Criminal Procedure Flashcards
What are the four questions that require affirmative answers for the Fourth Amendment to apply?
- Was the search or seizure (s/s) executed by a GOVERNMENT AGENT?
- Was the s/s of an AREA or ITEM protected by the 4th Amd?
- Was there PHYSICALLY INTRUSION on a protected area or a violation of an individual’s REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY in a protected area?
- Did the individual subjected to s/s have STANDING to challenge the conduct?
Who is a government agent?
- Publicly paid police; on or off duty
Who are potential gov’t agents?
- Pvt citizens ONLY IF they are acting at the directions of the police.
- Pvt security guards ONLY IF they have been deputized with the power to arrest
- Public school administrators
Four categories of areas/items protected by 4th Amd
- Persons
- Houses (including hotel rooms)
- Papers, and
- Effects (personal belongings, backpacks, purses, etc.)
Is curtilage protected?
Yes.
Unprotected places/items:
Public Observation Generally Obliterates Fourth Amendment Protection
Physical characteristics (voice, handwriting)
Odors that emanate from your car or luggage
Garbage left at the curb for collection
Open Fields
Financial records held by the bank
Airspace; anything that can be seen below when flying in public airspace.
Pin registers
Two ways that s/s by gov’t agents can implicate an individual’s 4th Amd right:
- Trespass based test, or
2. Privacy based test.
Trespass based test:
Agent PHYSICALLY INTRUDED on a constitutionally protected area in order to obtain information.
Privacy based test:
Agent’s s/s of constitutionally protected area violated an individual’s REASONABLE EXPECTATION of pvcy.
To satisfy a privacy based test the individual must show: (two things)
- an ACTUAL or SUBJECTIVE expectation of privacy in the area searched or items seized; AND
- that the pvcy expectation was one that society recognizes as reasonable.
To have standing to challenge lawfulness of s/s:
an individual’s PERSONAL privacy rights must be invaded, not those of a third party.
Do these people have reasonable expectation of privacy: owners of a premises?
Always
Do these people have reasonable expectation of privacy: residents of a premises?
Always
Do these people have reasonable expectation of privacy: overnight guests?
Always - as to the areas overnight guests can be expected to access.
Do these people have reasonable expectation of privacy: people solely using someone else’s residence for business purposes?
No.
Do these people have reasonable expectation of privacy: if they own the property seized?
Only if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the AREA from which the property was seized. (Ex. man who hides drugs in g/f purse - no expectation of pvcy in the purse.)
Do these people have reasonable expectation of privacy: if they are passengers in a car?
No reasonable expectation of pvcy in a vehicle in which they are merely passengers.
Standard for warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate:
Judicial officer ceases to be sufficiently neutral and detached when her conduct demonstrates BIAS in favor of the prosecution.
Probable cause requires proof:
of a fair probability that contraband or evidence of crime will be found in the area searched.
Use of informants’ tips for probable cause:
Police may rely on a tip even if it is anonymous. Sufficiency of the informant’s tip rests on the corroboration of the police of enough of the tipster’s info to allow the magistrate to make a common sense practical determination that probable cause exists based on a totality of the circumstances.
Magistrate can issue a warrant based on:
a common sense practical determination that probable cause exists based on a totality of the circumstances.
What two things must a warrant specify to satisfy the particularity requirement:
- The place to be searched, and
2. the items to be seized
Can a warrant that was invalid due to the absence of probable cause be saved by the cops good faith?
NOT IN GEORGIA.
Two aspects of whether a warrant was properly executed by the police:
- Compliance w/ warrant’s terms and limitations, and
2. Knock and announce rule (subject to limitations)
In executing a warrant, officers are allowed to search only:
those areas and items authorized by the language of the warrant.
When executing a search warrant officers may detain:
occupants found w/i or immediately outside the residence at the time of the search.
A search warrant must be executed w/i:
10 days of its issuance.
Officers don’t have to knock and announce if they reasonably believe that to do so would be:
- futile
- dangerous,
- or would inhibit the investigation.
Eight exceptions to the warrant requirement: ESCAPIST
Exigent Circumstances Search incident to arrest Consent Automobile Plain View Inventory Special Needs Terry "Stop and Frisk"
Three types of exigent circumstances:
- Evanescent Evidence
- Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon
- Emergency aid exception
Search incident to arrest:
- Arrest must be lawful
- Timing: The search must be contemporaneous in the time AND place of the arrest
- Geographic scope: The wingspan, which includes the body, clothes, and any containers w/i the arrestee’s immediate control - without regard to the offense for which the arrest was made.
Automobiles searched incident to arrest: Permissible scope:
Interior cabin including closed containers, but not the trunk.
Automobiles searched incident to arrest: secured v. unsecured arrestees
Once an arrestee is secured an officer may search the vehicle ONLY if she has reason to believe the vehicle may contain EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE ARREST WAS MADE.
Standard for consent to search:
Must be voluntary and intelligent.
Scope of consent:
extends to all areas for which a reasonable officer would believe that permission to search was granted.
Apparent authority w/ consent:
Consent obtained from someone who does not have actual authority to consent is still valid if officer reasonably believed that the person had actual authority.
Consent in regards to shared premises:
Any adult resident can consent to search of common areas BUT
if co-tenants who are present on the premises disagree regarding consent to search the common areas the OBJECTING party prevails as to areas which they share dominion and control.
Automobile exception to warrant: Standard:
Officers need probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a vehicle.
Automobile exception to warrant: Where can cops search?
The entire vehicle and they may open any package, luggage, or other container that may reasonably contain the items for which there was probable cause to search.
Automobile exception to warrant: Traffic stops and auto searches:
Officer does not need probable cause to search the vehicle at the time the car is pulled over, provided he acquires it before initiating the search.
Three requirements for seizure of item in plain view:
- Lawful access to the place from which the item can be plainly seen;
- Lawful access to the item itself; and
- The criminality of the item must be immediately apparent.
Two common contexts for inventory searches:
- Arrestees: when they are booked into jail
2. Vehicles: when they are impounded.
Inventory searches are constitutional provided: (3 things)
- the regulations governing them are reasonable in scope.
- the search itself complies with those regulations, and
- the search is conducted in good faith.
Terry stops:
A BRIEF detention for the purpose of being investigated.
When are you ‘seized’ for the purposes of he 4th amd?
- When by a totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would not feel free to leave OR to decline an officer’s request to answer questions.
Three things to think about when determining whether an individual has been seized by law enforcement:
- Whether an officer brandishes a weapon.
- The officer’s tone and demeanor, and
- Whether the individual has been told she has the right to refuse to consent.
Police pursuit and seizure:
Individual is seized only if he submits to the officer’s authority by stopping or if the officer physically restrains him.
Traffic stops: Both the driver and the passenger are seized so:
either can challenge the legality of the stop.
Dog sniffs at traffic stops are permissible if:
the sniff does not prolong the stop unreasonably.
Terry frisks:
Pat down of the body and outer clothing for weapons that is justified be an officer’s belief that a suspect is armed and dangerous.