Legal Guide for Police, 7th Edition Flashcards
By way of the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS uses the ____ _______ clause to establish minimum standards to be followed by all LEOs.
due process
The question in Malley v Briggs, 475 US 335 (1986) is whether a _______ ____-_______ officer in petitioner’s position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.
reasonably well-trained
When a civil action is initiated against a police officer or a police administrator, it is generally brought against the ____ ____ of the jurisdiction.
tort law
The plaintiff in a tort action must prove what (4) four things?
- the defendant had a duty;2. the defendant breached that duty;3. there was a casual connection between the breach of duty and the plaintiff’s injury; and4. the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the breach
Judgement in a tort action may be rendered by a ______ jury. It only requires preponderance of the evidence to be found liable.
nonunanimous
The civil rights statute that provides civil remedies for official misconduct was enacted by Congress in 1871 and is now codified as Title ___ United States Code § ____ and often referred to as _____ actions.
Title 42 United States Code § 1983, 1983
To successfully pursue an action in federal court under § 1983 the person who claims injury must establish what (2) two things?
- the defendant deprived the injured party of “rights, privileges, or immunities” secured by the Constitution; and2. the defendant acted “under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.”
When initiating an action under § 1983, the plaintiff alleges what?
the defendant acted under “color of law” and deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that ______ ______ protects government officials in performing ______ ______ from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a _____ _____ would have known.
qualified immunity, discretionary functions, reasonable person
Determining whether qualified immunity is entitled, the court provided what two-step analysis?
- whether the law governing the official conduct was clearly established2. whether, under the law, a reasonable officer could have believed that the conduct was lawful (objectively reasonable)
A state law that immunizes government conduct otherwise subject to suit under § 1983 is preempted by the _____ _____ of the US Constitution.
supremacy clause
The civil rights statute that provides for criminal charges was enacted in 1886 and is now codified as Title ___ United Stated Code § _____.
Title 18 United States Code § 242
Title 18 § 242 requires that a federal prosecutor introduce evidence to show what three things?
- person charged acted under color of law;2. there was a deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the US; and3. the defendant acted willfully or intentionally to deprive a person of their rights
Title 18 § 242 (criminal ) differs from § 1983 (civil) by adding the third requirement that the officer who acted under the color of law did so _____ or _____.
willfully or intentionally
The defendant acted willfully if he did so _____, as opposed to _____ or _____.
deliberately, accidentally or negligently
Under the _____ _____ doctrine, a master is liable for the acts of a servant.
respondeat superior
Vicarious liability makes it essential that supervisors and agencies provide appropriate _____ and _____.
training and oversight
A __ ____ policy cannot be established by one act of an officer who is not acting in an official decision making capacity.
de facto
If a cause of action is based on accusation of inadequate training, a _____ must be established or substantial proof that the policy was established or acquiesced in by a municipal policymaker.
pattern
The doctrine of _____ _____ is inapplicable to § 1983, but municipalities are considered “_____” within the meaning of § 1983 and may be held liable if constitutional harm suffered was a result of official policy, custom, or pattern.
respondeat superior, persons
The courts have recognized that municipalities and police administrators have an affirmative duty to ____ the police officers they employee. A breach of that duty, which proximately causes injury to the plaintiff, can result in _____ _____ on the part of the administrator or liability on the part of the agency.
train; person liability
SCOTUS agreed with the trial court that a city can be held liable under § 1983 for inadequate training of its employees, but only where the failure to train amounts to _____ _____ to the rights of people with whom the police come into contact.
deliberate indifference
In order for municipal liability to attach, there must be a _____ ______ between the failure to train and the ultimate injury and the deficiency in the city’s training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury.
causal connection
In order to hold the city or agency liable under § 1983 for failure to train, the plaintiff must introduce evidence that shows what three things?
- the municipality failed to train the officer for the specific duty assigned;2. the failure to train amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights of person with whom the police officer came into contact; and3. the deficiency in the city’s training program was closely related to the ultimate injury
Supervisors may also be liable under § 1983 if they were personally involved in the violation if they ____, ____, or ____ caused the deprivation of the constitutional right by his own action or failure to act.
knowingly, willfully, or recklessly
In Samuels v LeFevre, a federal court said that a supervisor can be held liable under § 1983 as being personally involved in what three circumstances?
- failed to remedy the wrong after hearing of a violation through report or appeal2. created a policy or custom under which the constitutional violations occurred or allowed a custom or a policy to continue; or3. was grossly negligent in managing the subordinates who committed the violations.
In 1914, in Weeks v. United States, SCOTUS established the _____ ____. This intially only applied to ____ officers, but was changed in 1961 to include ____ courts also.
exclusionary rule; federal, state
SCOTUS noted in Nix v. Williams that the rationale for the exclusionary rule is that the ____ of the unlawful police conduct should be excluded to prevent constitutional breaches.
fruits
The state’s police power is limited by what three things?
- rights guaranteed by the Constitution;2. necessity of a legitimate public purpose; and3. a reasonable exercise of that power
What article of the Constitution mandates that all executive and judicial officers, federal and state, be bound by oath or affirmation to support the US Constitution?
Article VI
Which amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures of persons or property?
Fourth Amendment
Which amendment assures that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, the right to be confronted by witnesses against him, and the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense?
Sixth Amendment
Which amendment provides that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself, and no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?
Fifth Amendment
Which amendment adds that STATES shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? Previously it only applied federally under the 5th Amendment.
14th Amendment
Constitutional jurisprudence provides for what 3 types of contact between citizens and the police?
- consensual encounters2. brief detention under Terry v Ohio3. full-fledged arrest
An investigative detention, or ____ ____, justifies a seizure if articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts support reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a crime.
Terry stop
A detaining officer must have knowledge of ____, ____ facts that, if taken together with rational inferences from these facts, reasonably warrant the stop.
specific, articulable
Reasonable suspicion can be based on what 4 things?
- info from reliable persons;2. reports from other agencies;3. the individual is in an area of expected criminal activity; and4. unprovoked flight from officers
____ v ____ provides that an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop.
Terry v Ohio
What case provided that officers are justified in suspecting that a defendant was involved in criminal activity based on the combination of their presence in an area of frequent narcotics trafficking and the defendant’s unprovoked flight upon noticing them?
Illinois v Wardlow
Unprovoked flight upon seeing a police officer DOES / DOES NOT in and of itself justify reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and, therefore, justify a Terry stop.
does not…it is, however, a factor to be considering along with being in a high crime area.
What case by SCOTUS in 1981 made it clear that the Terry stop reasoning applied to automobile situations?
US v Cortez
What SCOTUS case concluded that setting up roadblocks in search of drug trafficking violated the 4th Amendment?
Indianapolis v Edmond
What SCOTUS case concluded that setting up a roadblock at the same time, date, and area of a hit/skip was constitutional as a way to find out if there were any witnesses to the crime?
Illinois v Lidster
What are three Supreme Court cases that deal with roadblocks and checkpoints?
Michigan Department of State Police v Sitz (DUI)Indianapolis v Edmond (drugs)Illinois v Lidster (hit/skip info)
It is the command of the _____ Amendment that no warrants shall either for searches or arrest be issued except for _____ _____.
4th, probable cause (Henry v US 1959)
What are three elements of an arrest?
- Intent. intent of officer to take the person into custody2. Authority. real or assumed authority of the arresting officer3. Custody. person arrested must come within custody and control of the law
In Michigan v Chesternut (1988), SCOTUS said that police can be said to have seized an individual “only if, in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed..” what?
he was not free to leave
What are seven requirements of a valid arrest warrant?
- supported by probable cause2. supported by oath or affirmation3. person to be seized must be particularly described4. state nature of offense5. must designate officer or class of officers directed to comply6. must be named in US or a particular State7. must be issued and signed by a neutral and detached judge
Illinois v Gates in 1983 established the “_____ __ __ _____” approach for a magistrate to issue a warrant. In this case, the Supreme Court abandons the Aguilar–Spinelli test.
totality of the circumstances
What are six requirements relating to the execution of an arrest warrant?
- must be specifically named or come within the class designated in the warrant2. must be executed within jurisdictional limits3. arresting officer should make his purpose known4. must show warrant or advise arrestee of the warrant5. must have reason to believe the suspect is present in the home6. absent exigent circumstances, an arrest warrant cannot be executed in the home of a 3rd party
A warrant issued in one state may serve ______ as a basis for an arrest in another state.
indirectly
An out-of-state warrant may serve as the basis for for issuing a _____ warrant in another state.
fugitive
In _____ v _____, a federal court commented that an arrest warrant founded on PC implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter the dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe that the suspect is within.
Smith v Tolley (1997)
In _____ v _____, SCOTUS held that absent exigent circumstances or consent, police may not enter the home of a suspect or a 3rd party to make a routine felony arrest without an arrest warrant.
Payton v New York (1980)
In Minnesota v Olson (1990), SCOTUS observed that what elements can constitute exigent circumstances for warrantless intrusion?
- hot pursuit of a fleeing felon2. imminent destruction of evidence or prevent a suspect’s escape3. risk of danger to police or others inside or outside of building
In 1991, in County of Riverside v McLaughlin, SCOTUS determined that a probable cause hearing must be held within ___ hours of the arrest.
48 hours
A PC determination may be delayed past 48 hours, but burden is upon the government to show what?
emergency or extraordinary circumstances existed
Many states have adopted the _____ _____ _____ ___ permitting LEOs from other states to enter their state in fresh pursuit to make an arrest.
Uniform Fresh Pursuit Act
Officers may not enter the home of a third party to serve an arrest warrant unless one of three conditions exist. What are those conditions?
- search warrant2. consent3. exigent circumstances
____ v____ held that evidence obtained through illegal searches would be inadmissible on the state and federal level.
Mapp v Ohio (1961)
The _____ rule, established in 1914 at the federal level, provides that evidence obtained in an unreasonable search and seizure will not be admissible in court.
exclusionary
In Nix v Williams, SCOTUS held that the exclusionary rule only applies in _____ procedings
criminal
What are five exceptions to the exclusionary rule?
- Good faith2. Impeachment purposes3. Grand Jury proceedings4. Non-criminal proceedings5. Inevitable discovery
The good faith exception is typically limited to errors made by who?
a magistrate
In US v Leon, SCOTUS established what?
good faith exception
In Nix v Williams, SCOTUS established what?
inevitable discovery & exclusionary rule as it pertains to right to counsel
What are three general requirements under which a search warrant can be issued?
- based on PC2. supported by oath or affirmation3. place to be searched and things to be seized are particularly described
The _____ _____ doctrine allows the introduction of evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search but later obtained independently from lawful activities untainted by the initial illegality.
independent source
In Illinois v Gates, SCOTUS held that probable cause to support a search warrant must be determined by examining the _____ __ __ _____.
totality of the circumstances
In _____ v _____, SCOTUS abandoned the two-pronged test established in Aguilar v Texas and Spinelli v US in favor the totality of the circumstances test.
Illinois v Gates
According to State v Mitchell, officers can seize articles not described in the warrant under what three circumstances?
- observed in plain view where an officer is in a place he has a right to be;2. discovery is inadvertent; and3. it is apparent to the officer that he is viewing evidence
In executing a search warrant, what are five guidelines an officer must follow?
- executed by officer(s) so commanded2. executed within certain time limitations3. only necessary force must be used4. prior notice and demand should normally proceed forcible entry5. only property described may be seized
In US v Arttieri (1974), the court listed what three exceptions to the knock and announce rule?
- person’s within already know of the officer’s authority and purpose;2. person’s within are in immediate danger of bodily harm; or3. those within, made aware of the presence of someone outside, are engaged in activity that lead the officer to believe that an escape or destruction of evidence is taking place
In US v Banks (2003), the court established that police need only wait a ____ amount of time before breaking down the door when notice has been given without response. The court found that ___ seconds was reasonable.
reasonable; 20 seconds
As established by SCOTUS, the Fourth Amendment requires that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence. This is known as the _____ ___ _____ rule.
knock and announce rule
A search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed due to what two factors?
- protect the arresting officer2. prevent the destruction of evidence
What are four requirements before a search incident to an arrest may be made?
- must be lawful2. only certain articles may be seized3. search must be made contemporaneously with arrest4. arrest must be in good faith
In Arizona v Gant (2009), SCOTUS decided that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest under what two circumstances?
arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which he/she was arrested
In _____ v _____, SCOTUS held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach/control of the person.
Chimel v California (1969)
In _____ v _____, an officer has the proper authority to make an arrest may make a full search of the arrestee, although such evidence has no direct connection to the arrest.
US v Robinson (1974)
In Mincey v. Arizona (1978), SCOTUS said that there is no _____ _____ exception to the 4th amendment.
murder scene
In Maryland v. Buie (1990), SCOTUS said that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited _____ _____ in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a _____ _____ based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. These searches are limited to a ____ ____ of the premises.
protective sweep, reasonable belief; cursory inspection
In New York v. Belton (1981), SCOTUS held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the ____ ____ of that automobile. Must also follow more recent Arizon v Gant (2009) ruling.
passenger compartment
What are four considerations for determine whether consent to search is valid?
- must be voluntary2. limited to exact words or meaning of consent3. consent may be withdrawn4. person giving consent must have capacity to do so
In US v Robinette (1996), SCOUTS held that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to inform a motorist during a traffic stop that they are “___ __ __” before asking questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop.
free to go
In US v Matlock (1974), SCOTUS held that the consent of one who possesses _____ _____ over the premises or effects is valid against the absent, non-consenting person with whom the authority is shared.
common authority
In Georgia v Randolph (2006), SCOTUS held that police CAN / CANNOT search if one person consents and other person, who is also present, does not.
CANNOT
If an adult child has a room that he/she uses exclusively, allows no one else in the room, and the child is paying rent specifically for that room, the parent CAN / CANNOT give consent to search.
CANNOT
In Commonwealth v Lowery (1982), however, SCOTUS said that if an adult child has access to the entire house, never manifested an expectation of privacy in his room, and both child and parent have joint control and access over the room, the parent CAN / CANNOT provide consent even if the child pays rent.
CAN
In determining whether a minor _____ and _____ gave consent to search, courts must take into consideration the age, scope of consent requested and given, and whether request was unequivocal and specific (People v Santiago 1997).
intelligently and knowingly
In ___ v ___ (1985), SCOTUS found that the vice-principal’s search of the purse WAS / WAS NOT justified based on reasonable grounds that the search would turn up evidence of a crime or violation of rules.
New Jersey v T.L.O.; WAS
In Carroll v US (1925), SCOTUS held that police can search a vehicle if there is ____ ____ to believe there is contraband based on the fact that it could be moved from the jurisdiction.
probable cause
In Chambers v Maroney (1970), SCOTUS held that officers can search a vehicle even if they have taken control of it, provided there is ____ ____ to believe that it contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. A warrant is unnecessary under this ruling even if there is time to get a warrant.
probable cause
In US v Ross (1972), SCOTUS held that if an officer has PC to search an occupied vehicle for a particular type of evidence, he/she is entitled to conduct a warrantless search of all _____ or _____ _____ within the vehicle in which the evidence may be _____ _____.
compartments or closed containers, reasonable found
In Florida v Wells (1990), SCOTUS held that absent a policy to search _____ _____, the instant search was insufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment
closed containers
The court allows for the inventorying of automobiles based on what three reasons?
- protect the owner’s property2. ensure against claims of loss3. guard police from danger
It is the basic principle of the 4th Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are per se ______ in the absence of one of a number of well-defined exigent circumstances. Coolidge v New Hampshire (1971)
unreasonable
In United States v Dawkins (1994), the DC Circuit court listed what two guidelines that had been established in earlier cases in regards to exigent circumstances?
- PC must exist2. failure to get a warrant was justified due to circumstantial exigencies
Under the _____ ____ exception to the search warrant, an officer must be (1) lawfully present when he views the object (2) must recognize the article as contraband, illegal possessed of stolen property, or otherwise subject to seizure.
plain view
In Arizona v Hicks (1987), SCOTUS said that police require _____ _____ to seize items in plain view.
probable cause
In Whren v US (1996) (pretextual stop), SCOTUS held that an officer’s ____ motivation for making a traffic stop was irrelevant as long as there is ____ ____ to justify the stop.
subjective, probable casue
In Horton v. California (1990), SCOTUS expanded the plain view doctrine that included a three-part test. What are the three parts?
- lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,2. the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and3. the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent.”
In Horton v. California (1990), SCOTUS abandoned the ____ requirement of Coolidge v New Hampshire (1971) although the court said that this prong of the test was never part of the holding in Coolidge.
inadvertant
In US v Dunn (1987), the court provided four factors for determining the extent-of-curtilage of a home. What are the 4 factors?
- proximity of area to home2. whether the area is w/i an enclosure surrounding the home3. nature and uses to which the area is put4. steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by others
In California v Greenwood (1988), SCOUTS said that trash left on the curb is not included in the _____ of the house and there is no ____ __ ____ in the discarded items.
curtilage, expectation of privacy
In Samson v California (2006), SCOUTS held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a _____ search of a parolee due to the terms in his parole agreement.
suspicionless
In Rakas v Illinois (1978), SCOTUS said that defendants charges with crimes of possession may only claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule if ___ ___ 4th Amendment rights have been violated.
their own
Officers do not need probable cause to make a Terry stop…all that is needed is _____ _____.
reasonable suspicion
The frisk allowed in the Terry stop is limited to a ____ ____ and not a full-scale search. The frisk is only for the _____ __ ___ _____.
pat down; safety of the officer
In Florida v JL (1999), SCOTUS ruled that an anonymous tip, without more from the officers to test the validity of the information, IS / IS NOT sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion.
IS NOT
The ultimate legal determination of what constitutes reasonable suspicion in stop-and-frisk situations is “_____ __ ___ _____.”
totality of the circumstances
In Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), SCOTUS held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful pat-down search for weapons feels something (touch) that plainly is contraband, the object MAY / MAY NOT be seized even though it is not a weapon. The officer must immediately recognize (have PC) it as contraband and cannot manipulate it.
MAY
In _____ v. _____ (1977), SCOTUS held that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons after noticing a bulge DID / DID NOT violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Pennsylvania v Mimms, DID NOT
In Maryland v Wilson (1997), SCOTUS ruled that an officer MAY / MAY NOT order passengers out of a vehicle as all passengers are subject to a Terry pat-down within the guidelines of Terry stops. Expanded Pennsylvania v Mimms.
MAY
In Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009),SCOTUS held, by unanimous decision, that police MAY / MAY NOT conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.
MAY
In US v Brigham (2004), SCOTUS DID / DID NOT reject the notion that a police officer’s questioning, even on matter’s unrelated to the traffic stop, violated the 4th Amendment.
DID
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), SCOTUS held that state laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during Terry stops by law enforcement officers DO / DO NOT violate the Fourth Amendment.
DO NOT…it does not violate 5th Amendment self-incrimination provision
Court decisions related to having persons step out of a vehicle include what three cases?
Pennsylvania v Mimms 1977Maryland v Wilson 1997Arizona v Johnson 2009
What are five tests that must be passed for a confession to be admissible?
- Freely and voluntarily made2. With some exceptions, it’s not admitted when no Miranda warning is given3. not tainted by illegal arrest or search4. may not be admitted if not represented by counsel5. must meet requirements established in SCOTUS McNabb v Mallory cases, or the delay in arraignment requirements.
_____ _____ evidence must be introduced as part of the confession.
Independently corroborative
In Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon, SCOUTS ruled that ____ ___ says nothing that invokes the exclusionary rule for violation of its provisions.
Article 36
What the court has condemned is the improper use of questioning as a substitute for a ____ ____.
thorough investigation
What is Article 36?
Foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice “without delay” of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest.
The traditional test to determine the admissibility of a confession is known as the ___ and ____ rule. This rule was developed in _____.
free and voluntary; England
The free and voluntary rule states that the confession is admissible in evidence only if it was made without ___, ___, or ____ and with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession.
duress, fear, or compulsion
If a police officer makes a ____ promise in obtaining a confession, the confession can not be considered voluntary.
false
Many courts apply the “____ __ ____” test to determine if a confession is admissible.
totality of circumstances
According to one court, in determining whether a confession was improperly coerced, factors or considerations, other than deceitful tactics by the police, taken into account are what?
age, education, duration of questioning, occurrence of physical punishment, receiving advice of rights
In Payne v Arkansas (1958), SCOTUS held that even if there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction without a coerced confession, the conviction MAY / MAY NOT be reversed if the coerced confession was introduced at trial?
MAY
In 1991, a divided SCOTUS held that coerced confessions used at trail ARE / ARE NOT always entitled to a new trial. The error to admit the confession may be considered _____ _____ if other trial evidence was strong enough to convict.
ARE NOT; harmless error
The court must be able to declare a belief that the error was harmless ____ _ _____ _____.
beyond a reasonable doubt
In determining the proof necessary as to whether a confession is voluntary, SCOTUS held in 1972 (Lego v Twomey) that it must meet a _____ __ __ _____.
preponderance of the evidence
Unhappy with the Miranda ruling, Congress enacted statute __ U.S.C. § ____ that was based solely on whether the statements were voluntary.
18 U.S.C. § 3501
In determining the voluntary nature of the statement, 18 U.S.C. § 3501 provided what 5 guidelines, although they need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness?
- time between arrest and arraignment2. knew the nature of the offense 3. knew he was not required to make a statement or could be used against him4. been advised of right to counsel5. was without counsel when questioned and when giving the confession
In Dickerson v US (2000), SCOTUS ruled that there was an obvious conflict between Miranda and § 3501. The court ruled that Congress MAY / MAY NOT supersede the ruling legislatively.
MAY NOT
A waiver of rights must be given ____, ____, and ____.
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently
An accused must be given their Miranda warning if they are in ____ or otherwise deprived of their ____ of action in any significant way.
custody, freedom
Facts to be considered in determining whether someone is in custody include what?
- number of officers present2. attitude toward the person questioned3. stage of investigation4. environment interview takes place5. whether interviewee is free to leave
The determining factor is not whether at a police station or at home, but what?
whether he is free to leave
In Oregon v Mathiason (1977), the court did not reverse Miranda, but rather helped define what?
custody
In US v Hicks (1997), the courts held in determining whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, the court should consider how a _____ person in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.
reasonable
In _____ v _____ (2004), SCOTUS held that ___ and ____ with the criminal justice system are not required in addressing the ability of a person to formulate a proper decision of whether he could terminate an interview.
Yarborough v Alvarado, age and experience
In _____ v _____ (1984), SCOTUS held that roadside questioning during a routine traffic stop DOES / DOES NOT constitute custodial interrogation unless the officer subjects the motorist to treatment that renders him “in custody” for practical purposes.
Berkemer v McCarty, DOES NOT
Words or actions on the part of the officer that would be reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses from the suspect can still be considered _____ (Brewer v Williams (1977)).
questioning
Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) held that Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected either to express questioning or to its “_____ _____.”
functional equivalent
Arizona v Mauro (1987) held that police allowing a suspect to see his wife while an officer was present and the conversation was recorded DID / DID NOT amount to a violation of Miranda because it was not actual questioning or “its functional equivalent.”
DID NOT
In Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990), SCOTUS found that ____ ____ questions were not intended to elicit information for investigatory purposes, so Miranda was not required.
routine booking
The court also found in Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990) that suspects have a right against self-incrimination of a ____ or ____ nature, but not from being compelled to produce “____ or ____” evidence.
testimonial or commutative, real or physical
The court also found in Pennsylvania v Muniz (1990) that the response to the 6th birthday question WAS / WAS NOT testimonial (not a routine booking question) and required Miranda.
WAS
California v Prysock (1981) held that Miranda warnings DO / DO NOT have to be given in the exact terms as stated in Miranda.
DO NOT
Miranda warnings do to need to be given in the exact terms as they are printed in the Miranda case, but any substitute must meet what test?
“full effective equivalent test”
SCOTUS also indicated that there IS / IS NOT a legal requirement that the suspect make an express statement that he waives his rights after Miranda is given.
IS NOT
In Edwards v Arizona, SCOTUS held that after a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, police MAY / MAY NOT reinitiate custodial interrogation without counsel present or a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of that right.
MAY NOT
In Maryland v Shatzer (2010), SCOTUS held that police may re-open questioning if there has been a ___-____ break in Miranda custody.
two-week
What case by the United States Supreme Court held that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel police must cease custodial interrogation unless the suspect reinitiates questioning?
Edwards v. Arizona (1981)
In Oregon v Bradshaw (1983), Bradshaw’s question here, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?,” DID / DID NOT initiate questioning on his own accord after requesting an attorney? Are the statements that follow admissible?
DID; yes
In Arizona v Roberson (1988), the Edwards rule applies to bar police-initiated interrogation following a suspect’s request for counsel in the context of a ______ investigation.
separate; Roberson was questioned 3 days after being arrested and on a different case after requesting a lawyer when initially arrest.
In Oregon v Elstad (1985), a second statement after an initial statement where Miranda should have applied will probably not be excluded if _____ or _____ were not used.
coecion or improper tactics
Missouri v. Seibert (2004) held the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession DID / DID NOT violate the 5th Amendement. This struck down the ____-____ tactic being used by police (Oregon v Elstad 1985).
DID; question-first
In Colorado v Spring (1987), SCOTUS held that a suspect’s Miranda waiver IS / IS NOT valid even if he believes that questioning will focus on ____ crimes but police shift the questioning to cover a different and more ____ crime.
IS, minor, serious
Statements made in court may be challenged on the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, also know as the ____ ____ doctrine.
Wong Sun
In Wong Sun (1963), an oral statement implicating an accused was held inadmissible because it was made immediately following an _____ entry and an _____ arrest.
unlawful, unlawful
In Brown v Illinois (1975), SCOTUS held that a confession after an illegal arrest even with the Miranda warning, WAS / WAS NOT admissible.
WAS NOT due to it being a fruit of the illegal arrest
In Brown v Illinois (1975), the court held that there is a ____ _____ between the illegality of the arrest and the confession. Also Dunaway v New York (1979)
casual connecton
In determining whether a defendant’s statements should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonness tree, the court examines the effects of the police conduct at the time of the alleged seizure, applying the _____ standard. State v Banks 2000
objective
In US v Patane (2004), SCOTUS ruled that because Miranda protects against violations of the self-incrimination clause, it IS / IS NOT violated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements.
IS NOT
In US v Patane (2004), because there was no _____, the self-incrimination clause did not apply.
testimony
In US v Patane (2004), SCOTUS pointed out that mere failure to give Miranda warnings DOES / DOES NOT, by itself, violate a suspect’s constitutional rights.
DOES NOT; potential violations occur, if at all, if admitted at trial
Powell v Alabama (1932) provided for what in capital cases?
right to counsel for those unable to afford an attorney or mount a defense
In 1963, Gideon v Wainwright extended the rights of Powell v Alabama to all persons standing trial for a _____ offense.
felony
The Supreme Court held in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) that where a police investigation shifts from the _____ to the _____, and under the circumstances in this cases, the accused has the right to counsel.
investigatory to the accusatory
Due to two questions left unanswered in Escobedo v. Illinois, _____ was decided two years later.
Miranda
What were the two questions left unanswered in Escobedo v. Illinois?
- how to make sure the accused knew of their right to counsel2. the difference between investigatory and accusatory
A suspect’s request for an attorney does not have to be made with ____-___ precision; it just needs to be made clear, such as in Robinson v Borg (1990).
lawyer-like
In Davis v US (1994), SCOTUS held that Davis had not made an _____ request for an attorney when he said, “Maybe I should get a lawyer.”
unequivocal
In James v Marshall (2003), James DID / DID NOT make an unequivocal request for an attorney when he said that he did not want to make a statement, but would talk about what happened.
DID NOT
Is it necessary for police to notify a suspect in custody that an attorney has been retained for them? Moran v Burbine (1986)
No
In US v Henry (1930), a cellmate had initiated a discussion with Henry which lead to incriminating statements. The FBI agent told him just to be alert to possible statements and not start any discussion. Even though the cellmate did not ask any direct questions, did the government violate Henry’s right to counsel?
Yes, because the situation was likely to induce incriminating statements without counsel present; case reversed
In Kullman v Wilson (1986), SCOTUS held that inculpatory statements made by a defendant WERE / WERE NOT admissible when the jailmate did not interrogate the suspect by eliciting incriminating information or by initiating any discussion.
WERE; he just listened
In Illinois v Perkins (1986), SCOTUS held that the undercover agent’s questioning of a suspect in jail did not circumvent the 6th Amendment right to counsel because the suspect had not been ____ with the crime on the subject of the interrogation.
charged/indicted
Mental retardation, in itself, DOES / DOES NOT render a defendant incapable of waiving his Miranda rights?
DOES NOT, but care should be taken based on lack of education, lack of familiarity with justice system, etc
The “____ ____ standard” of Massiah v US (1964), holds that obtaining incriminating statements, after the filing of formal charges, without the presence of counsel violates a suspect’s rights.
deliberate elicitation
In Fellers v. United States (2004), statements made to officers at Feller’s home after being indicted were suppressed as were the statements made after his Miranda warnings were given at the jail. Why were both sets of statements suppressed?
because he was questioned without proper representation of counsel after being indicted
Sometimes referred to as the ____-____ rule, the U.S. rule of evidence that a confession is ______ if obtained during an unreasonably long period of detention between arrest and preliminary hearing.
McNabb-Mallory, inadmissible
The McNabb-Mallory rule where a confession is inadmissible if obtained during an unreasonably long period of detention between arrest and preliminary hearing was extended to states in 1961 in what case?
Culombe v Connecticut
The McNabb-Mallory rule applies if there is an _____ delay.
unnecessary
In 1968, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 3501(c) that the time of ____ hours between an arrest and confession, but gave the judge latitude if there was a _____ delay.
6 hours, reasonable
A defendant cannot be convicted on his own uncorroborated confession without proof that a crime has been committed by someone – that is, without proof of the ____ ____.
corpus delicti
What is the Latin for “body of crime?”
corpus delicti
Only ____ evidence of the corpus delicti is needed to corroborate a confession and sustain a conviction.
slight
In Oregon v Hass (1975), the court reiterated its approval of the use of statements given without Miranda for _____ purposes.
impeachment
The ____ rule provides that once a criminal defendant invokes his 6th Amendment right to counsel, a subsequent waiver of the right, even if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under traditional standards, is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to a police-initiated conversation.
Jackson (Michigan v. Jackson 1986)
In overturning the Jackson rule, the courts allowed for the use of the statement for _____ purposes.
impeachment
____ on the part of the accused after Miranda warnings cannot be used for impeachment purposes due to an intolerable prejudicial influence.
Silence
If a confession is obtained _____, it cannot be used for impeachment purposes.
involuntarily
Miranda warnings do not need to be given at ___ ___ hearings.
Grand Jury
In New York v Quarles (1984), SCOTUS announced a limited ____ ____ exception to the requirement of Miranda for those in custody.
public safety
As held in Missouri v Seibert, officers cannot purposefully gain a ______ without Miranda and then Mirandize the person to get an admissible confession if “used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.”
confession
In ____ v ____, the transporting officer gave the defendant what has come to be known as the “Christian burial speech.” In this case, the actions amounted to interrogation and violated the 5th Amendment.
Brewer v Williams
In ____ ____ v ____, the court concluded that Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.
Rhode Island v Innis
The taking of fingerprints and photographs and the confrontation for identification have been challenged on at least what three constitutional grounds?
- self-incrimination2. right to counsel3. due process
In Holt v US (1910), SCOTUS distinguished between a compelling a person to give _____ evidence and requiring him to submit to fingerprinting.
verbal
In Schmerber v California (1966), SCOTUS held that the privilege against self-incrimination protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself or otherwise provide the state with evidence of a ______ or ______ nature.
testimonial or communicative
Schmerber v California (1966) set the standard that the 5th Amendment only applies to _____ evidence, not “___ evidence,” such as a photograph or fingerprint.
spoken, real
In Schmerber v California (1966), SCOTUS further held that the self-incrimination privilege offers no protection against compulsion to submit what?
fingerprinting, photographing, or measurements, to write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular gesture
In Smith v US (2000), SCOTUS ruled that the taking of palm prints or fingerprints does not violate the self-incrimination protection of the Constitution if the person in lawful custody is required to submit to photographing and fingerprinting as part of a _____ _____ process.
routine identification
In Pennsylvania v Muniz, SCOTUS ruled that checking a person for slurred speech or questions that require logic, but the answer is irrelevant (like saying ABCs backward) are not _____, and are admissible.
testimonial
In Pennsylvania v Muniz, SCOTUS ruled that if the answer to the question is _____ (such as the date of the suspect’s sixth birthday), than the material is testimonial and protected by the 5th Amendment.
relevant
In United States v Wade (1967), SCOTUS held that compelling the accused to exhibit his person for observation by a prosecutor’s witness prior to trial “involves no compulsion of the accused to give evidence having ‘______ significance.’”
testimonial
In US v Wade (1967), the post-indictment lineup was deteremined to be a critical stage of the proceedings if the __-_____ identification of the accused could be jeopardized.
in-court
In regards to a post-indictment line-up, SCOTUS held that counsel must be present if what?
requested by the suspect or if counsel has been appointed
In Kirby v Illinois (1972), SCOTUS refused to extend the right to counsel protection of the 6th Amendment to a ___-______ identification.
pre-indictment
In Foster v California (1969), SCOTUS held that for a lineup to be constitutional, it must not be ______.
suggestive
What are five factors that should be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification?
- witness’s opportunity to view the criminal during the crime;2. witness’s degree of attention3. accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal;4. level of certainty demonstrated by witness at the confrontation; and5. length of time between the crime and confrontation
In Neil v Biggers (1972), SCOTUS said that the primary evil to be avoided in lineups is the likelihood of _____ _____.
irreparable misidentification
One court held that in determining whether the in-court id is contaminated by pretrial procedures, the court must determine whether the procedure was unnecessarily _____ and must then weigh the corrupting influence of the suggestive procedure against the _____ of the id itself.
suggestive, reliability
One-on-one id’s are generally okay when the accused is apprehended within a relatively ____ period of time and has _____ to the crime scene.
short, returned
The use of a show-up (on scene id) of a suspect in a second crime for identification by a witness in the first crime IS / IS NOT impermissible suggestive?
IS
The use of a single photograph was held by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to be suggestive and a denial of ___ _____.
due process
In US v Dionisio (1973), SCOTUS held that compelling a suspect to produce voice exemplars DID / DID NOT violate the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination.
DID NOT
In US v Mavia (1990), the court proposed what what 5 safeguards be applied when spectrographic analysis is offered?
- 2 or more minutes of each sample2. a signal-to-noise ratio where the signal is higher than 20 decibels3. frequency of 3000 hertz or better4. example in the same words, same rate, and same way, spoken naturally and fluently5. responsible examiner
It IS / IS NOT a violation of the self-incrimination clause to examine a suspect’s body for traces of blood, or to take epidermal scrapings or saliva samples from a suspect.
IS NOT, but 4th Amendment considerations do apply
In ___ v ____, the courts established “_____ _____” for the use of DNA profiling in court.
US v Martinez; judicial notice
The Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test (Frye v US 1923) is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as what?.
reliable in the relevant scientific community
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded the ____ standard as the standard for admissibility of expert evidence in federal courts.
Frye
If a witness picks out a suspect from a photo lineup, do not tell them that they did or did not pick the suspect. Why?
in-court identification may be compromised
