Criminal Procedure Flashcards
4th amendment
-protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government
what is a seizure?
- government action that results in a “meaningful interference” with a possessory interest.
- reasonable person standard— a reasonable person in that situation that they would not feel free to leave or terminate the police encounter
what is a search?
when government seeks to find evidence, and either:
- performs an investigatory trespass into a persons, papers, or things
- If no search, ask whether the gov’t action intruded on a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP) – secondary to the trespass test!
4th am. exclusionary rule
any evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure constitutes “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and is inadmissible for the government to introduce at trial as
-includes oral statements and physical objects
Requirements for a ∆ to bring a 4th am. violation claim
o an unreasonable search or seizure triggers the remedy of exclusion; (ex. if only a knock doesn’t violate the exclusionary rule)
o the defendant claiming the remedy (seeking exclusion) has STANDING –the defendant is the victim of the police’s unreasonable search or seizure, and has an ownership or possessory interest in the place searched or item seized
o the facts do not support applying an exception to the exclusionary rule
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule
“Tainted” evidence will be admissible if the prosecution proves one of three exceptions:
- Independent Source
a. An exception applies when there is no causal connection between the violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights and the discovery of the evidence. - Inevitable Discovery
a. There is an exception when evidence has been obtained through the defendant’s poisonous tree, but the prosecution can prove that the police would have inevitably discovered the evidence through a different, independent source.
b. This arises where the police have already set in motion the “gears” of inevitable discovery. - Attenuation
a. This exception applies to evidence so distant from the initial illegality that the taint of the poisonous tree no longer infects the evidence.
b. The attenuation exception turns on a combination of the flagrancy of the violation (the potency of the poison) and the distance between the violation and the evidence obtained (the evidence of attenuation). The more flagrant the constitutional violation, the more poisonous the evidence, + the harder it is to prove attenuation.
c. Factors supporting attenuation include:
i. different locations;
ii. the passage of time;
iii. different officers; and
iv. a valid Miranda waiver.
Other limitations on the exclusionary rule (impeachment; good faith exception)
Other Limitations to the Exclusionary Rule (2)
- Impeachment
- The exclusionary rule does not apply to the use of tainted evidence to impeach the defendant’s testimony. This means that the prosecution cannot use this evidence in their case-in-chief, but if a defendant gets on the stand and testifies, then the evidence can be used to impeach the defendant.
- The exclusionary rule is a shield to protect you from gov’t illegality, not a sword that enables you to attack the gov’t by lying - Good-Faith Exception
-When police rely in good faith on a facially valid warrant that is later determined by a reviewing court to be invalid, the evidence they seize will still be admissible.
Because the only purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, it does not apply when the Fourth Amendment violation is the result of an error by the magistrate or other judicial official issuing the warrant.
The good-faith exception will not apply if a reasonable officer should have known not to rely on the warrant.
Additionally, no exclusion applies even when there is police error, so long as the error is isolated negligence attenuated from the point of arrest.
EXAMPLE: The Supreme Court has applied the good-faith exception to an arrest in reliance on a warrant that should have been purged from the system by the police, even though it was the police agency that made the clerical error.
The good-faith exception will NOT apply where:
• police lie or mislead the magistrate (a lie by one officer is imputed to all officers in the chain of events);
• the warrant is so facially defective that no reasonable officer would rely on it; (ex. a warrant to “search the blue house”)
• a reasonable officer would know that the magistrate is not neutral and detached; or
• the supporting affidavit is completely lacking in probable cause.
5th amendment
the 5th amendment protects against self-incrimination– no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
Miranda Rule
• Statements obtained during CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief in the absence of Miranda warnings and proof of a valid waiver.
• Police must advise the suspect of their Miranda rights:
o to remain silent;
o that anything said can be used against them in court;
o that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney; and
o that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided
- In compliance with due process, a Miranda waiver is valid if made knowingly and voluntarily. the suspect must understand his rights and waive them without being coerced.
-Spontaneous or volunteered statements do not trigger the Miranda rule (even if made while in custody) because they are not a product of questions.
-evidence derived from the inadmissible statement is not excluded as tainted fruit.
custody
• a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would feel unable to leave
EXAM TIP: Look for facts that suggest that a reasonable suspect would have concluded that they were going to jail to be booked.
interrogation
Direct questioning (anything with a question mark) or other words or actions that a reasonable officer would anticipate were likely to result in eliciting an incriminating response -does not include routine booking questions re: age, height, etc.
levels of suspicion
- no cause necessary; person can choose whether to answer– mere encounter
- reasonable suspicion– more than a hunch that criminal activity is afoot. Includes a brief investigatory seizure such as a Terry stop, lay hands on a person, etc.
- probable cause– needed for arrests, searches (SITLAs), can arise from contraband in plain view
Invocation of Miranda Rights
o In order to cut off questioning, a suspect must make an unambiguous and unequivocal statement invoking either the right to silence (“I don’t want to talk”) or the right to counsel (“I want a lawyer”).
o Remaining silent after the Miranda warning is not an invocation of the Miranda right, and police may continue to talk to the suspect.
However, to use any statements in response to questioning, police must prove that the suspect made a valid waiver.
Questioning in Violation of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel
- the 6th am provides a right to the assistance of counsel during all critical stages of the adversarial process.
- applies once the “suspect” becomes a “defendant” as the result of the formal adversarial process starting; very different from the Miranda right to counsel
- critical states include the deliberate elicitation of statements, a physical identification proceeding, the preliminary hearing, and trial
- it violates the Sixth Amendment for the government to do any of these “critical stage” events without the presence of the defendant’s counsel absent a voluntary and intelligent waiver
Constitutional bases to challenge the admissibility of ID evidence (2)
- the procedure violates due process– (rule: If the defendant can prove that an ID procedure used by the government was so unnecessarily suggestive that it created an irreparable risk of mistaken identification, the procedure violates due process and the ID is inadmissible)
- the procedure violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (bc a corporeal ID procedure is a critical stage procedure, it violates the ∆’s 6th am right to counsel if you perform this without his counsel present or absent a knowing and voluntary waiver.)
