Criminal Procedure Flashcards
Challenging a facially valid warrant
A defendant can challenge a facially valid warrant if it can be established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the affidavit contained false statements that were made by the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the their truth; and the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause.
Checkpoints
A checkpoint maintained by police for the purpose of finding witnesses to a crime (rather than suspects) is not per se unreasonable, as long as
(i) the checkpoint stop’s primary law enforcement purpose is to elicit evidence to help them apprehend not the vehicle’s occupants but other individuals;
(EVIDENCE)
(ii) the stop advanced a public concern to a significant degree; and
(PUBLIC)
(iii) the police appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs and to minimally interfere with liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment.
(SCOPE)
Knock and Announce
Even with a warrant, most states and federal law mandate that a police officer who is making an arrest in a home must generally knock and announce his purpose before entering the home.
Curtilage
In addition to the home itself, an area immediately surrounding the home known as the “curtilage” may be covered by the “umbrella” of the Fourth Amendment protection of a home.
In determining whether the area is protected, the following four-factor test applies: (i) the proximity of the area to the home, (ii) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, (iii) the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and (iv) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passersby.
The Batson Test
The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits both the criminal defendant and the prosecutor from exercising peremptory challenges solely based on race or gender.
The Batson test requires that (i) the moving party establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, (ii) the party who exercised the challenge provides a nondiscriminatory explanation for the strike, and (iii) the moving party carries her burden of proving that the other party’s proffered reason was pretextual and that the strike was indeed motivated by purposeful discrimination.
