Final Flashcards
1
Q
Brown v. Mississippi
A
States cannot violate fundamental rights (defendant’s tortured into a false confession). Cannot deny fundamental principles of fairness and ordered liberty
2
Q
Powell v. Alabama
A
Scottsboro case…9 black men convicted on perjured testimony. Counsel was appointed on the day of the trial. 6th Amendment demands the right to effective counsel (both at trial and in the time leading up to trial when consultation and preparation take place).
3
Q
14th Amendment
A
Incorporates parts of the Bill or Rights to the states…Total Incorporation [full BoR applied to states but nothing else additional] v. Selective Incorporation [certain parts of BoR applied to states…what is essential to a fair trial should be incorporated]
4
Q
Fundamental Fairness
A
Absolute Rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
Freedom from self-compelled testimony (5th)
Speedy and public trial with effective counsel (6th)
*4th, 5th & 6th only protect against government actions, not private ones
5
Q
Adams v. NY
A
bookie illegally searched and court said illegal search and seizure of evidence doesn’t affect admissibility…no exclusion of the evidence
6
Q
Weeks v. US
A
D mailed lottery tickets so it was federal trial. Local PD entered his home w/o warrant and they turned over evidence to Federal gov. Evidence excluded, but only applying exclusionary rule to federal gov not state. If state gov acted as agents of the feds then exclusion would still apply
7
Q
Wolf v. Colorado
A
state police unreasonably searched the defendant. Court said that police can’t search unreasonably by applying the 4th to the states but didn’t force the exclusionary rule on states.
8
Q
Mapp v. Ohio
A
Local PD search D’s house for bomber, she says no…they come back w/o warrant force entry cuff her and find lewd material and arrest her. COURT FINALLY ADOPTS EXCLUSIONARY RULE FOR STATES. Evidence was therefore inadmissible.
9
Q
Katz v. US
A
D suspected of gambling crimes, cops set up listening device on public phone booth with clear doors…D makes call closes door police listen and arrest based off of the evidence. 4th protects people, not places…so physical trespass is irrelevant.
TEST:
1) Is there a subjective expectation of privacy?
2)Is the expectation reasonable? [Objective Standard]
If passes the test, search is unreasonable without warrant
What you hold out in public view is not private, even in your home
10
Q
Hoffa
A
D talks to his friend about his crimes, and his friend turns and rights him out. NOT A SEARCH…
11
Q
On Lee
A
false friend with a wire…no search
12
Q
US v. White
A
P works with informant who talks to D…someone hiding in closet transmitting convo to the P over radio. Not a search…here, unlike Katz, one party consented.
4th amendment doesnt protect against misplaced confidence in who you confide in [No reasonable expectation of privacy with another person…assumed risk]
What you willingly tell a third person is not protected
*NY is a one party consent state
13
Q
Smith v. Maryland
A
gov installs pen register (tracks who you call) D robs victim and calls the robbery victim and says he robbed her. Not a search b/c people voluntarily give info to the phone company so no reasonable expectation of privacy because he gave info to phone company voluntarily
*also differs from Katz because P got not content form the convos, which was private
14
Q
US v. Place & Illinois v. Caballes
A
Dog Sniffs ARE NOT searches.
Low level of intrusion (no physical entry)
Consider the length of these searches
15
Q
What Constitutes a search?
A
Reasonable subjective expectation of privacy?
Balance with:
1) level of intrusion
2) public interest
*must look at totality of circumstances when balancing
16
Q
Open Field Doctrine (Oliver)
A
police entry of an open field is not a search…open field is any unoccupied area outside a crutilage
Oliver: Police ignored no trespass sign and went into D’s field and found weed…no search…isn’t a person, house, paper or effect under the 4th
17
Q
Dunn
A
Curtilage v. Open Field
1) Proximity of area to the home
2) Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
3) Nature of uses to which area is put
4) Steps taken to protect from observation by passerby
18
Q
CA v. Ciraolo
A
D had 10 foot fence…grew weed in backyard…cops get tip and fly over
Not a search…NO subjective expectation of privacy but it wasn’t a reasonable one
Private person could fly over in public airspace and see
Cops were lawfully present…don’t have to avert their eyes
*Subjective intent NOT relevant
19
Q
CA v. Greenwood
A
leaves trash outside in bag on sidewalk (outside curtilage). No search…no legitimate expectation of privacy if public has access
20
Q
Kyllo v. US
A
thermal imaging case…is a search.
With technology, govt couldnt have gotten this info without an intrusion. Ruled search so homeowners are not at mercy of advancing techonology
*what transpires in a home are intimate details and are protected by the 4th unless freely observable to the public
*Technology wasnt available for general public use…
21
Q
US v. Knotts
A
D involved in drug trade…they attach a beeper to a barrell…track on public roads but stopped when went inside D’s house
*Not a search because only got info they could have gathered through visual surveillance
22
Q
US v. Karo
A
govnt added beeper to ether and tracked even when inside the D’s house..was as search
23
Q
US v. Jones
A
cops attach GPS to D’s car…differs from Knotts and Karo because they gave beeper on item that D took…here they put a beeper on car which D already had possession over.
- was a search…trespass doctrine still applies and gov interfered with a possessory interest
- trespass made it so there was an objective expectation of privacy
24
Q
Probable Cause
A
- PC to arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the cop’s knowledge and based on reasonably trustworthy information would make a reasonable person believe that an offense has been or is being committed
- PC to search and seize exists when the facts and circumstances based on reasonably trustworthy information would allow a reasonable person to believe that evidence will be found
25
Draper
informant described what D would be wearing, his train he'd be on and what crime he would commit (heroine)...police get warrants based on that...cops corroborated much of the info based on investigation.
Valid warrant
26
Aguilar v. Texas
Test to Have sufficient PC, affidavit needs:
- How the informant was credible and reliable
- What the basis of his knowledge was
Hearsay is allowed for PC
Can explain how informant was reliable in the past...judge can meet the informant
27
Spinelli v. US
D travels interstate gambling illegally...Warrant relies on confidential informant which says d would go to apartment and make gambling calls....P watched D and saw him go to that apartment and made calls from those phones
- There was corroboration here, but court says warrant isn't valid
- Information wasn't precise enough
* add to Aguilar test...corroboration by law enforcement that is meaningful can supplement lack of info on reliability
*this and Aguilar are the NY standard
28
Illinois v. Gates
Anonymous tip that D's wife would drive to Florida, leave car, come home and husband would fly there to drive car home with drugs. Cops surveil, see both D's leave Fl hotel after one day and drive a car back together...got warrant on this
Under Aguilar-Spinelli no basis for credibility of informant so no good
* New Test (Federal Courts)...sliding scale...very fact sensitive
- Look at everything magistrate had available to see if there is probable cause
- You still need basis of knowledge and reliability but applied through the totality of the circumstances
29
Payton & Riddick
could police enter residence to effect an arrest without warrant? [Payton D suspected of murder, police break and find shell casings linking him to killing ...Riddick D suspected of robbery, P knocks, kid answers P see D on couch enter and arrest
* Even with PC, these are not reasonable w/o warrant absent exigent circumstances
* Arrest warrant required before you go into a suspects home for the purposes of arresting them and you must have reasonable cause to believe that the target is home at the time that they execute the warrant
30
Gerstein v. Pugh
4th requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint following an arrest
31
Exigent Circumstances (Exceptions to Payton Rule)
*when you can enter the home to arrest without a warrant [circumstances occur in which the law enforcement officers couldnt reasonably stop what they were doing to get a warrant from a magistrate):
-Exigent Circumstances
1) Hot pursuit
2) Safety
3) Imminent destruction of Potential Evidence
4) Risk to Police/Public
5) Preventing Escape
-Consent exception
Must be voluntary and cannot be coerced
32
Minnesota v. Olson
D suspected of robbing and killing...P entered house w/o warrant to arrest. No exigent circumstances found because the D was the getaway driver, and the murder weapon had already been found
*Not hot pursuit because it was the next day, D was unarmed, and he was the getaway driver
33
Steagald v. US
Police to arrest suspect in the D's house with a warrant...find cocaine in D's house and arrest him.
* Arrest warrant was insufficient in regards to searching D's house...it was a warrantless search
* When police get a warrant they are only allowed to search for what is in the warrant
* can seize/search items that are in plain view if they are lawfully present
34
Lo-Ji Sales v. NY
Judge looking over warrant must be neutral and detached (porn store case)
35
Richards v. Wisconsin
Cannot have a blanket rule for the knock and announce rule...knock rule used to protect life, privacy and property
(No-knocks okay if necessary for safety or to preserve evidence...need reasonable suspicion)
36
Scope of Search Warrants
need to state with particularity where and what you want to search:
1) police may only search containers large enough to hold what they're looking for
2) police may seize an object not in a warrant if there is PC to believe it is seizable
3) Information police get immediately before/during search may require them to cease/narrow search
37
Ybarra v. Illinois
Have warrant to search a bar and bartenders for selling narcotics...search D who was a patron and find heroine. Does PC to search a location give you authority to search everybody in that location?
* no...need to develop PC at the scene as exception to the warrant requirement
* police can detain people at scene while the search is being conducted (for safety and preservation of evidence)
* can use reasonable force to detain
38
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement
- Exigency
- Searches incident to lawful arrest
- Plain view doctrine
- Consent
- Inventory searches
- Automobile searches (and containers w/in automobile
*Exceptions do not usually dispense of the probable cause requirement
39
Warden v. Hayden
D robbed store and saw him enter house...cops pursue (D is armed)...go to door, lady answers (D's wife but they dont know that)...she lets them in they search house and find weapons and other evidence...then find D sleeping in bed...arrest him
*Exigency: hot pursuit
40
Kentucky v. King
cops chase suspect and dont see which apartment he goes into...went to the left one because they smell weed...knock and announce...hear shuffling, break in and find drugs (wasnt right apartment)...cops thought evidence was being destroyed
* Exigency exception was still applied...as long as police conduct is lawful, subjective intent is irrelevant
* D's could have refused entry rather than trying to hide evidence....not enough to claim that the police engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe entry was imminent and inevitable
41
Welsh v. Wisconsin
D suspected of DUI...police enter his house to preserve BAC...violates 4th amendment because it was a minor offense
*Minor offenses do not allow for warrantless intrusion under 4th (even with exigent circumstances)
42
Brigham City v. Stuart
police see fight inside a house through screen door knock and announce to no response... go in and break it up and make arrests (no warrant)
-Was ok because they were protecting public safety so it is exigent
43
Chimel v. California
cops arrive to D's house with arrest warrant for burglary of coin shop...ask to search house and D says no. They do it anyway...search entire house with D's wife
* violates 4th amendment...police could search D's entire person if arrested on street or within his immediate reach
* *Rule: cops can search arrestee's person and area within his immediate possession/control only after lawful arrest
- Concerns are police safety and stopping evidence destruction
44
US v. Robinson
cops arrest D for driving with a suspended license...pat down D and find cigarette box with heroine inside...
* this is a lawful arrest and the search was constitutional as long as it is a reasonable intrusion (PC to arrest)
* Searches incident to a lawful arrest require no additional justification...can do a full search of the person
45
Gustafson
D arrested for driving without license. Cops search car and find weed...police werent required to take D in custody
* Once they arrested D, it didnt matter, they could search him
* If officer doesn't arrest him in this case, cant search
46
NY v. Belton
cops pull over D for speeding...4 men in car. Smell weed and sees envelope with weed res on it...cop arrests all 4 gets them out of the car, searches the passenger compartment of the car finds a jacket with coke inside
* constitutional search because after lawful arrest of the occupant of a car, the officer may search the entire passenger compartment (area within immediate control)
* Extends Chimel to cars
47
Knowles v. Iowa
cops issue citation then search for contraband
* violates 4th...cop could have arrested D, but once he decided not to he lost right to search
* officer safety no longer an issue because of the citation
48
Thornton v. US
D parked and exited vehicle...arrested, P search car and find gun
*court says it was ok because the Belton rule is extended to recent occupants of vehicles
49
Arizona v. Gant
D arrested for driving with suspended license...put in squad car...cop then search car and find coke in jacket
* Violates 4th
* can't use immediate control doctrine while D is in squad car
* **You can only search a car if incident to lawful arrest and :
1) you search within the grabbable area or
2) you search for relevant evidence
**Burden: must be relevant suspicion that there is evidence of the crime arrested for
[narrows Belton and Chimel]
50
Whren v. US
police think D, the driver, looks suspicious...follow him, he fails to signal. Pull over and approach and see crack arrest him and search car. Can police stop on pretext?
* Yes...subjective intent of the cop is irrelevant
* *only see if the officer's behavior was objectively justifiable
* As long as legitimate probable cause to pull you over, subjective intent irrelevant
51
Carroll v. US
Ready mobility of the automobile justifies a lesser degree of protection...less expectation of privacy than a home
52
Chambers v. Maroney
2 men rob store at gun point...police gain PC from description of men and their car...arrest men and search car find evidence at station
Court says ok...
*Car is mobile so you need to seize and search to preserve evidence
*can search on scene or at station
*because PC that evidence would be found in car, search valid
53
Coolidge v. NH
police search car 2 days, 11 months and 14 months after they seize. Seized form D's driveway when they arrested him at his house
* Violates 4th because any chance of escape or destruction of evidence had passed
* Cops had exclusive control over vehicle and could have gotten a warrant with no worries
54
Cal v. Carney
Mobile home (trades sex for drugs). Cops find drugs after talking to kid w/o warrant
* mobile home is a car here
* had PC to arrest lower expectation of privacy because it was a vehicle
* objective viewer would think vehicle not home (Where we would apply Payton)...look at all circumstances
55
US v. Chadwick
Chest on train...leaking powder...dogs smell weed @ station...D loads into trunk and police arrest right then...seize trunk and search trunk at station
* Invalid...they needed a warrant...cant use auto exception
* luggage has high expectation of privacy compared to car
* PC here was to search the chest, which has a high expectation of privacy
* proper to arrest and seize but not search...no exigency
56
Arkansas v. Sanders
D puts luggage in cab trunk and drives away...police had PC to think weed in luggage prior to going in trunk...cop stops taxi pen trunk and search luggage w/o warrant
*search no good...same as Chadwick no exigency so no auto exception
57
Robbins v. California
cop pulls over D, smell weed have PC to search car...cop finds containers within and opens
* Warrantless under Chadwick/Sanders
* Reversed in US v. Ross
58
US v. Ross
cop pulls over D with PC to believe he was selling drugs...search car, found brown bag...opened it and found drugs
* Overrules Robbins...when cops have PC to search a car without a warrant, you can search any container large enough to hold evidence within that car (analogizes to homes)
* Chadwick/Sanders not overruled yet
59
California v. Acevado
cops watch Daza pick up package (they know it is weed)...go to get warrant... D goes to Daza's house leaves with a bag puts in his trunk, drives away, cops stop D, search his car, search bag, and find weed
*Overrules Chadwick/Sanders: with PC to believe evidence/contraband in car, don't need a warrant to search cars and containers within, even if probable cause is for container, not car
60
Elements of the Plain View Doctrine
1) Lawful Presence
2) Incriminating Character must be immediately apparent
3) Lawful access
61
Arizona v. Hicks
Cop lawfully in apt. saw turntable that looked too expensive moved it to read serial numbers, ran them they were stolen so he seized them
* unreasonable because it was not readily apparent that it was evidence or contraband
* it was a search also that exceeded the scope of why they were there
62
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
D argues didn't know he could refuse consent
* gov's burden to establish consent was voluntary...must be freely and voluntarily (no threat, force, coercion, intimidation, etc.) given
* consent is case by case...totality of the circumstances
* knowledge of the right to refuse is not necessary for the gov to prove, but it can be a factor
63
US v. Matlock
voluntary consent can be established from an occupant who shares common authority with a co-occupant later objecting (3rd party can consent)
Co-tenant can give access to common room but not the roommates bed room
64
Georgia v. Randolph
police respond to a call...D reuses to consent to search but wife allows
* not valid consent...a present party may refuse preventing the search from occurring
* Refuser must be physically present...must be at the threshold saying no
65
Illinois v. Rodriguez
woman consents, but doesn't actually live there (it was ex-bf's house)..police thought she lived there
- Court says a 3rd party doesnt actually have to have authority as long as the police reasonably believe they had authority
* reasonableness standard...totality of the circumstances..objective standard
66
Scope of consent
search is only valid until it exceeds the scope of consent...you can withdraw consent at any time...look at what a reasonable person would have expected the consent to encompass...includes the suspect and the cop
67
Terry v. Ohio
cop thinks 2 guys look suspicious, they look in window and confer, then talk to a third guy for a while…cop watches (he was a cop for 30 years in the area in anti-crime)…he later confronts the three men, tells them he’s a cop, asks their names…he then grabs, spins, and pats down D, feels a gun and removes it…pats down other two, finds a gun---no PC
* Is search and seizure under the 4th amendment (applies to stop and frisks)...is an intrusion
* Reasonableness test...if police can articulate specific facts that he had a reasonable justification to justify intrusion, it is valid under 4th
- look at the scope of the search, level of intrusion, and what the cop suspects
- Scope is limited to what the D is suspected of
* *2 Prongs:
1) Did police have authority for initial encounter? Could they forcibly contain
2) Did they have authority to search?
* *Test:
- Police must articulate facts specific to stop...reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot
- Reasonable belief that D is armed to frisk
*OVERALL: Terry frisks are limited to searches for weapons and to protect officer and public
68
NY v. DuBour
NY's Terry...creates 4 levels of intrusion
1) Request for Information (no suspicion of criminal activity)
2) Common Law right to Inquire (need founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot)
3) Forcible Stop and Detention (Terry stop...reasonable suspicion)
4) Arrest (need PC, can search incident to arrest)
69
Dunaway v. NY
police pick up D for suspected robbery....bring him to precinct in police car, give Miranda and interrogate, didnt use force...but would have if he refused..no PC for arrest
* Issue is when Terry stop becomes an arrest...unlike Terry, this was not a temporary investigation on the scene...D was not free to leave
* Test: did D reasonably believe that he could leave?
* If an individual is being moved without PC, it must be consenual
* Here it was a greater intrusion than Terry, so it was a de facto arrest
70
Florida v. Royer
cops suspicious D was a drug dealer--at airport, approach D who gives his ticket and license...cops take it bring D to small room tell him theyre investigating him for drugs...brought to room when they saw ticket under alias, also brought luggage. D consents to search, they find weed
* De Facto arrest...cops had his ticket, license, and luggage brought to an interrogation room, and they took his luggage without asking
* Despite consent, still unlawful...look at initial encounter...because it was unreasonable, so was the rest...once you exceed the scope, everything after is invalid
71
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
D stopped for traffic citation, ordered D out of the car, once out cop observed bulge, pats down and finds gun
*Reasonable because it was for officer safety....level of intrusion is minimal between getting in and out of the car to protect officer safety
72
Maryland v. Wilson
officer can order driver and passenger out of car for his own safety:
a) if he develops reasonable suspicion or PC, can then search
b) as long as initial encounter is lawful, the rest was ok
73
US v. Sharpe
camper and pontiac driving in tandem...cops pull over pontiac, camper keeps going...cops couldnt get in touch with each other, ended up stopping pontiac for a long period of time because they waited for the camper to be stopped...D argued de facto arrest
* Court disagreed: length of detention is a factor but it is not dispositive...issue was what occurred during the detention
* More Terry than Dunaway...cops were diligent and no one was restrained
74
US v. Mendenhall
airport drug case..police question her...fits courier profile...they say they're cops, ask for ID and tickets...she looks nervouse (has alias)...agents give back the ID and tickets and ask her to come with them, say she can refuse...D goes with them
* There is a seizure (of a person) when, by physical force or show of authority, D's freedom to move is restricted
* reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to leave if seized
* Look at totality of the circumstances
* Govt had burden of proof (BARD) that they acted lawfully, and they did...ultimately, D consented to the searches, so court then had to determine if the consent was voluntary (based on totality)...Majority said this wasnt even a Terry seizure
75
US v. Drayton
3 cops on bus...one front, one back, one questioning...dont block aisles...etc. etc.
* Bus interdictions are reasonable as long as a reasonable person would feel free to decline request or to otherwise terminate encounter
* Brown's arrest didn't create coercive situation for the D (arrest of another doesn't make it coercive)
76
CA v. Hodari
D runs, cops chase...D throws crack rock away as he is caught...was the D seized when he threw the crack rock? (if so unlawfully obtained, if not he abandoned it)
*Cops saying stop, freeze isn't a seizure (physical detention or submission to assertion of authority) because D never submitted to the assertion of the cops authority
77
Brendlin v. Ca
car stop...issue was if passenger was also seized...Seizure defined by court as physical force or show of authority restricting D's movement through means intentionally applied
* unintended people may therefore be seized if they submit to the authority
* thus, during a traffic stop ,everyone inside is seized within the meaning of the 4th...this gives standing to everyone in car to challenge the legality of the stop
78
Alabama v. White
cops get anonymous tip D would leave address at a specific time, enter a brown Plymouth with broken taillight and go to hotel...would have coke in brown bag...cop surveils, a lot is corroborated...she heads in that car in direct route to hotel...cops stop her, tells her to get out of the car...she consents to search, he finds drugs
* Because anonymous tip, corroboration was huge...supplies Gates to reasonable suspicion given the totality of the circumstances...lesser standard
* Enough corroboration here, so there was reasonable suspicion
79
Illinois v. Wardlow
cops in caravan for narcotics investigation...D holding bag runs away in high crime area...was flight and high crime area enough for reasonable suspicion?
*Court agrees flight alone is not dispositive...it is a factor...flight, nervous behavior and high crime area in this case were enough to constitute reasonable suspicion
80
Maryland v. Buie
cops execute an arrest warrant, looking for 2 subjects...after D is arrested, they do protective sweep and find a track suit that matches description there...sweep done post arrest
* Sweep was justified because they needed to ensure officer safety (same interests as Terry and Chimel)
* Protective sweeps must be limited to its purpose in scope and only in places where people can be (only done to protect danger)
* Must articulate reasonable suspicion of danger
* Can only do cursory search of places where a person could be found and not longer than necessary
81
US v. Place
Laguardia...DEA though D was suspicious seek his consent to search his bag and he refuses...cops then take bags to JFK to do a dog sniff without consent (told D they were holding bags until warrant arrived)...took 90 mins...then held for weekend...got drugs and arrested D
* Terry applies to property
* Length of detention was too long and the cops lied to the D
* DEA knew D was coming, could have had dog at the airport
* different levels of intrusion on property
82
Michigan v. Long
D crashed, got out of car, cop sees LONG knife in it, so search for car for weapons (D was going back towards car and ignoring police orders)
* Court OK'd
* Terry extends to cars with weapons
* Need reasonable suspicion of danger that D will get a weapon (limited to a weapon search)
* this is a Terry frisk
83
Types of Special Needs
- Administrative searches
- Border searches (fixed, roving)
- Checkpoints (Fixed, temporary)
- Schools
- Drug testing
84
South Dakota v. Opperman
vehicle towed for non-criminal reason and inventory search was conducted at impound lot...find drugs
*a search comes within the special needs doctrine when a perceived need, beyond law enforcement, makes PC/warrant impracticable and irrelevant (as long as there were procedures for the inventory, ok)
85
NY v. Burger
police investigate junk yard licenses and business records...D doesn't have any so police conduct a further search..find stolen items
*Court said ok...pretext irrelevant dont look at subjective state of law enforcement...initial contact was ok
86
NJ v. TLO
D caught smoking cigs in school bathroom, principal looks in purse, takes out cigarettes and finds rolling papers and drugs upon other search
* 4th applies, it was a search but warrant requirement doesnt apply to searches by school officials
* Public interest best served by reasonableness standard...balance interests
87
School Searches: 2 Requirements
- Search must be based on reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of a violation of school rules and
- search cannot be excessively intrusive in light of the age, sex, etc. of student and the nature of the infraction
88
Safford Schooling v. Redding
strip search of student for pills (advil and alleve)
* this went too far...principal knew pills werent dangerous and there was no reason to suspect they were in her underwear...plus, she was only 13
* need a serious danger to go from out clothes /back pack to underwear
89
Border Patrols
Brignoni-Ponce
-roving border patrol need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
Martinez-Fuerte
-no suspicion is required for fixed checkpoints
90
Michigan v. Sitz
state sets up fixed sobriety checkpoints...court upholds
Test: Balance
- State's interest in keeping roads safe
- Effectiveness of the checkpoint in achieving the goal
- level of intrusion
91
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
checkpoints to discover drugs: no good
- violates 4th because has a general crime prevention purpose
- Focus on overall intent of the check point, not individual intent of officer conducting search
92
Illinois v. Lidster
set up checkpoint to get info about a hit and run accident...during check, get D for drug possesion
-Court upheld...purpose wasnt general law enforcement...wanted assisntance solving a problem..low level of intrusion and fear and concern...questions werent even about the drivers
93
Alderman
Can't vicariously assert the rights of another...constitutional rights are personal
94
Jones v. US
D was given key to friend's apartment and stayed there overnight...cops searched apartment while D was there and found contraband
* RULE: anyone legitimately on premises has standing to challenge the legality of a search
* D has burden of showing they have standing
95
US v. Payner
IRS investigates financial activities in the Bahamas...sting operation of internation bank fraud with lots of parties...steel brief case, make photocopies and use to prosecute D
*is a 4th violation of 3rd party...but D has no standing becasue D wasn't the aggrieved party
96
Rakas v. Illinois
Current standing rule...Ds are passengers in car...driver pulled over, cops pull everyone out, find bullets and shotgun in car...Ds challenge the search, not the stop...Ds could have challenged the stop
* Ds dont own the car or the evidence seized but were legitimately present in (would have standing under Jones)
* CURRENT STANDING RULE: looks at whether Ds had a legitimate /reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched (considering the totality of the circumstances) (like Katz)
* Automatic standing is gone
97
Minnesota v. Olson
D was suspect, staying as an overnight guest, cops enter without warrant find D
* Court holds that D had standing because he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in at least the area in which he was occupying/had access
* overnight guests have standing
98
Rawlings v. Kentucky
police search girls bag after smelling weed after having arrest warrant for X...find LSD in bag and D claims them to be his...seeks to suppress because he had a property interest in what was seized (the drugs)
*Didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because D didn't have right to exclude...others had access to the purse and D had no control over who owner of the purse gave access to
99
Minnesota v. Carter
Ds and lessee of aprtment bag cocaine in teh apartment...cop views them through a window after tip...Ds didnt stay overnight (only 2.5 hours)...but were invited...they had no prior relationship with lessee though, and were there for business (Ds traded drugs for the right to use apartment)...is a business relationship
* No reasonable expectation of privacy, so no standing
* Unlike Olson because of business relationship
* Purpose was purely illegitimate factored in
* consider totality of circumstances
100
Exclusionary Rule
Judicially crafted remedy...not in constitution...is to deter unlawful police conduct...doesnt have to be applied to every case...can be 4th amendment violation and court can decide not to apply
*never used in grand jury proceedings and only used in criminal proceedings
101
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
cannot use fruits of unlawful searches and seizures
* Direct: evidence found directly from bad search
* Derivative: evidence found form leads received from unlawful conduct
Evidence found or derived from bad searches cannot be used at trial
D cant use exclusionary rule to lie on stand
102
Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule
- Independent source
- Inevitable Discovery
- Attenuation (dissipation of taint)
- Good faith (dont apply in NY...isnt generally a formal exception)
103
Murray v. US
FBI surveils based on informant...see a truck and trailer go in and out of warehouse..enter see drugs then get warrants (dont tell judge about unlawful entry)...police checked first, obtained warrant...judge said there was PC and issued warant
- No exclusion because of independent source doctrine (informant with corroboration)
- Would be no deterrent effect in suppressing evidence because court was only given info from independent source when it issued the warrant
- AS long as second search/serizure was from a genuinely independent source, it is allowed
- P has burden POE to show evidence was form independent source
104
Nix v. Williams
Arraigned for Child abduction...search party looking in field where body was called off when P violated D's 6th amendment right and get D to say where body was
* no exclusion because of inevitable discovery (POE that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably by lawful means)
* cost of letting criminal go is too great to exclude considering the low deterrent effect
105
Wong Son v. US
Toy made statements in his bedroom immediately following an illegal arrest so they were inadmissible against him. Toy’s statements led the cops to find the drugs taken from Yee. The court held that the drugs weren’t admissible against Toy because the police would’ve never discovered the drugs if it weren’t for Toy’s illegal arrest and unlawful statements.
ii.Wong Sun Facts: Wong is arrested without probable cause. When he voluntarily returned to the station a few days later, that confession was admissible against him because the confession was not the fruit of the illegal arrest since the connection between the arrest and the statement had become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. The drugs found at Yee’s residence from Toy’s statements were admissible against Wong Sun because the illegality that led to the recovery of the drugs wasn’t committed against Wong Sun
106
Factors for Attenuation
- Time elapsed between illegality and seizure
- Flagrancy of initial violation--bad faith violations take longer to dissipate
- Existence or absence of intervening causes...did police have or develop info leading to seizure?
- Acts of free will by the Defendant
107
US v. Leon
confidential informant gives top...cops surveil and get warrant of independent evidence and arrest D...cops do everything properly but court said warrant didnt have PC so the warrant was invalid (magistrate incorrect to give)
-Evidence not excluded because police reasonably relied in good faith on the warrant
-Exclusion is to deter unlawful conduct by police, excluding here would only deter judges from being wrong...as long as magistrate didn't abdicate role & police reasonably relied, no exclusion
*Must be objectively reasonably reliance
(Police cant make false statements in affidavit)
108
MA v. Sheppard
warrant failed because of particularity requirement...court didnt exclude because of good faith (good faith extends to lack of PC and particularity)
109
Hudson v. Michigan
knock and announce rule isnt to protect evidence seizures...it protects safety, property damage and privacy...violation of it doesnt exclude evidence (is a procedural 4th violation, not substantive)
110
Herring v. US
mistake of fact...cops mistakenly thought D had arrest warrant out but didnt...clerical error...D pulled over, arrested, and contraband was recovered...but there was no PC to do any of this so it was unlawful
- No exclusion...look at conduct and culpability...there werent trying to circumvent 4th they were acting in good faith
- If conduct is deliberate, reckless (systematic abuse) or in bad faith, it would have been excluded (exclusion isnt an individual right, it is a remedy made by judiciary)
111
Davis v. US
traffic stop, search car and find gun...Gant comes out after arrest, cops rely on Belton...acted lawfully at the time...was a constitutionally violation
-Should not be exclusion, was a violation, but not exclusion as remedy
112
5th Amendment
Only applies to testimonial evidence (physical evidence doesn't implicate 5th)...involuntary statements are not admissible...
113
Miranda v. Arizona
D arrested for rape...interrogated while in police custody and gave incriminating statements...issue was whether D waived rights without knowing what they were
- Was inherently and presumptively coercive interrogation
- For 5th to work, need to know rights and P must inform D of them
- Every custodial interrogation must be preceded by Miranda warnings
- Only applies to custodial interrogations...requires custody and interrogation
114
Waiver
After hearing your rights, you can waive but for waiver to be valid must be:
- voluntary
- knowing and intelligent (D must understand the warnings)
D has burden of proving waiver...if proved, burden shift to D to prove unvoluntary
Miranda only applies when D knows he is talking to Law enforcement
115
US v. Patene
police fail to Mirandize D...results in finding physical evidence
-Evidence should not be excluded...technical violation of Miranda, not violation of 5th (5th only protects testimonial)
116
Berkemer v. McCarty
D stopped for erratic driving cop asks if D drank...D admits to drinking and smoking pot...fails field sobriety tests (no miranda)
- Terry type stop (reasonable suspicion...constitutes a seizure
- Court says no custody because:
* Temporary and brief
* D isnt at mercy of police
All temporary stops arent custody
Breathalyzer not 5th amendment...field tests are not custody
*Dunaway (de facto arrest) constitutes custody Terry does not without more
Objective standard
Liberty must be substantially restrained
117
Rhode Island v. Innis
D arrested for murder...given Miranda...more cops show up give Miranda again...D asks for lawyer, brought to station in car with 2 cops...along ride cop says to other cop he hopes kid doesnt find gun and kill herself...D then says hell show cops where he put gun (cops said there was a school nearby scene)
Interrogation is:
- Express questioning, or
- What the police should know would be reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response
118
NY v. Quarles
girl claims she was raped to cops...describes D who she says in supermarket with gun...cops find hi, cuff, ask where gun is and he points and says over there...police recover gun...D was in custody and this was interrogation
- Under Miranda, couldnt bring statement of where gun is into court but court makes exception
* Public safety exception: weigh public safety and the need for prophylaxis
* no evidence of coercion, so it was more important that police get the gun...narrow exception only applied in limited circumstances
119
Oregon v. Elstad
D burglary suspect...police go to his house...in front of mom, asks D if he was involved...he says yes without getting Miranda warnings...then brought to station..Miranda then given, he waives and gives full confession
* Fruit of poisonous tree applies to 4th not 5th
* exclusionary rule built into 5th for compelled statements...here no coercion...5th wasnt violated...failure to issue prophylactic, thus later statements arent tainted
* reading miranda prior to second statement was intervening cause..shows D used free will allowing 2nd statements to be admissible
* Absent substantive violation of 5th, post Miranda violations are not surprised even if earlier violation
120
Dickerson v. US
D charged with bank robbery...gave statements wihtout Miranda...court allowed statements because of statute...court says Miranda is a constitutional decision so statute is invalid
121
Missouri v. Seibert
D concocts plan to burn dead child...kills another kid in the process...police consciously dont give Miranda, get a confession in interrogation room, then give Miranda shortly after and get her to confess again...Missouri police had policy of doing this based on Elstad
*Not admissible...this was intentional policy not just cops knowing they had D in custody...police were intentionally circumventing Miranda
*Elstad still stands unless there is evidence of a policy to circumvent Miranda
122
North Carolina v. Butler
D arrested for kidnapping...D read a Miranda form was literate...but would not sign waiver he then confesses
*Waiver valid
* TEST: Did D knowingly and voluntarily waive?
- Includes asking whether D understood his rights
- If D understood and voluntarily waived, it is irrelevant that he didnt sign (Burden on P to show test)
*Silence alone is not enough to show waiver...must be silence plus proof D understood plus other conduct
123
Colorado v. Spring
waiver is not crime specific...police can speak/question at about any crime/investigation not just the one you're in custody for *but you have right to terminate at any time
124
Moran v. Burbine
assertion of constitutional right is a personal one...D waived while lawyer tried to contact him (police didnt tell D lawyer tried but read Miranda)...still a valid waiver
*someone else cannot assert right for you
125
Right to Counsel Invocation
- Personal invocation (questioning must cease immediately)
- By operation of law...formal commencement of proceedings automatically invokes 6th (goes from investigation to accusation)
*in NY a lawyer calling can invoke 6th even if they call wrong precinct... unless there is no prior relationship between D and attorney...if friend relative gets attorney to call, that is sufficient even without prior relationship
126
Edwards v. Arizona
D charged, arrested, and Mirandized...says he wants to make deal but not before speaking with lawyer...next day cops Mirandize and question him and he confesses
* You must unambiguously and unequivocally invoke your right to counsel (US v. Davis)
* once D invokes right to counsel, questioning must cease unless:
- Counsel is present
- D initiates contact or conversation
Innis governs whether or not custodial interrogation...if not, 5th and 6th arent implicated (so no Miranda, police can re-initiate)
127
Michigan v. Mosely
D invoked right to remain silent...hours later another detective from another bureau questions him about another crime... D confesses... did he waive?
* Court says waiver depends on whether D's rights were scrupulously upheld...case by case basis
* Rights here were upheld, so valid waiver
Look at passage of time, new set of Miranda, different cops/crimes/etc/
*Right to remain silent can lead to re-initiation in certain circumstances
128
Minnick v. Mississippi
D tells cops to come back after he spoke to lawyer...cops come back 2 days later and get confession (D spoke with lawyer twice).
*inadmissible because lawyer wasnt present even though second contact was not custodial and D had conferred with counsel between contacts
129
Maryland v. Shatzer
2. 5 years pass between invocation and later waiver
* waiver valid...
* 2 week cleansing period to allow waiver...police can then re-initiate
* NOT CRIME SPECIFIC SO CAN'T TALK TO D ABOUT ANYTHING
130
Berghuis v. Thompkins
does right to remain silent need to be unambiguous/unequivocal?
* Yes...merely being silent doesnt invoke that right
* court looks to see if you implicitly waive this right
- In this case, silence alone wasnt enough to overcome waiver...D understood and never tried to stop questioning and he made voluntary statements to police (valid waiver)
* Waiver Inquiry:
- must be voluntarily given in the sense that it was a free deliberate choice, not the result of intimidation, coercion or deception
- Made with full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of abandoning it
*NY has indelible right to counsel...once invoked can never be waived unless an attorney is present
131
Massiah v. US
D arrested, gets lawyer, out on bail cop flips co-D puts wirein car, co-D talks to D gets incriminating statements, which are used to convict D...P intentionally elicited statements
* Violated 6th amendment because it was the equivalent of an interrogation and he had no counsel present
* Once adversarial process begins, D has right to counsel when gov interrogates him...govt cannot deliberately elicit information in the absence of counsel (D has the right to the assistance of counsel)
- Cops couldnt re-initiate contact with D without counsel present...gov cant circumvent what they couldnt do directly
-if D admitted to other crimes it is probably admissible because 6th is crime specific
132
US v. Johnson
5 witnesses disappear in Honken case...gf D charged with aiding the disappearances.. gov communicates with informant in jai; that they previously used..informant and D are separated several times and gov says not to talk to her...but she does and eventually gov and informant make a deal for the info...
*Court said this was like mere listening so it was admissible...statements were made prior to the agreement with the gov
133
Brewer v. Williams
D escapes from mental hospital, kidnaps and kills a little girl…D is arrested---has a lawyer in Des Moines, but he surrenders in another town, where he also has a lawyer…needs to be transported 160 miles to Des Moines---D is arraigned and Mirandized…D, lawyer, and P agree that D won’t be interrogated during transport…during ride, cop gives D “Christian burial speech” and D shows them body
- Court said that a D can waive---but, it is a heightened standard
* Waiver standard is the intentional relinquishment of a known right, once adversarial process begins
* Burden is on P
* *BUT, here, D didn’t waive---he repeatedly told police not to question him without attorney and also consistently relied on the advice of his attorneys
134
Patterson v. Illinois
D indicted, cops question him, Mirandized and he signs the form 3 seperate times...issue is if Miranda warnings constitute a valid waiver of the 6th?
* Yes...after indictment, D can waive if he didnt invoke, if the rights merely attached, like here, then D can waive this way
* D didn't formally invoke the right to counsel
* waiver of 6th is an intentional relinquishment of a known right (5th is knowing, voluntary and intelligent)
135
Montejo v. Louisiana
Counsel is appointed to D's... between arraignment and next proceeding, police come to speak with D...court says it is ok
* If you invoke your right to counsel, interrogation must cease...if you don't and waive Miranda, any statements are admissible
* Thus attachment of right to counsel under the 6th amendment is for actual proceedings...you dont get right not to be questioned without counsel unless you formally invoke
* *Appointment of an attorney (6th) does not count as a barrier to interrogations vis-a-vis 5th amendment
136
Kansas v. Ventris
gov knowingly put informant in cell to listen to D...P admitted violation of Messiah
*D's incriminating statements elicited in violation of the 6th amendment right are still admissible at trial for the purpose of impeaching the D
137
Kuhlman
mere listening wouldn't be a violation of the 6th amendment
138
US v. Johnson
5 witnesses disappear in Honken case---his gf, D, charged with aiding the disappearances…gov’t communicates with an informant in jail that they previously used…informant and D are separated several times and gov’t says not to talk to her…but, she does, and eventually gov’t and informant make a deal for the info…issue was if statements made prior to the agreement were admissible?
* Court said that this was like mere listening, so it was admissible
* D must show police and informant took some action, beyond listening, designed to deliberately elicit incriminating remarks
