Due Process Flashcards
Due Process Voluntariness
Police methods of eliciting confessions that would overbear one’s will violates Due Process.
Police Methods Test
Must show some type of threat and/or coercion used to induce confession (Spano).
Questionability of Freewill
There is no Due Process Voluntariness violation without State action, and the mental state (e.g., intoxication) of a D doesn’t affect the voluntariness of a confession––unless known and taken advantage of by a cop (Connelly).
Voluntariness as it relates to magistrates
For federal cases, the Supreme Court, as having the power to impose procedural measures, holds that unnecessary delays lead to a confession by D prior to standing before a magistrate, the court can suppress the confession because cops are abusing the system (McNabb/Mallory).
Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all State prosecutions (Mapp).
Purpose of Exclusionary Rule
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is DETERRENCE of illegally obtaining evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effective incentive as
(a) disciplinary action is unlikely to happen between a District Attorney and officers;
(b) monetary remedies will fail, as officers are not generally wealthy; and
(c) exclusion ensures that officers understand evidence will be inadmissible, should violations occur. (Wolf)
Otherwise, a State, by admitting illegally obtained evidence, disobeys the Constitution that it has sworn to uphold (Mapp).
The relationship of the Exclusionary Rule to “judicial integrity”
Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the same sanction of exclusion is also enforceable against them––ensuring JUDICIAL INTEGRITY (Mapp; see Wolf).
Standing in terms of the Exclusionary Rule
A party seeking relief must allege such a personal stake or interest in the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete adverseness which Article III of the Constitution requires. A person whose rights under Fourth Amendment were violated by a search or seizure, but who is not a D in a criminal action in which the illegally seized evidence is sought to be introduced, does not have standing to invoke the exclusionary rule to prevent use of that evidence in that action (Rakas).
Personal Rights Model
Your own constitutional right (e.g., reasonable expectation of privacy) must be violated.
Vicarious Rights Model
One can raise issue of another’s constitutional rights violation. INVALID
Products covered by Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Government cannot avail itself of the knowledge that by other means, otherwise, it would not have had (Silverthorn Lumber). Thus, the Exclusionary Rule covers
(1) indirect and direct products of unlawful searches, and
(2) physical, tangible materials obtained (e.g., overhearing of verbal statements, seizure of “papers and effects,” )
Does the Exclusionary Rule apply to overheard verbal statements or testimony?
Testimony as to matters observed during an unlawful invasion have been excluded in order to enforce the basic constitutional policies. Thus, verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest is no less the “fruit” of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion. Either in terms of deterring lawless conduct by federal officers, or of closing the doors of the federal courts to any use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained the danger in relaxing the exclusionary rules in the case of verbal evidence would seem too great to warrant introducing such a distinction (Wong Sun).
If there is criminal evidence in a trial who’s owner has not been identified, what must be done to exclude it?
A party must
(1) claim at the suppression hearing, under oath, that the evidence is their’s, and
(2) show that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Limited Use Immunity
A party seeking to claim ownership of contraband will only have limited use immunity at the suppression hearing insofar as that admission can not be used at trial (Simmons). HOWEVER, the party cannot contradict during trial the admission during their testimony, as the suppression hearing testimony is under oath, and doing so will open the party to impeachment by the prosecution (Harris).
Exclusionary Rule Determination
Reasonable expectation of privacy (Rakas).
Contraband Exclusion
A reasonable expectation of privacy must be established to show standing, except for contraband, which the Supreme Court has ruled no reasonable expectation of privacy (Rollings).
Factors for Standing regarding guests
– Overnight guests (Olsen)
– Temporary/Social guests (Carter)
– In a seizure, whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave, such as a passenger in a car (Brendan)
Basic Rule of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Poisonous trees are personal.
3 Methods to admit Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
- Independent Source Doctrine (Murray)
- Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
- Attenuation Doctrine
Independent Source Doctrine
Information which is received through an illegal source is considered to be cleanly obtained when it arrives through an independent source. The independent source doctrine applies also to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality. The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.
Prosecution must show that
(1) agents would have sought a search warrant even absent Fourth Amendment invasion, and
(2) they had acted in violation of Fourth Amendment based upon mistakenly believing exigent circumstances (Murray).
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
The prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, the evidence should be received. Inevitable discovery involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment and does not require a departure from the usual burden of proof at suppression hearings (Nix).
Can physical evidence found from statements obtained in violation of Miranda be admitted?
Miranda protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which is not implicated by the admission into evidence of the physical fruit of a voluntary statement. Both Miranda and Self-Incrimination Clause primarily focus on the criminal trial, forbidding compelling D to testify against himself, and so cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements (Patane).
How might one claim a violation of Due Process while still upholding procedural guidelines?
If something is fundamentally unfair (e.g., outrageous government conduct) it will still violate Due Process (Rocian).
