • The officers in the patrol car did not know that what they said was likely to elicit an incriminating response from Innis
272
Q

Reasonably Foreseeable

A
  • The test is not whether what an officer said or did actually elicited an incriminating response from your suspect, but whether that result was reasonably foreseeable
  • Reasonably foreseeable example—if the police knew Innis was very religious and in the car they started talking about the religious consequences of his crime, that could be reasonably foreseeable because they would have been aware of the information that made it likely for the defendant to incriminate themselves
273
Q

A valid waiver must be…

A
  1. Knowing, intelligent (fully aware of nature/consequence), and voluntary (free will/not coerced)
  2. Still needs to be committed by a government actor
274
Q

Berghuis v. Thompkins

A
  • Detectives informed Thompkins of his Miranda rights and interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died
  • At no point did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney
  • Thompkins was mostly silent during the 3-hour interrogation but answered “yes” at the end when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting
  • Filed MTS at trial, claiming he invoked his 5th A right to remain silent, that he had not waived that right, and that his inculpatory statements were involuntary
275
Q

Thompkins Issue

A

Do you invoke your right to remain silent by being silent for a period of time?

276
Q

Thompkins Holding

A

No; Thompkins loses

277
Q

Thompkins Reasoning

A
  • You have to invoke your right to remain silent unambiguously
  • Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police
  • Thompkins’ answer to a detective’s question about whether he prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim was a course of conduct indicating waiver of the right to remain silent
  • Thompkins waived his Miranda right to remain silent when he “knowingly and voluntarily” made a statement to the police
278
Q

Massiah v. United States

A
  • Massiah was indicted with others for violating federal narcotics laws, retained a lawyer, pled not guilty, and was released on bail
  • While free on bail, Massiah had a conversation without his lawyer with one of his co-defendants in the co-defendant’s car
  • The co-defendant was cooperating with government agents—installed a radio transmitter under the front seat of the car for a federal agent to listen to the conversation
  • A federal agent testified to incriminating statements made by Massiah during the conversation
279
Q

Massiah Issue

A

Are a defendant’s incriminating statements made without the presence of their lawyer AFTER a criminal proceeding has begun admissible as evidence?

280
Q

Massiah Holding

A

No, such statements are not admissible as evidence; Massiah wins

281
Q

Massiah Reasoning

A
  • The Supreme Court held that incriminating statements deliberately elicited by federal agents in the absence of counsel after the proceedings had begun violate the Sixth Amendment
  • After criminal proceedings have started but before decision is made is a crucial time for lawyers to be helpful
  • Once you have an attorney the police are not supposed to speak to you
  • Applies only after criminal proceedings have started
282
Q

Deliberate Elicitation

A

When it is the government agent’s conscious objective to obtain a statement from the defendant; focus on the subjective motivation of the officer

283
Q

Interrogation

A

Focuses on the suspect and is based on an objective finding that the process will result in incriminating information

284
Q

How does the 6th Amendment apply after Massiah?

A

The 6th Amendment applies only after the commencement of adversarial judicial proceedings, the Court concluded this commencement starts the “criminal prosecution” for the right to counsel purposes

285
Q

Critical Stage

A

Pre-trial procedures that would impair defense on merits if the accused is required to proceed without counsel AND any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where counsel’s absence might detract from the accused’s right to a fair trial
Includes: pre-trial lineup, preliminary hearing, arraignment
Does not include: photograph array to witness (with defendant included), handwriting example from the defendant

286
Q

North Carolina v. Butler

A
  • FBI officer arrested Butler on a federal warrant and read him his Miranda rights
  • At Butler’s interrogation, the officer gave him an “Advice of Rights” form and asked him to sign it
  • Butler read the Miranda rights and said he understood them, but refused to sign the waiver portion, and indicated that he would like to talk to the officer—did not ask for an attorney and didn’t stop the questioning
  • Butler made incriminating statements that were later introduced as evidence at trial
  • Butler moved to suppress the evidence, but the trial court denied it, saying he had effectively waived his right to an attorney when he spoke with the FBI officer after indicating that he understood his rights
287
Q

Butler Issue

A

Is a defendant’s self-incriminating testimony inadmissible when there is no express waiver of Miranda rights? (do you need to explicitly say that you are waiving your Miranda rights?)

288
Q

Butler Holding

A

No, the testimony is still admissible even when there is no express waiver; Butler loses

289
Q

Butler Reasoning

A
  • The question is whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights
  • Butler impliedly waived his rights—he said he understood and that he would talk, but he didn’t sign the form
  • Waiving can be inferred from words or actions
  • In addition to him reading it out loud, he said he was going to talk but not sign the form as he probably thought they needed him to sign the form to waive rights—they don’t, you just have to look at facts and circumstances of the situation
290
Q

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

A

A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained; if the evidential “tree” is tainted, so is its “fruit”; makes secondary evidence inadmissible as well

291
Q

List the 4 factors evaluated in determining whether dissipation of the taint exists

A
  1. Temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession (amount of time between)
  2. The presence of the act of free will
  3. The presence or absence of intervening circumstances
  4. The purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct (how bad was the initial illegality?)
292
Q

Steagald v. United States

A
  • DEA agents have an arrest warrant for Lyons, CI tells them he’s at a residence in Atlanta (Steagald’s home)
  • Agents entered Steagald’s home to search for Lyons without a search warrant
  • Found cocaine and other incriminating evidence, but not Lyons
  • Agents then got a search warrant for Steagald’s home and found more cocaine
  • Steagald was arrested and indicted on federal drug charges
293
Q

Steagald Issue

A

Does the 4th Amendment prevent police officers from searching for a suspect (Lyons) in the home of a 3rd party (Steagald) without obtaining a warrant?

294
Q

Steagald Holding

A

Yes, it does prevent police from searching without a warrant; Steagald wins

295
Q

Steagald Reasoning

A
  • What the warrants are protecting differ in arrest vs. search warrants
  • Arrest warrant: protects the individual from individual unreasonable search and seizure
  • Search warrant: protects your home and possessions
  • Officers did not have a basis to search Steagald’s home; only had an arrest warrant for Lyons, would’ve needed a search warrant for Steagald’s home for the person of Lyons

Criminal Due Process (9 decks)

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