Criminal Due Process Quiz 5 Hicks - Thompkins Flashcards
1
Q
Plain View Prerequisites
A
- The officer must observe the item from a lawful vantage point
- The officer must have a right of physical access to the item
- Its nature as an incriminating object (contraband, evidence, illegal) is immediately apparent when the officer observes it
2
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
3
Q
Right to Physical Access
A
Officer cannot violate 4th Amendment by getting/seizing the contraband/evidence
4
Q
Immediately Apparent as Illegal/Contraband
A
Officer observes the item and it is immediately apparent as illegal/evidence/contraband = NO QUESTIONS ASKED
5
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
6
Q
Hicks Issue
A
Did the search of the stereo equipment fall under plain view?
7
Q
Hicks Holding
A
No, the serial number does not fall under plain view; Hicks wins
8
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
9
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
10
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?
11
Q
Terry Holding
A
Yes, the weapons are admissible as evidence; Terry loses
12
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
13
Q
Terry 2-Part Inquiry
A
- Were the officer’s actions justified at their inception based on reasonable suspicion (less than probable cause)?
- Was the pat-frisk reasonable in scope?
14
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)
15
Q
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
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
16
Q
Dickerson Issue
A
Did the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement extend to the sense of touch?
17
Q
Dickerson Holding
A
No, it does not extend to touch; Dickerson wins
18
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
19
Q
US v. Mendenhall (1980)
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
20
Q
Mendenhall Issue
A
Was Mendenhall “seized” coming off the plane?
21
Q
Mendenhall Holding
A
No, she was not seized; Mendenhall loses
22
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
23
Q
5th Amendment
A
No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself; privilege against self-incrimination
24
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
25
Miranda Issue
Does the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
26
Miranda Holding
Yes, it does extend to interrogations; Miranda wins
27
Miranda Reasoning
- 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
28
Miranda Rights
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
29
When are Miranda warnings required?
When a person is in custody and subject to an interrogation
30
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
- 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
31
McCarty Issue
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?
32
McCarty Holding
1. Yes, prior to the station house
2. No, detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop
33
McCarty Reasoning
- 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
34
Oregon v. Mathiason (1977)
- 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
35
Mathiason Issue
Did the interrogation of Mathiason violate his Miranda rights?
36
Mathiason Holding
No, the interrogation did not violate Miranda rights; Mathiason loses
37
Mathiason Reasoning
- 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
38
RI v. Innis (1980)
- 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
39
Innis Issue
Was Innis interrogated within the meaning of Miranda when the police officers voiced safety concerns about children finding the weapon from the crime?
40
Innis Holding
No, he was not interrogated; Innis loses
41
Innis Reasoning
- 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
42
Reasonably Forseeable
- 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
43
A valid waiver must be...
- Knowing, intelligent (fully aware of nature/consequence), and voluntary (free will/not coerced)
- Still needs to be committed by a government actor
44
D was arrested for possession of stolen firearms. He waived his Miranda rights and police questioned him—not about stolen firearms, but about a murder for which he had not been charged. Is this legal or illegal?
Legal; Miranda is not offense-specific—tied directly to the interrogation, not the crime
