Criminal Procedure Flashcards
4th Amendment – Search and Seizure
The 4th Amendment protects persons against unreasonable arrests or other seizures as well as unreasonable searches. In addition, when a warrant is required, it must comply with these constitutional requirements.
Government Action
Search & Seizure must be made by a government agent or at the direction of the government
Search
A government search of a location with a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Where do you have a lack of expectaiton of privacy and thus it would not be a search
Open fields ie Open field doctrine
Probable cause for a warrant
A fair probability that would warrant a reasonable person to conclude that evidence of a crime can be found at a particular place or that a particular Δ committed a crime
Elements of a Search warrant
1) Issued by detached magistrate
2)Based on probable cause like oath or affidavit
3) Persons/Places must be described with particularity
4) Cannot exceed the scope of the search
Police can rely on informants for probable cause and to find a informant reliable look to the
totality of the circumstances
When police seize what is in plain view during a lawful search is it excluded
No
Will an illegal search automatially dismiss indictment
no
protective sweep elements
- Search for additional criminals
- Allowed for safety with proof of others
present
Exceptions to the warrant requirement where probable cause alone can justify a search or seizure
Community caretaking
hot pursuit
automobile
minor intrusion
Plain View
Exigency or Destruction of eveidence
Seizures:
individual’s freedom of movement is limited by an officer such that the person would not feel free to leave the
officer’s presence
Objective standard: A reasonable person would not feel free to leave or end the encounter
Exceptions to seizure warrants wherePC is needed or Reasonable suspicion for S
Arrest
Stop and Frisk
Seizure by deadly force
Exceptions to search and seizure warrants were no warrant or pc Is needed
SILA
COnsent
Administrative or Special Needs search
Terry stop
Exclusionary rule
Evidence obtained in violation of Δ’s constitutional rights is inadmissible against Δ in trial. This includes statements obtained in violation of Miranda
Fruit of the poisonous tree:
All derivative evidence obtained via inadmissible evidence is also excluded. This does not apply to Miranda
Exceptions to ER rule
independent basis
inevitable basis
intervening act of free will
Grand Jury
GF reliance on warrant
Knock and Annouce
Independent source
Inevitabel disvoery
Intervening act
Impeachment
Attenuation
Miranda violation evidence
Grand Jury
A grand jury may hear and use any piece of evidence regardless of its admissibility
GF Reliance on warrant
reasonably well-trained PO would have believed W was valid (e.g., clerical error)
Independent source of derivate evidence
May “rediscover” initially illegal evidence under valid W if police would have applied for and received W anyway
4thA protects
against unreasonable searches and seizures by the gov’t or its agents
Standing and how do you waive it
, Δ must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in the place searched. When the individual knowingly exposes something to the public, he no longer has standing to challenge a search of it
: A search/seizure must be made with a valid W, which must be
1) issued by neutral, detached magistrate,
(2) based on probable cause, and (3) described with particularity the place to be searched or item/person to be seized
Probable cause is
A fair probability that would warrant a reasonable person to conclude that evidence of a crime can be found at a particular place or that a particular Δ committed a crime
if PC is based on an informants tip, it must beet the totality of the circumstances test, THe court will look to:
based on informant’s veracity, and knowledge, and corroboration from police investigation predictive information showing insider knowledge.
Community caretaking
Going into home to make sure there isn’t further injury (based on objective TOTC)
Autombile exception approach
To stop car, needs RS of violation of law (can ripen to PC) or PC to believe crim evidence is in car
2. If PC to believe criminal evidence is in a car, can search w/o W: the whole car, closed containers
(size limited to where evidence could be), and its contents, including passenger luggage
3. If PC to believe evidence is in a container in the car, search of car limited to that container (and where that container could be); once package is found, search is limited to the package
4. If PC to believe automobile itself is contraband, can seize it without W
Minor intrusion example and definition
into body in reasonable manner
breathlyzer tube
Plain View
Police officer (PO) is lawfully present and positioned + “immediately apparent” that item is subject to seizure + PC to believe evidence is associated with crime (can’t move item for a better view)
Exigency or destruction of evidence
PC to believe evidence likely to disappear before W can be obtained (e.g., blood alc. conc., scraping under fingernail). Warrantless search must end roughly when exgiency ends
Arrest - Seizure exception
Need PC for any arrest. No W is needed in a public place, but an arrest warrant is required for arrest inside one’s home (search warrant needed if someone else’s home), unless in hot pursuit or exigency
Stop and frisk
If the officer also believes that the person is armed and dangerous, then the officer can
permits an officer to stop a person whenever they have reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot.
conduct a pat-down of their outer clothing in order to search for weapons.
Plain feel as it realtes to stop and frisk
During patdown, PO may seize items reasonably believed to be weapon or contraband (admissible as evidence)
What happens dring an auto stop where PC arises
turns into a SILA
Seizure by deadily force
Under objectively “reasonable” circumstances, deadly force (e.g., shooting) may not be used unless necessary to prevent escape + PC to believe that suspect poses significant threat of death or serious injury to PO or others + where feasible, some warning has been given
With a SILA, where can you search
arrestees person and area within immediatte control
In order to justify a warrantless search of car incident to arrest LEO must show
i) that the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and may pose an actual and continuing threat to the officer’s safety or a need to preserve evidence from being tampered with, or
(ii) that it is reasonable that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
Protective sweep occurs at the home when executing the arrest warranty only if
police has RS of danger/attack from others in the home, may sweep spaces where another person might be hiding (e.g., not drawers)
Vechile + SILA can occur in what 2 ways
unsecured arrestee or reasonable belief of criminal evidence in vehicle
When can a PO search inside the vechile
when arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of a compartment while arrested
When is a search of a whole vechile incident to a lawful arrest allowed
if it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle
Inventory search
Police may conduct routine search of arrestee’s belongings or impounded car
3rd party consenet
PO may enter premises relying on consent of one reasonably believed to have
actual or apparent joint authority over the premises
3rd party consenet
PO may enter premises relying on consent of one reasonably believed to have
actual or apparent joint authority over the premises
When can you ask the Landlord or the hotel for express consent for a search
when the T vacates
How is 3rd party limited
Physically present co-occupant’s explicit refusal to permit entry prevails over 3P consent
If nonconsenting occupant is removed from premises for reason unrelated to refusal (e.g., lawful arrest), PO may search if
other occupant consents
Checkpoint rule
Suspicionless stopping and searching OK if done routinely, not randomly, at fixed pt
5A Self incrimination
Δ may refuse to answer a question whenever his response might result in self-incrimination or reasonable possibility of contributing to his criminal conviction. Δ must assert right to silence or right to counsel for questioning to stop
5TH AMENDMENT - Miranda Rights
A statement is obtained in violation of Miranda where an individual is in custody, and an officer is interrogating the individual without first providing the appropriate
Miranda warnings
5A only governs what type of evidence and what is excluded
Only governs compelled testimonial evidence (not physical). Body, voice sample, lineup, handwriting not protected
For a self-incriminating statement (such as Δ’s admission) to be admissible under 14th Amendment DPC, it must be
free and voluntary as determined by TOTC (not motivated by police coercion or official pressure)
Interrogation
free and voluntary as determined by TOTC (not motivated by police coercion or official pressure)
The only result of Miranda violation (failure to give warning before custodial interrogation) is
inadmissibility in Π’s case in chief. OK to use to impeach credibility of Δ’s testimony, x-exam, etc.
Waiver of miranda rights must be shown by
knowing, voluntary, intelligent conduct showing Δ’s explicit/implicit willingness to make statement based on TOTC (e.g., receiving Miranda but choosing to answer is likely sufficient)
public safety exception to Miranda rights
Warnings need not be given if necessary for public safety (e.g., to ask downed robber where gun is, Δ has info about bomb that could go off in public)
Double jeopardy
Prevents Δ from being criminally tried twice for the same offense arising from the same set of facts after a determination on the merits
Jeopardy attaching to lesser included offense bars retrial for a greater offense, unless Π
could not have tried the 2nd crime at the time
when does jeproady attach
when 1st witness sworn in (non-jury trial) or jury is impaneled (jury trial). Does not attach in civil proceedings
Issue of Separate Sovereignities and Double Jeporady
Δ can be prosecuted for the same offense in different jx
Exceptions permitting retrial
breach of plea bargain by Δ/Π,
retrial after Δ’s successful appeal,
trial is aborted for manifest necessity (e.g., med. emergency),
terminated by Δ not on merits, or
ends in hung jury
6A
prevents elicitation of incriminating statements by government after formal charge and attaches the D right to counsel
Violation of 6A requires
reversal
Waiver of 6A
Δ’s knowing and intelligent relinquishment of right, considering TOTC (Δ’s character, circumstances).
When can a D defense self (pro se)
Comptent
Competency to stand trial - 6A. To be competent to stand trial, the defendant
must understand
the nature of the proceedings against him and be aware of the consequences of the proceedings.
the right to counsel is
offense speific and attaches at indictment
when in pre-trial identification is 6A needed
post-indictment lineup or showup, right to counsel at all times he is visible to witnesses
Due process as it relates to 6A
applies to all pretrial IDs: Any lineup, showup, or photo ID is inadmissible as denying due process if it was unnecessarily suggestive + there is substantial likelihood of misidentification
Exceptions to due process and 6A
necessary under circumstances (e.g., lineup is impractical because witness is near death), or ID is reliable based on a TOTC assessment
Remedy for a pretrial identification that violates due process
Results of pretrial ID is per se inadmissible at trial, unless independent source exists under TOTC.
TOTC factors
TOTC factors: opportunity to view Δ at scene, ease with which witness can ID Δ, prior misidentifications
Duty to disclose exculpatory evidence
Π must disclose evidence that is favorable to Δ and material (reasonable probability of different outcome). Failure to disclose violates DPC and is grounds for reversing a conviction
6A right to counsel includes the right to effective counsel. Effective assistance is generally presumed. To claim ineffective assistance, Δ must show
deficient performance + actual prejudice
Deficient performance:
Show particular acts/omissions reasonably competent practitioner would not make
Actual prejudice: Reasonable probability (20-25%) that the result
would have been different but for errors
It is a 6A violation to represent more than one Δ when a conflict of interest jeopardizes rights of any co-Δ or adversely affects the attorney’s performance (burden on
Δ to show the conflict’s adverse effect)
when can the D not go pro se
on appeal
Right to speedy trial: Attaches under 6A once Δ arrested or charged (knowledge of charges is irrelevant). Remedy for violation
dismissal
Violation factors
: unreasonable length of delay (e.g., 1 year), reason for delay (no due diligence by Π), whether Δ asserted right, prejudice to Δ (e.g., destruction of evidence, oppressive incarceration)
8A deals with
cruel and unusual punishment
When can the death penalty be imposed?
May be imposed for murder under a statute that gives judge or jury reasonable discretion, full information concerning Δ, and guidance in making the decision. Statute must not be vague and must allow sentencing body (jury) to consider all mitigating evidence
when can the death pennalty may be Imposed
felony murder and acted with reckless indifference to human life
When is the death penalty unconsiutional
if a death penalty statute does not give Δ a chance to present mitigating circumstances
When can the death penalty not be imposed
minors @ time of offense, mentally disabled, legally insane @ time of execution
Warrantless, even supcionless, road checkpoints have been upheld by the SC. You must show that
search was supported by issue realted to automobiles like the jusitication of highway safety like prevention of DUI
Checkpoints must be administered in a way that the officer discretion is every limited ie every other car
Do not detain the indiviuals for an unreasonable period of time
When you discuss consent you should also discuss
whether consent was knowingly and voluntarily given
Whether an indiviual validly consent is determined
objectively based on a rp officer owuld believe that the individual consented to the search and seizure
As outline by the SC in Terry, an officer may stop and search and indiviual based on less than probable cause when
Officer must have reasonable suspicion based on speific and articulable facts the indiviual is engaged in criminal activity to stop the person PO can then question the indiviual
To search the person, the PO must have reasonable suspicion that he is armed and officer is possibly in danger
In order to justify a warrantless search of car incident to arrest LEO must show
i) that the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and may pose an actual and continuing threat to the officer’s safety or a need to preserve evidence from being tampered with, or
(ii) that it is reasonable that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
The government may not use administrative searches to investigate criminal activity. However,
discovery of evidence during the search does not invalidate the search
