Criminal Procedure - To what extent can prosecutors use the evidence gathered in an unconstitutional search and seizure against the defendant in court? Flashcards
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence, whether physical or testimonial, that is obtained in violation of a federal statutory or constitutional provision is INADMISSIBLE in court against the individual whose rights were violated
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - Case-in-chief vs. Cross
Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is excluded from the prosecutor’s case-in-chief ONLY; it may be introduced to impeach the D’s testimony on cross
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Knock and Announce” Violations
A failure to comply with the “knock and announce” rule does NOT require suppression of evidence that is subsequently discovered
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - Police Error
To trigger the exclusionary rule, erroneous police conduct must be deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - Officers’ Reasonable Mistakes
The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained erroneously when executing a search warrant, provided an officers’ mistake was reasonable
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (General Principles - Direct Evidence)
Most of the unlawfully seized evidence that we have addressed thus far has been DIRECTLY linked to the constitutional violation e.g. evidence gathered pursuant to a search warrant that violates the 4th
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (General Principles - Derivative Evidence)
Evidence (both physical and testimonial) can also be obtained by exploiting PRIOR unconstitutional conduct, e.g. a confession obtained as a result of an earlier unlawful arrest. This derivative or “secondary” evidence is called “fruit of the poisonous tree” and, like direct evidence obtained in violation of the 4th, it is INADMISSIBLE in the prosecutor’s case-in-chief
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (Admitting Tainted Fruit)
To nullify “fruit of the poisonous tree,” prosecutors must show a break in the CASUAL LINK between the original illegality and the criminal evidence that is later discovered
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (Admitting Tainted Fruit - 3 Doctrines)
- Independent Source
- Inevitable Discovery
- Attenuation
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (Admitting Tainted Fruit - Independent Source)
This doctrine applies where there is a source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence that is distinct from the ORIGINAL illegality
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (Admitting Tainted Fruit - Inevitable Discovery)
This doctrine applies where the evidence would necessarily have been discovered through lawful means
4th Limits on the Exclusionary Rule - “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” (Admitting Tainted Fruit - Attenuation)
This doctrine admits derivative evidence where the passage of time and intervening events, and the non-flagrant nature of the official misconduct “purge the taint” of the original illegality and restore the defendant’s free will
Wiretapping - Mnemonic
Screen Telephone Calls Carefully
Wiretapping - The 4 Requirements
Suspected Persons
Time
Crime
Conversations
Wiretapping - Suspected Persons
The warrant must name the suspected persons whose conversations are to be overheard
Wiretapping - Time
The wiretap must be for strictly limited time period
Wiretapping - Crime
There must be probable cause that a specific crime has been committed
Wiretapping - Conversations
The warrant must describe with particularity the conversations that can be overheard
Eavesdropping - “Unreliable Ear” Doctrine and Assumption of Risk
If you speak to someone who has agreed to a wiretap or some other form of the electronic monitoring, you have no 4th claim; you assume the risk that the other party will not keep your conversations private
The Law of Arrest - When does an arrest occur? (2)
- An arrest occurs whenever the police take someone into custody against her will for prosecution or interrogation
- It is considered a de facto arrest when the police compel someone to come to the police station for questioning or fingerprinting
The Law of Arrest - What standard of proof applies to arrests?
Probable Cause
The Law of Arrest - For what offenses does the 4th permit custodial arrest?
All offenses, even those punishable by the monetary fine only
The Law of Arrest - When do you need an arrest warrant? (3)
- Police officers do NOT need a warrant to arrest someone in a public place
- Absent an emergency, police officers need a warrant to arrest someone in their home
- To arrest someone in the home of a third party, police officers need an arrest warrant AND a search warrant
Confessions - What are the three federal constitutional challenges that can be brought to exclude a confession?
- 14th - Due Process Clause
- 6th - Right to Counsel
- 5th - Miranda Doctrine
Confessions - Excluding Confessions under the Due Process Clause (What is the standard for excluding a confession under the Due Process Clause?)
Involuntariness which means that the confession is the product of police coercion that OVERBEARS the suspect’s will
Confessions - Right to Counsel under the 6th (5)
1.This is an express constitutional guarantee
- It attaches when the D is formally charged, NOT upon request
- It applies to all critical stages of the prosecution that take place after the filing of formal charges, including arraignment, probable cause hearings, police interrogation and plea bargaining
- This right is OFFENSE SPECIFIC. This means it applies ONLY to the crimes with which a defendant is formally charged. It provides no protection for uncounseled interrogation for other uncharged criminal activity
- Incriminating statements obtained from the defendant by law enforcement about charged offenses violate the 6th if those statements are deliberately elicited AND the defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to have his attorney present.
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - Implied Rights
Miranda rights are implied rights grounded in the Self-Incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - 4 Warnings
- The right to remain silent
- Anything you can say can and will be used against you in a court of law
- the right to an attorney
- if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - When are Miranda warnings necessary? (2 Core Requirements)
- Custody
- Interrogation
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - Custody
A two-part, totality-of-the-circumstances test is used to determine if a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes.
- A reasonable person would have felt that she was not at liberty to end the interrogation and leave and
- The environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures at the station-house questioning at issue in Miranda
- Age and Custody: While the custody inquiry objective it should take account of a juvenile suspect’s age, where age is relevant and when the officer knew or should have been aware of a child’s age at the time of questioning
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - Interrogation
The 5th Amend Miranda doctrine defines interrogation as any conduct the police knew or should’ve known was likely to elicit an incriminating response
REMEMBER: Miranda does not apply to incriminating statements made spontaneously, since they are NOT the product of interrogation
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - Public Safety Exception
If a suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation, the Miranda doctrine applies with one important exception: If custodial interrogation is prompted by an immediate concern for public safety, Miranda warnings are unnecessary and any incriminating statements are admissible against the suspect.
5th Amendment Miranda Doctrine - Unless the public safety exception applies, a suspect’s incriminating testimonial responses obtained through custodial interrogation are admissible, provided an officer does what two things?
- Reasonably conveys to the suspect his/her core Miranda rights; AND
- thereafter obtains a valid waiver of a suspect’s Miranda rights to silence and counsel
A Valid Miranda Waiver - 2 Requirements
- Knowingly and Intelligent
- Voluntary
A Valid Miranda Waiver - Knowingly and Intelligent (Definition)
A Miranda waiver is knowing and intelligent if the suspect understands:
(a) the nature of the rights; AND
(b) the consequences of abandoning them.
A Valid Miranda Waiver - Voluntary (Definition)
A Miranda waiver is voluntary if it is NOT the product of police coercion