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 Wong Sun—Gates > Flashcards

Criminal Due Process Wong Sun—Gates Flashcards

1
Q

Wong Sun v. United States (1963)

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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
Q

Brown v. IL (1975)

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
6
Q

US v. Ceccolini (1978)

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
7
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
8
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
9
Q

Ceccolini Ruling

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
10
Q

Herring v. US (2009)

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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
Q

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

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
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
Q

Aguilar v. TX (1964)

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

Aguilar Issue

A

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

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

Aguilar Holding

A

No it did not; Aguilar wins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Aguilar 2-Part Probable Cause Test

A
  1. The police have to provide some underlying basis of 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
23
Q

Draper v. US (1959)

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
24
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?

25
Q

Draper Holding

A

Yes, it gives police PC; Draper loses

26
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
27
Q

Spinelli v. US (1969)

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)
28
Q

Spinelli Issue

A

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

29
Q

Spinelli Holding

A

No it did not; Spinelli wins

30
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
31
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

32
Q

Types of situations in which probable cause is needed

A
  1. Police apply for an arrest/search warrant (must be based on PC)
  2. When police conduct a warrantless search or arrest (must have PC before they do so)
33
Q

IL v. Gates (1983)

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
34
Q

Gates Issue

A

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

35
Q

Gates Holding

A

No; Gates loses

36
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”
37
Q

Totality of Circumstances

A

PC decisions are based on all available information rather than a bright-line rule (Spinelli)

38
Q

Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001)

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, and created more of a scene and wouldn’t let the kids go with neighbors
  • Atwater said arrest violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
  • Court of Appeals said officer had probable cause
39
Q

Atwater Issue

A

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

40
Q

Atwater Holding

A

No, the arrest was legal; Atwater loses

41
Q

Atwater Reasoning

A
  • The 4th A does not forbid a warrantless search for a minor criminal offense
  • 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
42
Q

US v. Watson (1976)

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
43
Q

Watson Issue

A

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

44
Q

Waston Holding

A

Yes, it was constitutional; Watson loses

45
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
46
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

47
Q

Payton/Riddick Issue

A

Were the warrantless entries valid?

48
Q

Payton/Riddick Holding

A

No, they were not valid; Payton/Riddick win

49
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:
    • Payton = home; didn’t have a warrant and
      home is at the top of the food chain
    • Watson = public
50
Q

US v. Santana (1976)

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
51
Q

Santana Issue

A

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

52
Q

Santana Holding

A

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

53
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
54
Q

How does Santana impact/align with the Payton holding?

A

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

Criminal Due Process (9 decks)

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