exam 3

Question 1

Curtilage

Answer 1

Grounds and buildings immediately surrounding a and associated with a dwelling (Residential yards, garages, & fenced areas)

Question 2

US v. Dunn (1987)

Answer 2

The barn was questionable because it was 50 yards from the house & surrounded by a fence. Not a part of curtilage

Question 3

California v. Ciraolo (1986)

Answer 3

After receiving anonymous tip he was growing marijuana in backyard, officers used private plane to fly over home. It was legal

Question 4

FL v. Riley (1989)

Answer 4

As long as they are flying at appropriate heights that the FFA prescribes, then police can fly over homes

Question 5

Open Fields

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Oliver v US (1984)

Answer 6

Do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for open field so you are not protected by 4th amendment

Question 7

Abandonment

Answer 7

Giving up a thing or item absolutely without limitation to any particular person or purpose

1. Property is left somewhere
2. Intent to abandon
3. Property may be thrown away
4. Property may be considered abandoned if on private property & it is determined by circumstances the occupant has left the premises

Question 8

California v. Greenwood (1988)

Answer 8

Trash or garbage left at curbside for regular collection is considered abandoned & may be seized by police without a warrant

Question 9

Brown v. Mississippi (1936)

Answer 9

Would be beaten until confessed, so he confessed. It is now outlawed

Question 10

Spano v. NY (1959)????

Answer 10

Told a close police friend that he was dazed and didn’t know what he was doing when he shot him

Question 11

Rogers v. Richmond (1961)

Answer 11

Threatened that his wife was going to be taken into custody

Confession must be voluntary for it to be admissible

Question 12

Escobedo v. IL (1964)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Miranda v. AZ (1966)

Answer 13

a. Questioning of rape and kidnapping of someone, 23 years old, poor, completed half of 9th grade. Must be read rights

Question 14

Duckworth v. Eagan (1989)

Answer 14

It is okay if you do not say the rights verbatim, just as long as the gist is covered

Question 15

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)

Answer 15

Exception to Miranda. Routine questioning after a routine traffic stop does not require the use of Miranda

Question 16

CO v. Connelly (1986)

Answer 16

Connelly told officer that he understood rights & wanted to speak to an officer about a murder he committed in 1982. Advice of god

Question 17

Fare v. Michael C (1979)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

When is someone in custody?

Answer 18

b. When the suspect is not under arrest, but is deprived of freedom in a significant way (movement limited by the police)

Question 19

Larry G Bell

Answer 19

Serial killer in SC with the Sherry Faye Smith (she wrote her will), a little blonde & a third in NC

Question 20

Brewer v. Williams (1977)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980)

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Berkemer v McCarty (1984)

Answer 22

No need when asking roadside questioning detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop

Question 23

Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990)

Answer 23

Police do not have to give drunk driving suspects Miranda rights when giving the sobriety tests

Question 24

NY v. Quarles (1984)

Answer 24

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

Question 25

US v Mandujano (1976)

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Fare v. Michael C

Answer 26

i. No need for the Miranda warnings to be given by noncustodial interrogations of a probation officer

Question 27

Edwards v. AZ (1981)

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Maryland v. Shatzer (2010)

Answer 28

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

Question 29

14 day rule

Answer 29

1. If you are in custody & you invoke your Miranda rights, we can’t question you further until 14 days later

Question 30

Colorado v. Spring (1987)

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Moran v. Burbine (1986)

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991)

Answer 32

a. Harmless error rule

Question 33

Dickerson v. US (2000)

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Answer 34

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.”

Question 35

I. Privilege of self-incrimination does not apply for physical evidence

Answer 35

6

Question 36

II. Government can force a suspect for the following things bc it is physical evidence

Answer 36

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

Question 37

US v. Dionisit (1973)

Answer 37

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

Question 38

US v. Wade (1967)

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Kirby v. IL (1972)

Answer 39

a. Prior to the filing of a formal charge, a suspect has no right to counsel during a lineup

Question 40

Foster v. CA (1969)

Answer 40

different people were used in the lineups so it was leagal

Question 41

Fryer v. US DC Cir (1923)

Answer 41

a. Polygraphs do not meet the standards for scientific evidence to be used in courtroom

Question 42

MD v. King (2013)

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Eckert v. Deming (2013)

Answer 43

b. Stopped and searched by police, but no drugs. Anal cavity search. No probable cause. Officers were sued