Essay rule statements Flashcards
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable arrests or other seizures, as well as unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment limits governmental action. Even if governmental action exists, there is no constitutional violation unless the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy and either (i) the police did not have a valid warrant, or (ii) they executed an invalid warrantless search.
A search occurs when governmental conduct violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Must have reasonable articulable suspicion.
Generally, a police officer must have a warrant to commence a search.
Under the Fourth Amendment, evidence seized during an unlawful search cannot constitute proof against the victim of the search.
REP in home
REP in business
The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable arrests or other seizures, as well as unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment limits governmental action. It does not restrict the acts of private parties unless the private person is acting as an instrument or agent of the government. Even if governmental action exists, there is no constitutional violation unless the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy and either (i) the police did not have a valid warrant, or (ii) they executed an invalid warrantless search. The Fourth Amendment protects against an unreasonable governmental search of a “house.” This protection extends to persons who have the right to immediate possession of a dwelling.
Terry Stop
A “Terry stop” is a limited and temporary intrusion on an individual’s freedom of movement short of a full custodial arrest. A stop is justified on reasonable suspicion, which is based upon articulable facts that the detainee is or was involved in criminal activity.
Plain view doctrine
Items in public view may be seized without a warrant because one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things that are exposed to the public.
Under the “plain-view” doctrine, a police officer may seize an item in her plain view as long as (i) the officer is legally in that area, (ii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent, and (iii) the officer inadvertently discovers the item.
In situations in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, a police officer may seize an item in plain view of the officer, even if it was not named in the search warrant or the discovery was inadvertent, as long as (i) the officer is on the premises for a lawful purpose, and (ii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent
The Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination provides that a suspect has a right not to be compelled to make incriminating statements in the police interrogation process. This right is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Any incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial, unless the police provided procedural safeguards effective to inform the suspect of his Miranda rights.
Miranda Rights
An individual’s Miranda rights are triggered when the defendant is (i) in custody and (ii) being interrogated by law enforcement officers.
Custody is a substantial seizure and is defined as either a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement associated with a formal arrest. A person is in custody when he is not free to leave or is otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. The test is whether a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. Traffic stops generally are not considered custodial because they generally are brief and temporary.
Interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible, until the defendant is informed of the Miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights.
However, volunteered statements are not protected by Miranda. Additionally, if a defendant wishes to invoke his right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, he must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting his desire to have counsel present. Once that right is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present.
Reasonable suspicion
Whether reasonable suspicion exists is based on the totality of the circumstances.
Officers must have an articulable, reasonable suspicion of a violation of the law in order to stop an automobile
Exceptions to warrant requirement for a vehicle
Pursuant to a lawful stop of a vehicle, police may conduct a search of the passenger compartment for weapons if the police possess a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons, and the search of the passenger compartment is limited to areas where a weapon could be hidden.
Search warrant requirements
To be valid, a search warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate based on probable cause, must be supported by oath or affidavit, and must describe the places to be searched and the items to be seized.
Probable cause
Facts supporting probable cause may come from a police officer’s personal observations, information from a reliable, known informant or from an unknown informant that can be independently verified, or evidence seized during stops based on reasonable suspicion, in plain view, or obtained during consensual searches.
Exclusionary rule
When evidence is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it falls under the exclusionary rule and may not be admitted as substantive evidence.
Consent
One exception to the warrant requirement is consent. Any person with an apparent equal right to use or occupy the property may consent to a search and any evidence found may be used against the owners. The search is valid even if the person consenting did not actually have such right, as long as the police reasonably believed the person had the right to consent.
Additionally, if consent is given for a search, the scope of the search may not exceed what the person giving consent allows.
Evidence for prosecution
Before the prosecutor could charge a person, he would need to have sufficient evidence that would lead to a reasonable likelihood of a successful prosecution.
However, a prosecutor should never intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he believes that it may damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused, and it may be unethical to make no efforts to investigate
Doctrine of recent possession
North Carolina employs the doctrine of recent possession, which allows a jury to infer that the defendant stole certain property when the stolen goods were found in her possession recently after the theft.
Valid arrest
Unlike searches, police generally do not need a warrant to make a valid arrest in a public place, even if they have time to get one.
Impaired driving
In North Carolina, an officer without a warrant may arrest any person the officer has probable cause to believe has committed impaired driving.
In North Carolina, a person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, street, or public vehicular area in North Carolina while under the influence of an impairing substance. Under North Carolina law, a person is considered “driving” if he is in actual physical control of a vehicle that is in motion or that has the engine running. A person sitting behind the wheel of a car in the driver’s seat and starting the engine is sufficient to show that the defendant is in actual physical control of the vehicle.
