exam 3 Flashcards
Curtilage
Grounds and buildings immediately surrounding a and associated with a dwelling (Residential yards, garages, & fenced areas)
US v. Dunn (1987)
The barn was questionable because it was 50 yards from the house & surrounded by a fence. Not a part of curtilage
California v. Ciraolo (1986)
After receiving anonymous tip he was growing marijuana in backyard, officers used private plane to fly over home. It was legal
FL v. Riley (1989)
As long as they are flying at appropriate heights that the FFA prescribes, then police can fly over homes
Open Fields
Permissible for police to enter and search unoccupied or underdeveloped areas outside the curtilage without a warrant or probable cause as long as the area is considered open fields. No search warrant needed
Oliver v US (1984)
Do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for open field so you are not protected by 4th amendment
Abandonment
Giving up a thing or item absolutely without limitation to any particular person or purpose
- Property is left somewhere
- Intent to abandon
- Property may be thrown away
- Property may be considered abandoned if on private property & it is determined by circumstances the occupant has left the premises
California v. Greenwood (1988)
Trash or garbage left at curbside for regular collection is considered abandoned & may be seized by police without a warrant
Brown v. Mississippi (1936)
Would be beaten until confessed, so he confessed. It is now outlawed
Spano v. NY (1959)????
Told a close police friend that he was dazed and didn’t know what he was doing when he shot him
Rogers v. Richmond (1961)
Threatened that his wife was going to be taken into custody
Confession must be voluntary for it to be admissible
Escobedo v. IL (1964)
a. He asked for a lawyer, but the lawyer was at the police station trying to see his client, but the police were repeatingly denying his right to see the attorney. Illegal, entitled to see lawyer
Miranda v. AZ (1966)
a. Questioning of rape and kidnapping of someone, 23 years old, poor, completed half of 9th grade. Must be read rights
Duckworth v. Eagan (1989)
It is okay if you do not say the rights verbatim, just as long as the gist is covered
Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
Exception to Miranda. Routine questioning after a routine traffic stop does not require the use of Miranda
CO v. Connelly (1986)
Connelly told officer that he understood rights & wanted to speak to an officer about a murder he committed in 1982. Advice of god
Fare v. Michael C (1979)
a. Juvenile case, where juvenile is on probation
b. Asked to see probation officer
c. Probation officer is not right to counsel , so police did not have to stop asking questions
When is someone in custody?
b. When the suspect is not under arrest, but is deprived of freedom in a significant way (movement limited by the police)
Larry G Bell
Serial killer in SC with the Sherry Faye Smith (she wrote her will), a little blonde & a third in NC
Brewer v. Williams (1977)
a. Little girl taken from a YMCA
b. Inevitable discovery ; officer gave Christian Burial Speech
i. Officer didn’t ask questions, but it served the same purpose
c. Court said this was the functional equivalent of interrogation
d. Confession was thrown out, but in the retrial he was convicted
Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)
a. Arrested on the abduction & killing of a taxi driver
b. Advised of Miranda rights twice & said he understood, wanted to speak with attorney
c. En route, officers engaged in a conversation with each other about a shotgun & concerned that children would find the gun
Berkemer v McCarty (1984)
No need when asking roadside questioning detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop
Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)
Police do not have to give drunk driving suspects Miranda rights when giving the sobriety tests
NY v. Quarles (1984)
the failure of the officer to give Quarles the Miranda warnings prior to asking questions that led to the discovery of the gun. Legal because of exigent circumstances, public safety
US v Mandujano (1976)
i. Potential criminal defendant appearing before testifying in front of a grand jury
1. Don’t have to be mirandize, but they have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves
Fare v. Michael C
i. No need for the Miranda warnings to be given by noncustodial interrogations of a probation officer
Edwards v. AZ (1981)
a. Was told accomplice made a statement, said he wanted to make a deal, but then later wanted to talk to his attorney. Cannot be interrogated by police unless suspect initiates conversation
Maryland v. Shatzer (2010)
a. While Shatzer was in prison for another offense, he was accused of molesting his son
b. 3 years later, he incriminated himself
14 day rule
14 day rule
- If you are in custody & you invoke your Miranda rights, we can’t question you further until 14 days later
Colorado v. Spring (1987)
a. Said he shot someone, but denied any specific person
b. a suspect does not have to be informed of all crimes to which he is questioned for before there can be a valid waiver of the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination
Moran v. Burbine (1986)
a. The failure of police officers to inform a suspect retained by a third party was attempting to reach him did not make the evidence inadmissible
Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)
a. Harmless error rule
Dickerson v. US (2000)
a. Reaffirmed Miranda decision
b. Otis Stephens
i. Professor
ii. Makes the argument that Miranda didn’t go far enough
iii. Established to make it an equal playing field between police & suspect, but doesn’t feel like there is much of a balance
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
i. “No system worth preserving should have to fear that if an accused is permitted to consult with a lawyer he will become aware of and exercise these rights. If the exercise of constitutional rights will stop the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system.”
I. Privilege of self-incrimination does not apply for physical evidence
6
II. Government can force a suspect for the following things bc it is physical evidence
a. Appear in a police lineup before or after a formal charge
b. Give a blood sample, even unwillingly, as long as proper conditions are present
c. Can force to take a photograph
d. Can force a suspect to take handwriting samples
e. Can force to submit to fingerprinting
f. Require an individual to repeat certain words or gestures or give voice examples
US v. Dionisit (1973)
a. Refused to comply, so the court found him in civil contempt and jailed until he read it or for 18 months. Physical evidence does not violate 4 or 5 amendement
US v. Wade (1967)
b. Put strips of tape on various peoples in lineup
c. Did not violate 5th amendment because again, physical evidence
d. 6th amendment Right to counsel is guaranteed not only at trial but at any critical confrontation at pre-trial proceedings where he might not receive fair treatment
Kirby v. IL (1972)
a. Prior to the filing of a formal charge, a suspect has no right to counsel during a lineup
Foster v. CA (1969)
different people were used in the lineups so it was leagal
Fryer v. US DC Cir (1923)
a. Polygraphs do not meet the standards for scientific evidence to be used in courtroom
MD v. King (2013)
Supreme Court that it is legit & upheld state law that allows for individuals to have DNA testing done before trial & after conviction after arrest
c. If you are arrested, you can get your DNA swabbed– even before conviction
Eckert v. Deming (2013)
b. Stopped and searched by police, but no drugs. Anal cavity search. No probable cause. Officers were sued
