Criminal Procedure Flashcards
Fourth amendment questions framework
(1) If there is a search by the government,
(2) In an area where defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then
(3) Need probable cause and a warrant, but
(4) No warrant if exception applies.
If an exception does not apply, the evidence will not be admitted at trial. This has not been extended to grand jury hearings.
Requirements for valid search warrant
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Exceptions to the warrant requirement
- Exigent Circumstances
- Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
- Plain View
- Motor Vehicle Exception
- Inventory Search
- Hot Pursuit
- Consent (only exception where probable cause is not required)
Inevitable discovery
The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows admission of evidence illegally seized that would have been discovered lawfully anyway.
This exception allows evidence to be admitted, even though it was seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. It is a last resort and is rarely used.
May the government use sophisticated equipment and devices to perform searches?
Where the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
When does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach?
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at the initiation of a formal adversary proceeding, be it by indictment, information, or criminal complaint.
The right is not implicated in the investigatory or the grand jury phase.
Is the Sixth Amendment right to counsel offense specific?
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is “offense-specific,” meaning it provides protection only to the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted. Thus, police can elicit information from a defendant without counsel present regarding offenses for which the defendant has not been charged.
When can the Sixth Amendment right to counsel be waived?
The Sixth Amendment rights to counsel can be waived, even if counsel had been appointed but not present, if the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
Massiah rule
The Massiah rule prohibits the police from using deliberate efforts to acquire incriminating information from a suspect who has been formally charged, unless the suspect’s attorney is present or the right to counsel has been waived.
In United States v. Henry, a paid informant was placed in a jail cell with Henry after Henry had been formally charged (indicted) and was told not to question him, but to remain alert to any statements made by him. However, the informant engaged in conversations with Henry at various times and he made several incriminating statements. Henry’s conviction was reversed because the government “deliberately elicited” statements from him in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Does the right to counsel apply to line-ups?
Right to counsel only at post-charge line-ups. Identification procedures which are unduly suggestive are unconstitutional. If the procedure was unduly suggestive, an in-court identification may be admissible if from an independent source.
When does Miranda apply? Can it be waived?
Miranda warnings are required if the defendant is in custody, and subject to interrogation by the police. Miranda does not apply to questioning by private security guards.
In custody: given the totality of the circumstances, would a reasonable man believe he is not free to leave the presence of the police (circumstances of interrogation, actions of officers, etc.).
Being drunk or mentally ill does not necessarily make a Miranda waiver ineffective. But subjecting the defendant to interrogation to “soften him up” before giving the Miranda warning does not work.
Exigent circumstances exception
In an emergency, the police can search without a warrant if there is probable cause. This situation is often referred to as exigent circumstances. For this exception to apply, it must be an emergency situation justifying warrantless activity, and there must be probable cause. The Court generally has been reluctant to find exigent circumstances, but the Court has found exigent circumstances in a number of situations: hot pursuit of a felon, protecting safety, and preventing destruction of evidence. Police officers may not enter a home to make a routine felony arrest.
Hot pursuit (exigent circumstances)
Police officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon may make a warrantless search and seizure. The scope of the search may be as broad as may reasonably be necessary to prevent the suspect from resisting or escaping. When the police have probable cause and attempt to make a warrantless arrest in a “public place,” they may pursue the suspect into private dwellings.
Protecting safety (exigent circumstances)
Emergencies that threaten health or safety if not immediately acted upon will justify a warrantless search. This includes situations where the police see someone injured or threatened with injury. Whether an emergency exists is determined objectively, from the officer’s point of view.
Destruction of evidence (exigent circumstances)
Police officers may enter a home without a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence, even if the exigency arose because police officers knocked on the door and asked for entry, as long as the officers have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed and the officers did not create the exigency through an actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation.
