Criminal Procedure Flashcards
4A
protects against unreasonable searches and seizures*
remember relatedly that the FRE do NOT apply to the issuance of search warrants
4A violation –essay analysis structure
- define 4A
- was there govt conduct?
- analyze proper seizure
- analyze proper search
- does D have standing? ie, does D have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the places searched or the items seized
seizure + search question structure
analyze seizure first and then search under separate headings / issues
what constitutes a seizure
when by means of physical force OR show of authority, a person’s freedom of movement has been restrained
TEST: under the totality of circumstances*, would a reasonable person NOT feel free to leave?
- totality of the circumstances means apply the facts – insert factual analysis here
types of seizure – most common examples
- arrest
- stop and frisk
- police checkpoints
- traffic stop
rules governing arrest
- usually need a warrant*
RULE (most commonly tested): if officer has PROBABLE CAUSE* to believe a FELONY has been committed (no need to directly witness), they can make a warrantless arrest
*be sure to analyze probable cause
rules governing Terry stop / investigatory stop and frisk
if an officer has reasonable suspicion* that someone is engaged in criminal activity (lower std than PC), can make a terry stop
*analyze reasonable suspicion according to the facts
rules governing police checkpoint
- discuss whether checkpt is valid
- as long as they are stopping people on a nondiscriminatory basis AND there is a specific reason for the checkpoint beyond just general crime prevention
rules governing traffic stop
if the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a traffic rule has been violated, can stop a driver
*recent example of a statute provided that if officer had probable cause to believe that someone has violated a traffic rule, can arrest. in that situation the statute was valid.
when does a search occur?
when govt conduct violates D’s reasonable expectation of privacy*
*factual inquiry** – why does D have a reasonable expectation of privacy (either in themselves or in their bag, car, etc.)?
**this analysis is separate from the analysis of whether or not the search was VALID
valid search warrant?
ASK:
(1) was there a warrant?
(2) was the warrant valid?
If yes, then search is constitutional
VALID WARRANT:
(i) issued by neutral magistrate
(ii) PC
(iii) describes w/ particularity D & the places or items to be searched / seized
EXECUTION OF WARRANT:
normally have to knock and announce themselves (if they don’t, usually not considered a huge deal)
INVALID / DEFECTIVE WARRANT EXCEPTION:
- if a warrant doesn’t meet the three prongs, and an officer executes it in GOOD-FAITH RELIANCE, believing the warrant is valid, then this isn’t a violation
no search warrant analysis
if no search warrant, then go through the relevant exceptions
exceptions that allow for search w/ no warrant:
(1) Terry Frisk*: this is when they pat down the outside of the person’s clothing for “officer safety”. Not supposed to reach into pockets or do anything more invasive than a pat-down.
if officer feels something that is clearly contraband (weapons, drugs, something illegal), OK to reach in and explore further. Has to be based on PLAIN FEEL.
*not the same analysis as for Terry Stop
(2) Terry Automobile Frisk: if office stops a car (based on R.S. of traffic violation), and they think there is a weapon in the car, they can engage in a Terry frisk of the car, and search the areas that may contain a weapon (again, for officer safety)
NOTE: if officer finds contraband during either Terry frisk or Terry automobile frisk, can give rise to probable cause to then arrest the person.
(3) Search incident to lawful arrest: if a lawful arrest has occurred, then you can search the person within a reasonable scope. Two parts to the analysis:
(i) was there a lawful arrest? i.e did officer have PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest someone? if yes, then can arrest
(ii) was the search proper?
- general patdown, no deeper intrusion except when plain feel of contraband
- can search D in his immediate area (ie areas in wingspan)
- if in D’s home, can search areas within home where D could reach or other areas where there might be other Ds or criminals hiding
- if in vehicle, can search glove compartment if it’s within reaching distance OR if it’s reasonable that there may be evidence in there
(4) Automobile Exception (NOT same as Terry Automobile Stop): if officer has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that car contains CB or evidence of a crime, can search any part of the car. Not limited to glove compartment or wingspan
(5) Plain View: if police are in a place where they’re allowed to be, and see an item and the item is clearly and immediately apparent to be contraband, they can take the item. Not violation of a warrant requirement.
- KEY part of analysis here: ALWAYS ASK if the officer in a location where they’re allowed to be.
(6) Exigent Circumstances: broad catch-all. Any # of reasons can qualify.
- “hot pursuit” of a fleeing felon who goes into a building – don’t need warrant to destroy the reading.
- Evanescent evidence (e.g. drug could be flushed, explosive will have blown up).
- Police or public safety (e.g. gun located somewhere in a playground)
(7) Voluntary consent: but cannot exceed scope
Exclusionary Rule
if govt violated D’s 4A rights, ie conducted an improper seizure or search, will exclude:
(1) evidence that was obtained as a result of govt’s violation of your 4A rights
(2) “fruit of the poisonous tree” - other evidence obtained as a result of that illegal search
EXCEPTIONS
(i) inevitable discovery
(ii) independent source doctrine
(iii) passage of time - if enough time has passed in between violation & illegal evidence being found
(iv) good faith reliance
5A
no person shall be forced to testify against themself (right against self-incrimination)
applies to testimonial evidence coercively obtained by police
If a D is undergoing CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION, officer must provide Miranda warnings (right to remain silent and right to counsel).
in answer, analyze both:
(1) is D in custody?
(2) is D undergoing an interrogation?
DEF: Custody
D is in custody if D reasonably believes they are not free to leave, or that they are otherwise deprived of their freedom
